PhD Seminar:

Research Methodology
WS 2013
Prof. Dr. Roman Boutellier
Prof. Dr. Oliver Gassmann
Prof. Dr. Sabine Raeder
Ass-Prof. Dr. Marco Zeschky

How do qualitative and quantitative research differ?

Submitted by:
Onur Saglam
ETH Zrich
Chair of Entrepreneurship
Department of Management, Technology, and
Economics
WEV H 301, Weinbergstrasse 56/58
CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland
osaglam@ethz.ch

Veselina Milanova
Universitt St. Gallen
Institut fr Medien- und
Kommunikationsmanagement
Blumenbergplatz 9
CH-9000 St. Gallen, Switzerland
veselina.milanova@unisg.ch

Table of Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Quantitative Research ..................................................................................................................... 3

Qualitative Research ....................................................................................................................... 3

Summary of Differences .................................................................................................................. 4

Mixed Method Approach ................................................................................................................ 5

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 6

Annotated Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 7

Research Methodology

Introduction

The motivation of quantitative and qualitative research in two different paradigms the positivism
and constructionism or post-positivism, accounts to a great extent for their controversial discussion.
Quantitative research can be described as a cause-effect relationship, searching for standardisation,
reproducibility, and measurability. Qualitative research aims at understanding and interpreting
behaviours, contexts, and interrelations. At first sight, these two approaches to the understanding of
science seem to be competing and even incompatible; there are many publications contributing to
the elaboration of their differences. However, lately there have been considerations that
quantitative and qualitative methods are two sides of one coin and can complement each other in
certain research situations. This summary gives a short overview of these two methodologies, their
strengths and weaknesses in the explanation of social realities, and finally discusses a new approach
to science, namely the combination of both.

Quantitative Research

There are many explanations to quantitative research, yet Aliaga & Gunderson (2002) describe it as
explaining a phenomenon by collecting quantitative (numerical) data that are analysed using
mathematically based methods such as statistics. A common misconception is that quantitative data
does not require data that is naturally available in quantitative form. Non-quantitative data (such as
beliefs and/or attitudes) can be transformed into quantitative form by using measurement
instruments such as Likert scales.
Despite its limitations, quantitative methods have been more prominent in social sciences
traditionally due to the fact that natural sciences and their standard methods were seen as a model
in this field (Flick, 2006). Yet, perhaps it was the Chicago school that gave rise to widespread use of
qualitative research in social sciences; however, this did not last too long as Columbia school
disrupted this convention and laid the foundations of today, where the debate is still not fully
resolved. Today, quantitative research is often placed in opposition to qualitative research, still a
legacy of clashes of schools, dating back to early 1900s (Hamel, Dufour & Fortin, 1993). The
incompatible worldviews underlying quantitative and qualitative methods gave birth to this
paradigm war. It is often argued that the quantitative research is more realistic and objective as
compared to the qualitative research and the researchers consensus is to use quantitative methods
if there is a hypothesis to test, using deductive reasoning.
The main strength of quantitative research is that it is neutral and easily generalizable; however, it is
challenging to gauge the theoretical constructs (e.g. innovation) in social sciences and proxying them
with several variables usually undermines establishing causality.

Qualitative Research

The qualitative turn in social research took place during the 70`s as a countermovement to
quantification, the landmark of natural sciences (Mayring 2002). This turn addressed the critique of
quantitative methods and research strategies, often judged as too standardized in order to reflect
the facets of social reality. Instead of testing, measuring, and experimenting, qualitative research
aims at understanding the subject of study (Mayring 2002). Creswell defines qualitative research as
the process of understanding a social or human phenomenon, based on methodological research
traditions. Researchers aim at generating a complex, holistic view, at analysing and describing the
Research Methodology

standpoint of the subjects within a natural context (Creswell 1998). Hoffmann-Riem even advocates
to let the theoretical structure of the object of research emerge from the research subjects (1980,
p.343). In the meanwhile qualitative social research has turned into an interdisciplinary point of
reference for new qualitative approaches (Mayring 2002).
Several lines of research can be seen as the roots of qualitative methods. Aristotle is regarded as
their prime father; for him historic and evolutionary developments as well as inductive approaches
belong to the understanding of science. Further precursor of qualitative thinking is Gianbattista Vico
who sees the practical and the truth as non-universal, but dependant on time and space.
Hermeneutics, as the effort to develop a foundation for scientific text interpretation, is as well seen
as one of the originators of qualitative approaches (Mayring 2002).
The main strength of qualitative research is its ability to create knowledge about new phenomenon
and complex interrelations that have not yet been researched thoroughly or at all (Seipel & Rieker
2003). In such cases it is per definition a suitable approach for theory building, elaboration, and
testing, where theory implies a reference to context. Adequate methods for data collection within a
qualitatively-oriented research project are e.g. problem-centred or narrative interviews, group
discussions, semi-structured interviews, archival or content analysis. Most of these are very timeconsuming due to two reasons: 1) the emphasis of qualitative research methods is on context and
verbal access to data (Hoffmann-Riem 1980) and 2) the research process is circular and interactive.
An inevitable consequence is the rather small sampling when compared to quantitative methods.
The exploratory and explanatory character of qualitative research becomes apparent through the
flexibility of the approach, the personal involvement, and the openness of the researcher to the
research subjects and the research process. However, according to Mayring (1990, p. 17) this does
not imply that the research process is not controlled and does not follow well-grounded rules. Very
important to the process are the illustration of the context, the intersubjective traceability of the
interpretation, and the relevance of the results.
Qualitative research explicitly turns itself against reliability and validity, the quality criteria that apply
for quantitative research. It has been often critiqued to be lacking scholarly rigor (Gioia, Corley &
Hamilton 2012), which makes it necessary to clearly state what quality criteria apply for this kind of
research. However, up to now there is no unambiguous agreement in the scientific community about
a criteria catalogue for qualitative research.

Summary of Differences

A comparison of quantitative and qualitative research can be carried out on various levels, e.g.
application domain, prerequisites, research process, etc. The main differences between the two
approaches come from their underlying science models. These models differ in their understanding
of how phenomena should be studied. The aim for objective and precise prediction characterizes the
natural science model (quantitative), whereas thick descriptions of incidents that advance the
understanding of human behaviour distinguish the human science model (qualitative).
This fundamental difference implies the remaining ones. Due to its precise and seeking for objectivity
nature, quantitative research focuses on the quantification of concepts and their relationships via
measurement. In contrast, qualitative research tries to understand qualities of entities via text
production and interpretation. Quantitative researchers study phenomena with a distant and
objective science stance from the outside; whereas qualitative researchers are engaged in face-toResearch Methodology

face interactions and role taking from the inside. The deductive nature of quantitative research
implies a rather selective approach, where a small number of key variables across many data points
are researched. Qualitative research aims at a holistic view of phenomena and more often deploys an
inductive, exploratory approach.
The last two differences refer to the research process and its impact on the segment of social reality
that is studies. Due to a pre-structured and linear research process, quantitative methods allow for a
static image of that segment. Qualitative methods follow a more flexible, open-ended and circular
process, so they enable a dynamic view of the segment. Despite these fundamental differences, both
methodologies can be successfully combined into one research design.

Mixed Method Approach

When comparing quantitative and qualitative research, Wilson (1982) argues for a balanced use of
both, considering the object or phenomenon of research and not relying upon philosophical
doctrines. The increasing popularity of mixed methods could be due to many factors, one of them
being the intention of utilizing the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research. Also, the
interdisciplinary nature of mixed methods can address the increasing complexity of social reality.
Moreover, the insights gained from the combination of both qualitative and quantitative research
provide a better and expanded understanding of the research subbject. Finally, it could also be
argued that mixed methods help to better understand, explain, or build on the results from
quantitative and qualitative approaches.
Before discussing the different types of mixed methods designs, it is helpful to discuss the several
aspects that influence the design of procedures for mixed methods study. These are timing,
weighting, and mixing strategies (Cresswell, 2002).
Timing refers to the order of data collection. Data could be collected sequentially or concurrently.
Weighting refers to where the priority is given in collection of data, either quantitative or qualitative.
The strategy of deciding the weighting also depends on the extent of treatment of one type of data
and the use of primarily an inductive or deductive approach. Mixing refers to either that the
qualitative and quantitative data are actually merged. It is possible to merge data at several stages
such as during the collection or while doing the analysis or finally during the interpretation stage. The
primary aim here is to collect one form of data and have the other form of data provide supportive
information.
Theorizing is up to what extend a theoretical perspective is guiding the entire design. Theories,
frameworks and hunches to inquiries may be made explicit or implicit. If they are explicit, theories
are found typically in the beginning section as an orienting lens that shapes the types of questions
asked. In general, there are many types of mixed methods but here only six of them, based on the
work of Creswell (2002), are to be briefly explained in the following table.
Sequential
Explanatory Design

Research Methodology

Characteristic is that qualitative data and its analysis assist in the

interpretation of quantitative findings. The first phase consists of collection
and analysis of quantitative data and the second phase is the collection and
analysis of qualitative data. The purpose of this strategy is to explain and
interpret quantitative results by collecting and analyzing follow-up qualitative
data.

Sequential
Exploratory Design

It is very similar to sequential explanatory design except the phases are

reversed. The first phase is the collection and analysis of the qualitative data
whereas the second phase is the collection and analysis of the quantitative
data. The main purpose is to use quantitative data and results to assist in the
interpretation of qualitative findings.

Sequential
Transformative
Design

The main characteristic of this strategy is a two-phase project with a

theoretical lens overlaying the sequential procedures. The theoretical lens
shapes a directional research question aimed at exploring a problem, creates
sensitivity to collecting data from marginalized or underrepresented groups,
and ends with a call for action. The first phase could be either qualitative or
quantitative.

Concurrent
Triangulation
Design

The characteristics of this strategy are the concurrent data collection and the
comparison of the two databases to determine if there is convergence,
differences, or some corroboration. Mixing occurs by merging the data in an
interpretation or discussion section or integrating or comparing the results in
a discussion section.

Concurrent
Embedded Design

Here, the data is collected concurrently and has a primary method that guides
the project and a secondary database that provides a supporting role in the
procedure. The secondary method (quantitative or qualitative) is embedded
within the predominant method. Here embedding refers to a secondary
method addressing a different question than the primary method.

Concurrent
Transformative
Design

Concurrent transformative designs main characteristics are the use of

specific theoretical perspective, concurrent collection of both data, and a
perspective that can be based on ideologies such as critical theory, advocacy,
participatory research, conceptual or theoretical framework.

Conclusion

Finally, both quantitative and qualitative methods have their own strengths and weaknesses.
Although there is no final recipe for which methods to employ in social sciences, the research
question remains the single most navigator to reach the optimum design. That is also the reason why
mixed method approach is gaining popularity as it provides both the breadth (causality) of
quantitative methods and the depth (meaning) of qualitative methods. However, when one looks
closer at researchers actual beliefs, it appears that the so-called subjectivist (qualitative) versus
realist (quantitative) divide is not that clear-cut and the debate on methods is likely to further go on.

Research Methodology

Annotated Bibliography

Aliaga, M. & Gunderson, B. (2002). Interactive statistics. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Provides introduction of basic statistical methods with its strong emphasis on data analysis,
also describes how to understand and interpret a variety of statistical results.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
The book aims at revealing the design process for qualitative studies. Creswell presents and
compares in his book five qualitative approaches to inquiry narrative, phenomenological,
grounded theory, ethnographic, and case study research.
Creswell, J.W. (2002), Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches.
Chapter 11: Mixed methods procedures, pp. 208-227
Method handbook. In this chapter the author explains six different mixed method strategies
and data collection, analysis, and validation procedures.
Flick, U. (2006), An introduction to qualitative research (3 ed.). Chapter 3: Qualitative and
quantitative research, pp 32-43, London: Sage.
Well-known source for qualitative research and target both novice and experienced
researchers. Explains every step of qualitative research from planiing, data collection to
anlaysis.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K.G., Hamilton, A.L. (2012), Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes
on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, vol. 16 (1), p.15-31.
The authors point that inductive qualitative research is felt to not meet the high standards
needed for scientific advancement. In this paper they propose an approach to systematically
present inductive research, designed to bring scientific rigor to it.
Hamel, J., Dufour, S. & Fortin, D. (1993), Case Study Methods. Sage Publication, Newbury Park,
California.
Explains several differing traditions of case study research including the Chicago School of
Sociology, the anthropological case studies of Malinowski, and the French La Play school
tradition.
Hoffmann-Riem, C. (1980), Die Sozialforschung in einer interpretativen Soziologie - Der Datengewinn.
Klner Zeitschrift fr Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, vol. 32, p.339-372.
Hoffmann-Riem discusses critically in this article the normative social sciences that follow the
research postulates of natural sciences in contrast to its opposing methodological paradigm,
the interpretative one. The differences between the two research lines are motivated as
originating from the Galilean and respectively the Aristotelian tradition.

Research Methodology

Mayring, Ph. (2002), Einfhrung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Anleitung zum qualitativen
Denken (5. ed.), p. 9-18, Mnchen: Psychologie-Verlags-Union.
The book is well-suited for prospective researchers and introduces the background,
developments, and methods of qualitative social research.
Seipel, Ch. & Rieker, P. (2003), Integrative Sozialforschung. Konzepte und Methoden der qualitativen
und quantitativen empirischen Forschung. Weinheim/Mnchen: Juventa.
This methods handbook presents quantitative and qualitative approaches and aims at closing
the gap between them. It discusses the problems and moreover the possibilities of
combining them and thus encourages methodological openness among researchers.
Wilson, T. P. (1982). Qualitative oder quantitative Methoden in der Sozialforschung. Klner Zeitschrift
fr Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, vol. 34, p. 487-508.
In this article the author presents qualitative and quantitative research with their
characteristic attributes and weaknesses. Wilson argues that each of the research
methodologies focuses on certain aspects of situational acting and thus disregards others.

Research Methodology