STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS

André Queirós, Daniel Faria, Fernando Almeida

Abstract


Scientific research adopts qualitative and quantitative methodologies in the modeling and analysis of numerous phenomena. The qualitative methodology intends to understand a complex reality and the meaning of actions in a given context. On the other hand, the quantitative methodology seeks to obtain accurate and reliable measurements that allow a statistical analysis. Both methodologies offer a set of methods, potentialities and limitations that must be explored and known by researchers. This paper concisely maps a total of seven qualitative methods and five quantitative methods. A comparative analysis of the most relevant and adopted methods is done to understand the main strengths and limitations of them. Additionally, the work developed intends to be a fundamental reference for the accomplishment of a research study, in which the researcher intends to adopt a qualitative or quantitative methodology. Through the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each method, it becomes possible to formulate a more accurate, informed and complete choice.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

DOI

Keywords


research methods, qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis, research process

References


Acocella, I. (2012). The focus group in social research: advantages and disadvantages. Quality & Quantity, 46(4), 1125-1136.

Almeida, F., & Monteiro, J. (2017). Approaches and principles for UX web experiences. International Journal of Information Technology and Web Engineering, 12(2), 49-65.

Alshenqeeti, H. (2014). Interviewing as a data collection method: a critical review. English Linguistics Research, 3(1), 39-45.

Atieno, O. (2009). An analysis of the strengths and limitation of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 13, 13-18.

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.

Blackstone, A. (2012). Principles of sociological inquiry: qualitative and quantitative methods. Retrieved from https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/sociological-inquiry-principles-qualitative-and-quantitative-methods/index.html

Borrego, M., Douglas, E., & Amelink, C. (2009). Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methods in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 53-66.

Castellan, C. (2010). Quantitative and qualitative research: a view for clarity. International Journal of Education, 2(2), 1-14.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Choy, L. (2014). The strengths and weaknesses of research methodology: comparison and complimentary between qualitative and quantitative approaches. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(4), 99-104.

Coughlan, M., Cronin, P, & Ryan, F. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: quantitative research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(11), 658-663.

Crescentini, A. & Mainardi, G. (2009). Qualitative research articles: guidelines, suggestions and needs. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(5), 431-439.

Creswell, J. (2013). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Creswell, J. & Poth, C. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter? Higher Education, 62(3), 279-301.

Etikan, I., Musa, S., & Alkassim, R. (2016). Comparison convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4.

Flanagan, T. (2013). The scientific method and why it matters. C2C Journal, 7(1), 4-6.

Felix, E. (2015). The implications of parametric and non-parametric statistics in data analysis in marketing research. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 5(6), 74-83.

Hoy, W. & Adams, C. (2015). Quantitative research in education. London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Jamshed, S. (2014). Qualitative research method - interviewing and observation. Journal of Basic and Clinical Pharmacy, 5(4), 87-88.

Kelley, K., Clark, B., Brown, V., & Sitzia, J. (2003). Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 15(3), 261-266.

Kothari, C. (2013). Research methodology: methods and techniques. New Delhi, India: New Age International.

Maher, J., Markey, J., & Ebert-May, D. (2013). The other half of the story: effect size analysis in quantitative research. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12(3), 345-351.

Martin, W., & Bridgmon, K. (2012). Quantitative and statistical research methods: from hypothesis to results. New Jersey, USA: Jossey-Bass.

Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Merriam, S. & Tisdell, E. (2015). Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. New Jersey, USA: Jossey-Bass.

Mori, H. & Nakayama, T. (2013). Academic impact of qualitative studies in healthcare: bibliometric analysis. Plos One, 8(3), 1-7.

Moriarty, J. (2011). Qualitative methods overview. London, UK: NIHR School for Social Care Research.

Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2015). Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evidence-Based Nursing, 18(2), 34-5.

Nurani, L. (2008). Critical review of ethnographic approach. Jurnal Sosioteknologi, 7(14), 441-447.

Oppong, S. (2013). The problem of sampling in qualitative research. Asian Journal of Management Sciences and Education, 2(2), 202-210.

Polit, D., & Beck C. (2006). Essentials of nursing research: methods, appraisal and utilization. Philadelphia, USA: Lippincott Willaims and Wilkins.

Ponelis, S. (2015). Using interpretive qualitative case studies for exploratory research in doctoral studies: a case of information systems research in small and medium enterprises. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 535-550.

Rahman, S. (2017). The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in language "testing and assessment" research: a literature review. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(1), 102-112.

Roshan, B. & Deeptee, P. (2009). Justifications for qualitative research in organisations: a step forward. The Journal of Online Education, 1, 1-7.

Schneider, J. (2013). Caveats for using statistical significance tests in research assessment. Journal of Informetrics, 7(1), 50-62.

Starman, A. (2013). The case study as a type of qualitative research. Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies, 1, 28-43.

Williams, C. (2007). Research methods. Journal of Business & Economic Research, 5(3), 65-72.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018 André Queirós, Daniel Faria, Fernando Almeida

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2018. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.


This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).