Comparing Qualitative and Quantitative Research: A (Very) Basic Introduction

All quotes from: Hammersley, M. (Ed) (1993) Social Research. Philosophy, politics and practice. London: Sage.

"The gathering, analysis and interpretation of data is always conducted within some broader understanding of what constitutes legitimate inquiry and warrantable knowledge." (p.15)

So, it's not just that quantitative and qualitative researchers use different methods. In fact they may use the same methods as one another . . . (e.g. questionnaire). A much more important distinction lies in terms of the types of knowledge generated and the ways in which that knowledge is generated . . . Theories about knowledge are known as epistemology.

". . . the quantity-quality debate has been anchored within two apparently opposed epistemological positions. The two poles are known variously as 'experimental', hypothetico-deductive' or 'positivist' and the 'naturalistic', 'contextual' or 'interpretative' approaches respectively." (p. 15)

So: quantitative research aims to establish laws of cause and effect based on a framework which explains things in terms of objective facts that are knowable - a realist ontology. (My working definition of ontology is: a way of looking at the world or the nature of being in the world.) So researchers working with these beliefs will conduct experiments, surveys and use other methods which produce what they see as objective facts. Prior theories are tested, either aiming for verification or falsification. Surveys might be conducted in order to find majority views or experiences. The primary way of judging the 'results' is through number.

"Quantification . . . is crucial to the natural science approach, because it renders the concepts embedded in theoretical schemes or hypotheses observable, manipulable, and testable. It is also taken to be a necessary (if not always sufficient) condition for the findings of research to be replicable and generalizable, and for predictions upon the basis of observed regularities to be made. Not surprisingly, therefore, quantification is traditionally seen as the sine qua non of scientific method." (p. 15)

Most of the work on this website is the result of using qualitative/interpretive approaches to research:

"The alternative epistemological position is expressed in the naturalistic or interpretative paradigm. It is the result of a long history of critique of the positivist scientific method as the sole basis for understanding human activity. (. . . ) This paradigm is described by a number of characteristics. These include a commitment to constructivist epistemologies, an emphasis (at least in its pure ethnographic form) upon description rather than explanation, the representation of reality through the eyes of participants, the importance of viewing the meaning of experience and behaviour in context and in its full complexity, a view of the scientific process as generating working hypotheses rather than immutable empirical facts, an attitude towards theorizing which emphasises the emergence of concepts from data rather than their imposition in terms of a priori theory, and the use of qualitative methodologies for research. Qualitative methods are privileged within the naturalistic approach because they are thought to meet a number of reservations about the uncritical use of quantification in social science practice: in particular the problem of inappropriately fixing meanings where these are variable and renegotiable in relation to the context of use; the neglect of the uniqueness and particularity of human experience; and because of concern with the overwriting of internally structured subjectivities by externally imposed 'objective' systems of meaning." (p. 15/16) See A beginner’s guide to qualitative/interpretive research and Working with words – Starting points.