RESEARCH ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING 2

“Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative Reseach and Qualitative Research ”

Lecturer

Desi Puspitasari, M.Pd

Compiled by :

Faridatun Nida 204180156

Nafidatul Vindi Riswanto 204180158

Shela Mesyana Saputri 204180135

Siti Risalatul Mu’awanah 204180140

Tarub Ganang Winasis 204180144

Wahyu Saptina 204180149

ENGLISH EDUCATION E

FAKULTAS TARBIYAH DAN ILMU KEGURUAN

INSTITUT AGAMA ISLAM NEGERI PONOROGO

2021
 “STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH AND
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH”

A. Quantitative Research
a. Definition of quantitative research
Quantitative research is defined as a systematic investigation of phenomena by
gathering quantifiable data and performing statistical, mathematical, or computational
techniques. Quantitative research collects information from existing and potential
customers using sampling methods and sending out online surveys, online polls,
questionnaires, etc., the results of which can be depicted in the form of numerical.
After careful understanding of these numbers to predict the future of a product or
service and make changes accordingly.
An example of quantitative research is the survey conducted to understand the
amount of time a doctor takes to tend to a patient when the patient walks into the
hospital. A patient satisfaction survey template can be administered to ask questions
like how much time did a doctor takes to see a patient, how often does a patient walks
into a hospital, and other such questions.
Quantitative outcome research is mostly conducted in the social sciences using
the statistical methods used above to collect quantitative data from the research study.
In this research method, researchers and statisticians deploy mathematical
frameworks and theories that pertain to the quantity under question.
Quantitative research templates are objective, elaborate, and many times, even
investigational. The results achieved from this research method are logical, statistical,
and unbiased. Data collection happened using a structured method and conducted on
larger samples that represent the entire population.
b. Types of Quantitative Research
1. Descriptive Research
Seeks to describe the current status of an identified variable. These research
projects are designed to provide systematic information about a phenomenon. The
researcher does not usually begin with an hypothesis, but is likely to develop one
after collecting data. The analysis and synthesis of the data provide the test of the
 hypothesis. Systematic collection of information requires careful selection of the
units studied and careful measurement of each variable.
Examples of Descriptive Research:
 A description of how second-grade students spend their time during summer
vacation.
 A description of thetobacco use habits of teenagers.
 A description of the extent to which elementary teachers use math
manipulatives.
2. Correlational Research
A comparison between two entities is invariable. Correlation research is
conducted to establish a relationship between two closely-knit entities and how
one impacts the other and what are the changes that are eventually observed. This
research method is carried out to give value to naturally occurring relationships,
and a minimum of two different groups are required to conduct this quantitative
research method successfully. Without assuming various aspects, a relationship
between two groups or entities must be established.
Researchers use this quantitative research design to correlate two or more
variables using mathematical analysis methods. Patterns, relationships, and trends
between variables are concluded as they exist in their original set up. The impact
of one of these variables on the other is observed along with how it changes the
relationship between the two variables. Researchers tend to manipulate one of the
variables to attain the desired results.
Ideally, it is advised not to make conclusions merely based on
correlational research. This is because it is not mandatory that if two variables are
in sync that they are interrelated.
Example of Correlational Research Questions:
 The relationship between stress and depression.
 The equation between fame and money.
 The relation between activities in a third-grade class and its students
3. Causal Comparative Research (quasi-experimental research)
 This research method mainly depends on the factor of comparison. Also
called quasi-experimental research, this quantitative research method is used by
researchers to conclude the cause-effect equation between two or more variables,
where one variable is dependent on the other independent variable. The
independent variable is established but not manipulated, and its impact on the
dependent variable is observed. These variables or groups must be formed as they
exist in the natural set up. As the dependent and independent variables will always
exist in a group, it is advised that the conclusions are carefully established by
keeping all the factors in mind.
Causal-comparative research is not restricted to the statistical analysis of
two variables but extends to analyzing how various variables or groups change
under the influence of the same changes. This research is conducted irrespective
of the type of relation that exists between two or more variables. Statistical
analysis is used to distinctly present the outcome obtained using this quantitative
research method.
Example of Causal-Comparative Research Questions:
 The impact of drugs on a teenager.
 The effect of good education on a freshman.
 The effect of substantial food provision in the villages of Africa.
4. Experimental Research
Also known as true experimentation, this research method is reliant on a
theory. Experimental research, as the name suggests, is usually based on one or
more theories. This theory has not been proven in the past and is merely a
supposition. In experimental research, an analysis is done around proving or
disproving the statement. This research method is used in natural
sciences.Traditional research methods are more effective than modern techniques.
There can be multiple theories in experimental research. A theory is a
statement that can be verified or refuted.
After establishing the statement, efforts are made to understand whether it
is valid or invalid. This type of quantitative research method is mainly used in
 natural or social sciences as there are various statements which need to be proved
right or wrong.
 Traditional research methods are more effective than modern techniques.
 Systematic teaching schedules help children who find it hard to cope up with
the course.
 It is a boon to have responsible nursing staff for ailing parent.

B. Qualitative Research
a. Definition Qualitative Research
Seen in an historical light, what is today called qualitative, or sometimes
ethnographic, interpretative research – or a number of other terms – has more or less
always existed. At the time the founders of sociology – Simmel, Weber, Durkheim
and, before them, Marx – were writing, and during the era of the Methodenstreit
(“dispute about methods”) in which the German historical school emphasized
scientific methods (cf. Swedberg 1990), we can at least speak of qualitative
forerunners. Perhaps the most extended discussion of what later became known as
qualitative methods in a classic work is Bronisław Malinowski’s (1922) Argonauts in
the Western Pacific, although even this study does not explicitly address the meaning
of “qualitative.” In Weber’s ([1921–-22] 1978) work we find a tension between
scientific explanations that are based on observation and quantification and
interpretative research (see also Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982).
If we look through major sociology journals like the American Sociological
Review, American Journal of Sociology, or Social Forces we will not find the term
qualitative sociology before the 1970s. And certainly before then much of what we
consider qualitative classics in sociology, like Becker’ study (1963), had already been
produced. Indeed, the Chicago School often combined qualitative and quantitative
data within the same study (Fine 1995). Our point being that before a disciplinary
self-awareness the term quantitative preceded qualitative, and the articulation of the
former was a political move to claim scientific status (Denzin and Lincoln 2005). In
the US the World War II seem to have sparked a critique of sociological work,
including “qualitative work,” that did not follow the scientific canon (Rawls 2018),
which was underpinned by a scientifically oriented and value free philosophy of
science. As a result the attempts and practice of integrating qualitative and
quantitative sociology at Chicago lost ground to sociology that was more oriented to
surveys and quantitative work at Columbia under Merton-Lazarsfeld. The quantitative
tradition was also able to present textbooks (Lundberg 1951) that facilitated the use
this approach and its “methods.” The practices of the qualitative tradition, by and
large, remained tacit or was part of the mentoring transferred from the renowned
masters to their students.
This glimpse into history leads us back to the lack of a coherent account
condensed in a definition of qualitative research. Many of the attempts to define the
term do not meet the requirements of a proper definition: A definition should be clear,
avoid tautology, demarcate its domain in relation to the environment, and ideally only
use words in its definiens that themselves are not in need of definition (Hempel
1966). A definition can enhance precision and thus clarity by identifying the core of
the phenomenon. Preferably, a definition should be short. The typical definition we
have found, however, is an ostensive definition, which indicates what qualitative
research is about without informing us about what it actually is:
Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretative,
naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers
study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret,
phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research
involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials – case
study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational,
historical, interactional, and visual texts – that describe routine and problematic
moments and meanings in individuals’ lives. (Denzin and Lincoln 2005:2) Flick
claims that the label “qualitative research” is indeed used as an umbrella for a number
of approaches (2007:2–4; 2002:6), and it is not difficult to identify research fitting
this designation. Moreover, whatever it is, it has grown dramatically over the past five
decades. In addition, courses have been developed, methods have flourished,
arguments about its future have been advanced (for example, Denzin and Lincoln
1994) and criticized (for example, Snow and Morrill 1995), and dedicated journals
and books have mushroomed. Most social scientists have a clear idea of research and
how it differs from journalism, politics and other activities. But the question of what
is qualitative in qualitative research is either eluded or eschewed.
We maintain that this lacuna hinders systematic knowledge production based on
qualitative research. Paul Lazarsfeld noted the lack of “codification” as early as 1955
when he reviewed 100 qualitative studies in order to offer a codification of the
practices (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982:239). Since then many texts on “qualitative
research” and its methods have been published, including recent attempts (Goertz and
Mahoney 2012) similar to Lazarsfeld’s. These studies have tried to extract what is
qualitative by looking at the large number of empirical “qualitative” studies. Our
novel strategy complements these endeavors by taking another approach and looking
at the attempts to codify these practices in the form of a definition, as well as to a
minor extent take Becker’s study as an exemplar of what qualitative researchers
actually do, and what the characteristic of being ‘qualitative’ denotes and implies. We
claim that qualitative researchers, if there is such a thing as “qualitative research,”
should be able to codify their practices in a condensed, yet general way expressed in
language.
Lingering problems of “generalizability” and “how many cases do I need” (Small
2009) are blocking advancement – in this line of work qualitative approaches are said
to differ considerably from quantitative ones, while some of the former
unsuccessfully mimic principles related to the latter (Small 2009). Additionally,
quantitative researchers sometimes unfairly criticize the first based on their own
quality criteria. Scholars like Goertz and Mahoney (2012) have successfully focused
on the different norms and practices beyond what they argue are essentially two
different cultures: those working with either qualitative or quantitative methods.
Instead, similarly to Becker (2017) who has recently questioned the usefulness of the
distinction between qualitative and quantitative research, we focus on similarities.
The current situation also impedes both students and researchers in focusing their
studies and understanding each other’s work (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982:239). A
third consequence is providing an opening for critiques by scholars operating within
different traditions (Valsiner 2000:101). A fourth issue is that the “implicit use of
methods in qualitative research makes the field far less standardized than the
quantitative paradigm” (Goertz and Mahoney 2012:9). Relatedly, the National
Science Foundation in the US organized two workshops in 2004 and 2005 to address
the scientific foundations of qualitative research involving strategies to improve it and
to develop standards of evaluation in qualitative research. However, a specific focus
on its distinguishing feature of being “qualitative” while being implicitly
acknowledged, was discussed only briefly (for example, Best 2004).
In 2014 a theme issue was published in this journal on “Methods, Materials, and
Meanings: Designing Cultural Analysis,” discussing central issues in (cultural)
qualitative research (Berezin 2014; Biernacki 2014; Glaeser 2014; Lamont and
Swidler 2014; Spillman 2014). We agree with many of the arguments put forward,
such as the risk of methodological tribalism, and that we should not waste energy on
debating methods separated from research questions. Nonetheless, a clarification of
the relation to what is called “quantitative research” is of outmost importance to avoid
misunderstandings and misguided debates between “qualitative” and “quantitative”
researchers. Our strategy means that researchers, “qualitative” or “quantitative” they
may be, in their actual practice may combine qualitative work and quantitative work.
In this article we accomplish three tasks. First, we systematically survey the
literature for meanings of qualitative research by looking at how researchers have
defined it. Drawing upon existing knowledge we find that the different meanings and
ideas of qualitative research are not yet coherently integrated into one satisfactory
definition. Next, we advance our contribution by offering a definition of qualitative
research and illustrate its meaning and use partially by expanding on the brief
example introduced earlier related to Becker’s work (1963). We offer a systematic
analysis of central themes of what researchers consider to be the core of “qualitative,”
regardless of style of work. These themes – which we summarize in terms of four
keywords: distinction, process, closeness, improved understanding – constitute part of
our literature review, in which each one appears, sometimes with others, but never all
in the same definition. They serve as the foundation of our contribution. Our
categories are overlapping. Their use is primarily to organize the large amount of
 definitions we have identified and analyzed, and not necessarily to draw a clear
distinction between them. Finally, we continue the elaboration discussed above on the
advantages of a clear definition of qualitative research.

Narrative research is good for capturing the

detailed stories or life experiences of one or
more individuals, groups, or organizations
1. NARRATIVE RESEARCH
Sometimes it is referred to as ‘storytelling’
Anarrativecanbeboth a method
or a phenomenon to be studied
When compared to non-narrative approaches,
stories are richer and thicker, more compelling,
more easily memorable, and give context
They get beyond the parts to give sense to the
whole, capture the interactions between
individuals and give access to tacit understanding
Narrative research is good for capturing the
detailed stories or life experiences of one or
more individuals, groups, or organizations
1. NARRATIVE RESEARCH
Sometimes it is referred to as ‘storytelling’
Anarrativecanbeboth a method
or a phenomenon to be studied
When compared to non-narrative approaches,
stories are richer and thicker, more compelling,
more easily memorable, and give context
They get beyond the parts to give sense to the
whole, capture the interactions between
individuals and give access to tacit understanding
b. Common Qualitative Research Approaches
1. Narrative Research
Narrative research is good for capturing the detailed stories or life
experiences of one or more individuals, groups, or organizations. Sometimes it is
referred to as ‘storytelling’. A narrative can be both a method or a phenomenon to
be studied. When compared to non-narrative approaches, stories are richer and
thicker, more compelling, more easily memorable, and give context. They get
beyond the parts to give sense to the whole, capture the interactions between
individuals and give access to tacit understanding.
It can take various forms.
 These are the most common:
 biographical study - researcher writes and records the experiences of
another person’s life.
 auto-biography - written and recorded by the people who are the subject
of the story.
 life history - a record of one individual’s entire life.
 personal experience story - an individual's personal experience, in single
or multiple episodes, private situations, or communal folklore
 oral story – collection of personal reflections of events and their causes
and effects from one individual or several individuals’ perspectives.

Narratives may be guided by a theoretical lens or perspective.

Conducting a Narrative Research

a. Determine if narrative research is adequate for the research problem or

research question
b. Decide on ways to collect information (interviews, documents, journal or
diary, letters, photos, videos)
c. Collect information about the context of the stories (jobs, homes, culture,
race, time, place)
d. Reorganize the story into a general framework (‘restory’), establish
chronological sequence, linking ideas , identify plot line, establish
beginning, middle, and end
e. Collaborate with participants, actively involving them in the research and
looking for turning points and epiphanies
2. Phenomenological research
Phenomenological research is aimed at describing a phenomenon and
unearthing previously unnoticed or overlooked issue. by describing what all
participants have in common as they experience a phenomenon. Instead of
making inferences, it reveals meanings and identifies impacts that appear hidden
(anger, grief, sense of rejection). It provides rich descriptions that aid
understanding. It develops an understanding of a phenomenon through the
specific human experience of the phenomenon. It describes what it means to be a
person in a particular world. It is not concerned with causal explanations but with
the human experience.
A variety of methods can be used in phenomenologically based research,
including interviews, conversations, participant observation, action research,
focus meetings and analysis of personal texts.
The interview tends to be the main method. Pure phenomenological
researchers, such as Edmund Husserl, seek to start from perspectives that are free
from hypotheses or preconceptions - bracketing or epoché (suspension). Recent
researchers refute this possibility of starting without preconceptions or bias, but
emphasize the importance of making clear how interpretations and meanings
affect the findings. They insist the researcher should be made visible in the frame
of the research as an interested and subjective actor rather than a detached and
impartial observer.
Conducting a Phenomenological Research
a. Determine if phenomenological research is adequate for the research problem
or research question (usually to understand the common experience of several
individuals about a phenomenon in order to develop practices, policies, or
decision making)
b. Bracket out as much as possible the preconceptions and experience of the
researchers
c. Collect information from individuals who have experienced the phenomenon
through in-depth interviews and multiple interviews, but also through
observation, documents, art
d. Ask two broad questions: (1) What have you experienced? (2) What contexts
have influenced your experience of the phenomenon? Complete with more
information if necessary
e. Phenomenological data analysis. From the answers to the previous questions
(usually, the interview transcriptions): • Highlight significant statements
 (horizontalization) • Develop clusters of meaning from these statements, into
themes.
f. From these statements, write a textural description, and complete it with a
structural description of the context.
g. From the structural and textural descriptions, write a composite description of
the essence of the phenomenon, called the essential, invariant structure (or
essence) (a descriptive passage, a long paragraph or two).
3. Grounded Theory
Grounded Theory is a research approach proposed by the sociologists
Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, who claim that research should depart “from
the ground”. The researcher categorizes empirically collected data in order to
build a general theory that fits the data. It defies the traditional positivist
approaches, which claim that the researcher must depart from a theory, establish
hypotheses that conform to the theory, and than get to the field to confirm the
hypotheses in light of the theory. The models developed by using Grounded
Theory are quite distinctive from the traditional ones in that they reveal a strong
foundation on the concrete. Two popular approaches: Strauss and Corbin –
traditional approach and Charmaz – constructivist approach.
Researcher conducts 20 to 30 interviews based on several visits "to the
field" to collect interview data, until the categories saturate (become repetitive). A
category represents a unit of information composed of events, happenings, and instances
§ Strauss and Corbin – traditional approach and Charmaz – constructivist approach. The
researcher collects data and carries out the analysis interactively: first to the field to
gather information, then to the office to analyze the data, back to the field to gather
more information, back to the office to analyze, and so forth. The participants to be
interviewed are chosen adaptively as the cycles of collection/analysis progress
(theoretical sampling). The number of passes one makes to the field depends on whether
the categories of information become saturated. The process of taking information from
data collection and comparing it to emerging categories is called the constant
comparative method of data analysis. The researcher begins with open coding, coding
the data for its major categories of information. From this coding, axial coding emerges
in which the researcher identifies one open coding category to focus on (called the core
phenomenon) and then goes back to the data and creates categories around this core
phenomenon.

Coding:

1. open coding - coding the data for the major categories of information
2. axial coding - the researcher identifies one open coding category to focus on (the
"core" phenomenon) and goes back to the data to create categories around this core
phenomenon
Types of categories identified around the core phenomenon:
 causal conditions - factors that caused the core phenomenon
 strategies - actions taken in response to the core phenomenon
 contextual and intervening conditions - broad and specific situational factors
that influence the strategies
 consequences - outcomes from using the strategies
3. selective coding - the researcher develops propositions (or hypotheses) that
interrelate the categories in the model (or assembles a story that describes the
interrelationship of categories in the model).

This theory, developed by the researcher, is articulated toward the end of a study
and can assume several forms, such as a narrative statement, a visual picture, or a
series of hypotheses or propositions.

Conducting a Grounded Theory Research

a. Determine if grounded theory research is adequate for the research problem or

research question (when we need to create a theory to explain a process)
b. The questions the inquirer asks of the participants focus on understanding how
they experience the process and on identifying the steps in the process. The
researcher then asks more detailed questions to shape the axial coding phase: What
was central? (the core phenomenon), What caused the phenomenon? (causal
conditions), What strategies were employed in the process? (strategies), What
effects resulted? (consequences).
c. Gather enough information (typically from 20 to 30 interviews) until de model is
saturated
d. The analysis of the data progresses in successive stages from open coding, to axial
coding, to selective coding
e. As an optional step, the researcher may develop and visually portray a conditional
matrix to elucidates the social, historical, and economic conditions influencing the
central phenomenon
f. The result of this process of data collection and analysis is a theory, a substantive-
level theory that emerges through a process of memoing, in which the researcher
writes down ideas about the evolving theory throughout the process of open, axial,
and selective coding.
4. Ethnographic research
Ethnographic research is inspired by the practices of cultural and social
anthropology, where the researcher integrates for a period of time the community
where the study is taking place. This kind of practice is common in Information
Sciences and Technologies research and in Human-Computer Interaction, in
projects that try to understand the behavior of the people so that better solutions
can be developed. It is also used to understand the behavior of Software
Engineering teams (namely large, complex, distributed, and multi-national teams)
and improve their performance. It is also used to understand the behavior of
Software Engineering teams (namely large, complex, distributed, and multi-
national teams) and improve their performance. The approach is also common
when developing and assessing information systems. The central issue in
Ethnographic Research is to observe and analyze how people interact with each
other in their environment in order to understand their culture.
Ethnographers seek to gain two perspectives:
a. emic perspective, the “native’s point of view”, the look from inside, without
imposing conceptual and theoretical frameworks
b. etic perspective, the outside perspective of the researcher influenced by
his/her theoretical conceptions
 c. The observation and analysis of the language practices is useful to help
understand the culture. This is so because language practices, as they are
beyond the control of the individuals, can be particularly expressive of their
culture.

Ethnographers use three main methodological perspectives:

a. Naturalism believes, in a realist tradition, that culture is determined by natural

laws, so that the research must minimize the influence on the people being
studied and just observe them
b. Understanding believes, in a constructivist tradition, that the researcher should
be able to gradually capture the culture through participant observation,
conversations and open interviews
c. Induction believes, also within a constructivist tradition, that the researcher
should start with a general interest and gradually refine the study, and even
change it, if necessary.
d. Ethnographic fieldwork typically begins with participant observation, which is
then completed with other data (interviews, site documents). The field notes
record everyday events in detail, along with the participant’s viewpoints and
interpretations. Participant observation (observing while participating) is the
core approach to gain insight into the culture being studied. This requires
competence in taking relevant and reliable notes and in interacting with the
people in the field The field notes must collect information from the different
sources and perspectives and capture the views and experiences of the
participants in their own words. They must be descriptive and rich in detail
and they represent a major part of the empirical data.

Conducting an Ethnographic Research

1. Determine if ethnography is adequate for the research problem or research

question. This happens when one needs to describe how a cultural group
works and analyze beliefs, language, behaviors, and issues such as power,
resistance, and dominance).
 2. Identify the culture-sharing group to study. Typically, a group that has been
together for a time so that their shared language, patterns of behavior, and
attitudes have merged into a discernable pattern.
3. Select the cultural issue to study about the group
4. Determine which type of ethnography to use (various kinds can be found in
the literature)
5. Identify the field, gain access, ensure reciprocity, clarify ownership, and avoid
disturbing normal operation
6. From the sources collected, analyze the data for a description of the culture-
sharing group
7. The final product is a holistic cultural portrait of the group that incorporates
the views of the participants (emic) and the views of the researcher (etic).
5. Case Study Research
Case studies are the most common kind of qualitative method used in
Information. Sciences and Technologies research. They let us study a
phenomenon in its real context, specially when the boundaries between
phenomenon and context can be made clear. One of the major concerns of a case
study is to rigorously clarify its boundaries. A case study incorporates the views
of all the “actors” in the case being studied. Case studies are typically multi-
perspectival. They consider the voice, perspectives, and interactions of all the
relevant parts, including the powerless and voiceless.
Case studies can be single or multiple-case. Multiple-case studies follow a
replication rather than a sampling logic. The replication strengthens pattern-
matching and thus increases the confidence in the robustness of the theories being
developed. Single cases are quite legitimate provided they cover comprehensively
and holistically the phenomenon being studied. The applicability of a case results
from its rigor and methodological soundness and not from the number of cases
Case studies do not need to have a minimum number of cases, or to randomly
select the cases. Case studies can be exploratory, explanatory, and descriptive.

Conducting a Case Study Research

 1. Determine if the case study approach is adequate for the research problem or
research question
2. Identify the case or cases, which may involve one or several individuals, a
program, an event, an activity
3. The data collection in case study research is typically extensive, drawing on
multiple sources of information, such as observations, interviews, documents,
videos
4. The type of analysis of the data can be a holistic analysis of the entire case or an
embedded analysis of a specific aspect of the case
5. In the final interpretive phase, the researcher reports the meaning of the case.1

C. Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative and Qualitative Research

The research method, namely Quantitative and Qualitative research, both of
them have the strengths and weaknesses.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative Research
Strengths :
 It provides an allowance on the formulation of statistically sound
 Quantitative data provides a macro view with all the required details and
comparatively larger samples.
 larger sample sizes enable the conclusion to be generalized.
 Evaluation of the multiple data sets can be done at once and that too at a
faster pace and accurately.
 This method is called to be appropriate when there is a need of systematic
and standardised comparisons.
 The manual implementations of ideas can be automated completely which
can save time.
 Can be used to predict or guess.
 The analysis results can be obtained accurately.

1
Cresswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Chooaing Among five Aproaches (2nd Ed). Sage
Publications (read Pages 53-84)
  Can be used to calculate the relationship between two or more variables.
 Can simplify complex problems in a mode.l
 Research is more systematic and objective.
 Be able to take advantage of existing theories.
 Be specific, clear and detailed.

Weaknesses :

 Quantitative Method reveals what and to what extent but often fails to answer
more on why and how.
 This type of research requires the model performance to be monitored on
constant basis in order to ensure its compliance with the original hypotheses.
 The impression of homogeneity in a sample may turn out to be fake in this
method.
 This method involves limited number of Quants supply and also involves
complex disciplines which are hard to master.
 Based on assumptions, Assumptions that are not in accordance with the
reality that occur will result in misinformation.
 The data must be normally distributed and can only be used to analyze data
with the same population and sample.
 If the sample size is a little around 30, it cannot be used for analysis.
 The data collection tends to come from the highest value.
 Orientation is only limited to value and number.
 Limited by opportunities to explore respondents and quality of original data
collection tools .
 Researcher involvement is generally limited.

1. Strengths and Weaknesses of Qualitative Research

Strengths :
 All the problems and the topics covered under this research are in detail.
  This method majorly focuses on small groups which ultimately do not
require more expenses when compared to quantitative research.
 On the emergence of new developed information and findings, the revision,
direction and framework of the data can be done easily quickly.
 The data is collected from a small group which bounds it to be universal for a
large population.
 The data with this method is collected based on genuine efforts and gives a
clear vision on what can be expected.
 The descriptions and interpretations of the informants can be examined in
depth.
 Have a theoretical basis that fits the facts.
 Research is more subjective.
 Very effective to use in seeking responses and views because they meet in
person.
 There is a special understanding in analyzing.

Weaknesses :

 As the data is collected for a small group, due to which assumptions cannot
be made beyond the small group of people.
 It becomes difficult to demonstrate, maintain and assess the rigidity of the
data.
 Collection of statistical data is not easy and cannot be done solely by using
this method.
 As the data is in big quantity, analysis and interpretation of the data takes
much time.
 The responses of the subjects might be affected as the researchers are bound
to be present during the process of data gathering.2
 Researchers are largely responsible for the information conveyed by
informants.

2
https://www.weetechsolution.com/blog/strengths-and-weaknesses-og-quantitative-and-qualitative-research.
 The difference between facts and policy is less clear.
 Small study size, Not effective if you want to research as a whole or on a
large scale.