Qualitative and Quantitative Data Qualitative researchers:

largely dismiss the idea that social sciences can be studied with the same methods as the natural or physical sciences; tend to argue that human behavior is always bound to the context in which it occurs. Due to this, behavior must be studied holistically, in context, rather than being manipulated; employ an insider's perspective. This affords the researcher to attain the data that generally would not be possible through a more rigid and formally structured style of research. To qualitative researchers, the focus is largely based on understanding subjects/culture under study. are less interested in numbers (quantity of subjects and statistical computations) and more in adding to existing research or presenting unique studies that challenge prior research. Most studies are case specific, and there is usually no attempt (or willingness) on the part of researchers to generalize findings to broader populations.

Quantitative researchers:

largely contend that both the natural and social sciences strive for testable and confirmable theories that explain phenomena by showing how they are derived from theoretical assumptions; reduce social reality to variables in the same manner as physical reality. This affords the researcher to clearly define constructs, measure data statistically, test theoretical hypotheses and explain findings. attempt to tightly control the variable in question to see how other variables are influenced. argue that social research can be generalizable to broader populations Questions about Conducting Research

Which type of research is better? There is no right or wrong answer to this. First, it depends largely on the subject matter under potential review. If a researcher has an interest in larger sample sizes, she/he may not have the resources, competency and/or time to conduct quantitative research of that size. The researcher then is faced with the following concern: 1) Can the research be done with a smaller sample size or will that affect the margin of error for the study? 2) If it is a smaller sample size, can a case be made for generalizability to broader populations? 3) Can the researcher compensate by amalgamating quantitative research with some qualitative components as well? In this model, the research could proceed with a mixed method research method. Options Available to Researcher:

Conduct quantitative research method Conduct qualitative research method Conduct mixed method research method

If a researcher is conducting research on a limited number of subjects (e.g., fewer than 30) one could argue that qualitative research method would be more appropriate. It would be unlikely that a nonrandom sample of a subcultures findings could be generalizable to broader populations. The researcher could proceed with qualitative design, striving for a comprehensive analysis, or could do a mixed method. The mixed method offer depth of understanding of who is being studied, and for variables to be used/measured statistically. It would still be unlikely that findings would be generalizable. Question: Can qualitative data be coded quantiatively?

Anything that is qualitative can be assigned meaningful numerical values. These values can then be manipulated to help us achieve greater insight into the meaning of the data and to help us examine specific hypotheses. Many surveys have one or more short open-ended questions that ask the respondent to supply text responses. The simplest example is probably the Please add any additional comments question that is often tacked onto a short survey. The immediate responses are text-based and qualitative. Some type of classification of the text responses will occur. Often, we'll give each category a short label that represents the theme in the response. What we don't often recognize is that categorizing can be viewed as a quantitative one as well. For instance, lets say that we develop four themes that each respondent could express in their open-ended response. Assume that we have eight respondents. We could easily set up a coding table like the one below to represent the coding of the eight responses into the four themes. Subject 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Theme1 X X X X X X X X X X Theme2 X Theme3 X X Theme4 X X X

The next step would be to statistically compute the data so that we can assess it. Subject 1 2 3 4 Theme1 1 0 1 0 Theme2 0 1 0 0 Theme3 1 1 0 1 Theme4 0 1 1 1 Totals 2 3 2 3

5 6 7 8 Totals

1 0 0 1 4

1 0 1 0 3

0 0 0 1 4

0 1 0 1 5

2 1 1 3

Notice that this is the exact same data. The first would probably be called a qualitative coding while the second is clearly quantitative. The quantitative coding gives us additional useful information and makes it possible to do analyses that we couldn't do with the qualitative coding. For instance, from just the table above we can say:

that Theme 4 was the most frequently mentioned that all but two respondents touched on two or three of the themes that Theme 4 was the least frequently mentioned

Question: Is quantitative data void of qualitative judgment? All quantitative data is based on qualitative judgment. Numbers in and of themselves can't be interpreted without understanding the assumptions which underlie them. Take, for example, a simple 1-to-5 rating variable: Pedophiles should receive life sentences if they are repeat offenders. 1 (strongly disagree) 2 (disagree) 3 (neutral) 4 (agree) X Here, the respondent answered 4=agree. What does this mean? How do we interpret the value 4 here? We can't really understand this quantitative value unless we dig into some of the judgments and assumptions that underlie it:

5 (strongly agree)

Did the respondent understand the concepts used within the question? Did the respondent understand that a 4 means that they are agreeing with the statement? Does the respondent have any idea about alternatives to punishment? Have other alternative forms of punishment been presented that could alter the manner in which one might respond? Did the respondent read carefully enough to determine that the statement was limited only to convicted pedophiles?

How was this question presented in the context of the survey (e.g., did the questions immediately before this one bias the response in any way)? Was the respondent mentally alert (especially if this is late in a long survey or the respondent had other things going on earlier in the day)? Did the survey provide for anonymity? Did the survey provide for confidentiality? In the respondent's mind, is the difference between a 1 and a 2 the same as between a 2 and a 3 (i.e., is this an interval scale?)?

All numerical information involves numerous judgments about what the number means.