Qualitative or quantitative research?

The traditional approach of natural sciences is the positivist paradigm. The main assumptions of positivism are that the reality is external and objective. Knowledge is significant only if it is based on observations of this external reality (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Lowe 1991, 22). The aim is to produce context-free generalisations and cause-effect laws by discovering the true state of affairs.

In the end of the 1970's, it was commonly claimed that the science of the organisations was at a crisis since the outcomes of the research had become less and less useful for solving the practical problems in organisations. All this has led to

the separation of theory and practice (cf. Kasanen, Lukka & Siitonen 1993). It is claimed that the crisis had risen because the organisational researchers had adopted a positivist way of conducting and judging the research and thus implementing value-free, logical and empirical methods and procedures. However, the most important prerequisites for this science (objectivity and generalisability) are probably not the most suitable for applied research and the research of organisational behaviour.

The hermeneutic paradigm has been suggested as an answer to the above-mentioned problem. Positivism is typically related to quantitative methods, eliminating the subjective values of science and a large amount of data, whereas hermeneutics tolerates subjectivity and considers it as a natural and unavoidable part of conducting research. It is the tolerance of subjectivity that is maybe the most relevant feature in hermeneutics and other interpreting science, distinguishing it from the positivistic paradigm (Kasanen et. al. 1991, 313). Easterby-Smith et al.

(1991, 32) continue that the strengths associated with qualitative methods are the ability to look at the change processes over time, to understand people’s meanings, to adjust to new issues and ideas as they emerge, and to contribute to the evolution of new theories.

According to Gummesson (1993, 13), the subjective nature of hermeneutics takes many different forms in the research. For instance, while in the research process of the positivist paradigm the data collection and the analysis are two clearly separate activities, in the hermeneutic paradigm they can take place simultaneously. There is no clear line and distinction between description and explanation. The problems associated with the hermeneutic paradigm are the subjectivity of the research, the limited extent of evidence and the generalisability of the results.

The positivist and hermeneutic paradigms seem to be antithesis for each other in the literature. Although hermeneutics has a qualitative label on it, the combination of quantitative and qualitative data may be highly productive. On the one hand, the quantitative evidence may reveal factors and relationships that are not evident to the researcher, whereas on the other hand the qualitative data helps the researcher to understand the rationale and the reasons for the relationship revealed by the quantitative data (Eisenhardt 1989, 538).

Qualitative research is defined as research in which qualitative, e.g. descriptive data is used, and quantitative research as research in which numerical data is used.

Stake (1995, 37) suggests that one of the most characterising differences between quantitative and qualitative research is the knowledge that is searched for. The difference is not directly related to the nature of the qualitative or quantitative data, but to the purpose of the research. The quantitative researcher relies on the explanation and control, when the qualitative researcher emphasises understanding the complex interrelationships of phenomena.

Stake (1995, 37) points out three major differences between quantitative and qualitative research:

1. The distinction between explanation and understanding as the purpose of the inquiry

2. The distinction between a personal and an impersonal role for the researcher

3. The distinction between the knowledge discovered and the knowledge constructed

The weaknesses of qualitative research involve problems in gaining access to the data and problems of analysing the overwhelming amounts of data. According to Stake (1995), interpretation and subjectivity is an essential part of ensuring useful and reliable results in qualitative research.

Several authors have mentioned how common it is to use both qualitative and quantitative features in research (Alasuutari 1999, 32; Eisenhardt 1989, 534 - 535;

Stake 1995, 36). Qualitative data deals with meanings and quantitative data deals with numbers, but they are better thought of as mutually dependent (Figure 6.1).

The meanings cannot be ignored when we are dealing with numbers, and the numbers cannot be ignored when we are dealing with meanings. Each complements the other. The measurement at all levels embraces both the qualitative and quantitative aspect (Dey 1998, 28).

Number

Meaning

Figure 6.1 Dynamic balance between qualitative and quantitative data (Dey 1998, 28)

Research strategy refers to the basic approach of generating new knowledge and theories, selected on the basis of the methodological considerations. What is the best research strategy? According to Yin (1994, 4), there are three conditions that determine the applicability of a certain research strategy. They are:

The type of research question posed

The extent of control the investigator has over the actual behavioural events

The degree of the focus on contemporary as opposed to historical events.

Table 6.1 displays these three conditions and shows how each is related to five major research strategies.

Table 6.1 Relevant situations for different research strategies (Yin 1994, 6)

Strategy Form of research question

Requires control over behavioural events?

Focuses on contemporary events?

Experiment How, Why Yes Yes

Survey Who, What, Where,

How many, How much No Yes

Archival analysis Who, What, Where,

How many, How much No Yes/No

History How, Why No No

Case study How, Why No Yes

Stake (1995, 41) highlights that the qualitative-quantitative difference is linked to two kinds of questions. In quantitative studies the research question seeks out a relationship between a small number of variables, when in qualitative studies the research questions typically orient to cases of phenomena, seeking patterns of unanticipated as well as expected relationships.