{"id":4366,"date":"2004-01-07T10:17:45","date_gmt":"2004-01-07T10:17:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/?p=4366"},"modified":"2004-01-07T10:17:45","modified_gmt":"2004-01-07T10:17:45","slug":"quantitative-and-qualitative-methods","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/?p=4366","title":{"rendered":"quantitative and qualitative methods"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>I&#8217;ve recently seen two almost identical charts explaining the difference between<\/p>\n<p>qualitative and quantitative research. One was shown at a conference, the other<\/p>\n<p>presented in a graduate level methods textbook. I didn&#8217;t save the charts, unfortunately,<\/p>\n<p>but this is how I recall them. (Similar charts can be found on the Web, e.g.,<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/msass.cwru.edu\/faculty\/jfloersch\/Sumqualquanmatrix.htm\">here<\/a><\/p>\n<p>and or at the bottom of <a href=\"http:\/\/www.und.ac.za\/users\/clarke\/psy98\/qnql.html\">this<\/p>\n<p>page<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<table width=\"347\" border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"2\" cellpadding=\"2\">\n<tr>\n<td width=\"160\"><strong>quantitative<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"187\"><strong>qualitative<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>detached<\/td>\n<td>engaged<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>value-neutral<\/td>\n<td>partial\/committed<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>claims objectivity<\/td>\n<td>admits subjectivity<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>seeks general findings<\/td>\n<td>denies that general rules apply in cases<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>describes the mean<\/td>\n<td>looks for exceptions, complications<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>pulls factors out of context<\/td>\n<td>describes situations holistically<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>assumes certainty<\/td>\n<td>presumes uncertainty<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>distinguishes causes from effects<\/td>\n<td>does not presume to isolate causes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p>I think this is a very misleading way to draw the distinction. Quantitative<\/p>\n<p>research means mathematical analysis; qualitative research means descriptions<\/p>\n<p>in words. The use of math requires quantification and a large enough sample<\/p>\n<p>to generate statistically meaningful results. The use of descriptive language<\/p>\n<p>requires enough detail about cases to generate insightful narratives or portraits.<\/p>\n<p>Both approaches are useful. Neither method implies positivism (a strict distinction<\/p>\n<p>between facts and values, or between facts and opinions), nor does either method<\/p>\n<p>imply skepticism or postmodernism. One can use quantitative methods&#8211;such as<\/p>\n<p>surveys and statistical analysis of the results&#8211;in a deeply engaged, critical,<\/p>\n<p>&quot;political&quot; way, without any illusions that one is objective. Or one<\/p>\n<p>can use qualitative methods&#8211;such as in-depth interviews&#8211;in a highly &quot;positivistic&quot;<\/p>\n<p>spirit (thinking that one has no values or biases and no axes to grind). Charts<\/p>\n<p>like the one above appeal to very general beliefs (or prejudices) about epistemology<\/p>\n<p>and drive us to favor either quantitative or qualitative methods. Instead, I<\/p>\n<p>think we should simply ask what can usefully be counted in particular cases,<\/p>\n<p>and what cannot.<\/p>\n<p><\/body><\/p>\n<p><\/html><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I&#8217;ve recently seen two almost identical charts explaining the difference between qualitative and quantitative research. One was shown at a conference, the other presented in a graduate level methods textbook. I didn&#8217;t save the charts, unfortunately, but this is how I recall them. (Similar charts can be found on the Web, e.g., here and or [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4366","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4366","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4366"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4366\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4366"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4366"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4366"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}