Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches

Qualitative Methods: broad term referring to scientific methods that incorporate some
combination of collecting non numerical data such as verbal or pictorial records, collecting data
using relatively unstructured and open-ended approaches and formats, and analyzing data with
nonnumerical and nonstatistical approaches; commonly used in human geography. For
example, employees are classified as union or non-union, we have a qualitative differentiation.
The distinction is one of kind rather than of amount. Individuals may be classified concerning
marital status, as single, married, widowed, divorced, and separated. Farm operators may be
classified as full owners, part owners, managers, and tenants. Natural rubber may be designated
as plantation or wild, according to its source ( Frederick E. Croxton, Dudley J. Cowden, Sidney
Klein).

Quantitative Methods: broad term referring to scientific methods that incorporate some
combination of collecting numerical data such as metric-level measurements, collecting data
using relatively structured and closed-ended approaches and formats, and analyzing data with
numerical and statistical approaches; commonly used in both physical and human geography.
When items vary in respect to some measurable characteristic, a quantitative classification is
appropriate. Families may be classified according to the number of children. Manufacturing
concerns may be classified according to the number of workers employed, and also according to
the value of good produced. Individuals may be classified according to the amount of income tax
paid ( Frederick E. Croxton, Dudley J. Cowden, Sidney Klein).

A few different factors have been identified that distinguish quantitative and qualitative methods.

1. One concerns the nature of the data recorded and analyzed in a research study.
Quantitative data consist of numerical values, measured on at least an ordinal level but
more likely a metric level. Qualitative data are non numerical, or, as in nominal data,
numerical values that have no quantitative meaning. They consist of words (in natural
language), drawings, photographs, and so on.
2. Another factor distinguish the two emphasizes the data collection techniques used to
create the data, rather than the data itself. According to this, quantitative methods are
those that impose a relatively great amount of prior structure on collected data. That is,
such methods involve a prior choice of constructs to study, a prior choice of variables
with which to measure those constructs, and prior numerical categories with which to
express the measured values of those variables. Qualitative methods, in contrast, involve
less prior structure on data collection. Data collection that is very clearly qualitative
might start with little more than a topic area or a broad research question. The constructs,
variables, and especially the measurement values for the variables are determined as
observation are made or even afterward. For example, a survey that asks respondents to
 pick one of a finite number of predetermined categories as a way to measure their
attitudes about highway construction would be relatively quantitative in this sense; an
interview that asks respondents “how they feel” about highway construction, without any
constraints on what they can give for an answer, would be relatively qualitative.
3. Still another factor in differentiating quantitative and qualitative methods focuses on the
analysis of data. Either methodological approach may start with relatively unstructured
and open-ended responses, such as oral responses in an interview. These can be treated
quantitatively, however, by rigorously coding the elements in the responses (such as
words or phrases) into well-defined categories, which are then tabulated and analyzed
statistically. Alternatively, some researchers choose to treat such records more
qualitatively by avoiding rigorous coding and statistical analysis, instead interpreting the
records more informally and in a less repeatable manner. Such a qualitative approach
usually involves less aggregation of data as well

Qualitative methods are more applicable when a researcher does not know much to begin with
about a particular research topic or domain (That is, no research has been done on it). Such
methods are flexible for the researchers, requiring less prior understanding of a phenomenon.
Qualitative methods are especially useful in some areas of human geography because they allow
a research cases that is a sentient human being to “speak in his or her own voice”, focusing on
what is meaningful or important to himself or herself rather than conforming to the researcher’s
conceptualization of a situation. However, if qualitative methods are to provide scientifically
acceptable evidence about the status of hypotheses and theories, they require difficult and
laborious coding. Among other things, this means that researchers working qualitatively
typically examine fewer of the cases of interest. Both the relatively low reliability of coding the
typically smaller samples of cases mean that qualitative methods generally do not produce
evidence that can be as convincingly generalized as that produced by quantitative methods. For
these reasons, we generally favor a research strategy that applies qualitative approaches earlier in
an exploratory way and quantitative approaches later, informed by the qualitative results, in a
confirmatory way. In many areas of human geography, furthermore, qualitative results can help
flesh out and exemplify quantitative results and conclusions.

Quantitative Approaches

Quantitative approach involves the generation of data in quantitative form which can be
subjected to rigorous quantitative analysis in a formal and rigid fashion. Quantitative approach
can be further sub-classified into inferential, experimental and simulation approaches to research.

Inferential Approach

The purpose of inferential approach is to form a data base to infer characteristics or relationships
of population. This usually means survey research where a sample of population is studied
(questioned or observed) to determine its characteristics, and it is then inferred that the
population has the same characteristics.

The methods of Inferential statistics are used to make inferences about a population from a
sample. For example, we may interview 50 people in a city, and ask them how far they commute
to work. The sample mean provides us with a simple summary measure, and provides us with
our best estimate of what the “true” average commuting distance is for the entire city. Inferential
statistics lie within the class of confirmatory methods. Confirmatory methods used to help
confirm hypothesis (Peter A. Rogerson).

Experimental approach

Experimental approach is characterized by much greater control over the research environment
and in this case some variables are manipulated to observe their effect on other variables.

Simulation approach

Simulation approach involves the construction of an artificial environment within which relevant
information and data can be generated. This permits an observation of the dynamic behavior of a
system (or its sub-system) under controlled conditions. The term ‘simulation’ in the context of
business and social sciences applications refers to “the operation of a numerical model that
represents the structure of a dynamic process. Given the values of initial conditions, parameters
and exogenous variables, a simulation is run to represent the behavior of the process over time.”
Simulation approach can also be useful in building models for understanding future conditions.

Qualitative approaches

Qualitative approach to research is concerned with subjective assessment of attitudes, opinions

and behaviour. Research in such a situation is a function of researcher’s insights and
impressions. Such an approach to research generates results either in non-quantitative form or in
the form which is not subjected to rigorous quantitative and analysis (CR Kothari, Gaurav Garg).

A qualitative "approach" is a general way of thinking about conducting qualitative research. It

describes, either explicitly or implicitly, the purpose of the qualitative research, the role of the
researcher(s), the stages of research, and the method of data analysis. Here, four of the major
qualitative approaches are introduced.

Ethnography

The ethnographic approach to qualitative research comes largely from the field of anthropology.
The emphasis in ethnography is on studying an entire culture. Originally, the idea of a culture
was tied to the notion of ethnicity and geographic location (e.g., the culture of the Trobriand
Islands), but it has been broadened to include virtually any group or organization. That is, we can
study the "culture" of a business or defined group (e.g., a Rotary club).
Ethnography is an extremely broad area with a great variety of practitioners and methods.
However, the most common ethnographic approach is participant observation as a part of field
research. The ethnographer becomes immersed in the culture as an active participant and records
extensive field notes. As in grounded theory, there is no preset limiting of what will be observed
and no real ending point in an ethnographic study.

Ethnographic research methods attempt to study social life as it unfolds in the practices of day-
to-day life. These methods avoid as much as possible artificial research situations. Ethnography
often requires a large investment in time. First, one must gain the confidence of the people to be
studied so that one can be near to them and therefore able to carry out the research. Second, it
often involves the need to at least get acquainted with another language. If one masters the
language, one must ideally be at home in specific group languages. Third, systematic observation
of behavior takes time. An image is gradually built up of what is happening in a particular social
setting on the basis of continued observation.

While ethnographic research may essentially entail an attitude rather than a set of confined
methods, nevertheless, there are a number of definite elements to be found in ethnographic work.

(i) First, ethnographers depend primarily on observation.

(ii) Second, ethnographic research implies an open approach. It avoids as much as
possible framing a research situation beforehand, for example through formulating
particular, detailed questions. Ethnographers often use checklists to fall back on when
asking questions or observing, but these should be continuously adapted in the light
of information gained. The purpose of interaction with informants is to elicit
responses rather than get answers to particular questions.
(iii) Third, ethnographic research uses the case study method. It studies particular
situations in depth and makes no claims to be statistically representative. It is wrong,
however, to conclude that case studies have no wider significance. Indeed, if a case
study is merely an apt illustration of a particular point made, then its importance is
marginal. However, a good case study involves systematic analysis in depth. This can
be done in two ways. First, it is possible to collect a large number of instances that are
then classified to see particular patterns emerging. For example, in a study of land
conflicts, I collected cases from regular court sessions. These were then categorized
as relating to sale of land, border disputes, inheritance, etc. It transpired that an
appreciation of inheritance and the social construction of a past was crucial to
understanding the number and virulence of these conflicts. Second, it is possible to
study a particular situation intensively so that a very detailed analysis emerges.
(iv) Fourth, ethnographic methods try to understand society fro the inside. The essential
question to be asked is: How would I feel if I were in the situation of the people
studied?

Good ethnography is dependent on standard techniques only to a limited degree, but it requires a
sensibility to culture, an appreciation of the value of observation and intuitive empathy. These
elements are sometimes referred to as the ‘anthropological eye’, which is difficult to define ( Jan
Kees van Donge).
Phenomenology

Phenomenology is sometimes considered a philosophical perspective as well as an approach to

qualitative methodology. It has a long history in several social research disciplines including
psychology, sociology and social work. Phenomenology is a school of thought that emphasizes a
focus on people's subjective experiences and interpretations of the world. That is, the
phenomenologist wants to understand how the world appears to others.

Field Research

The field researcher is directly and personally engaged in an interpretive focus on the human
field of activity with the goal of generating holistic and realistic descriptions and /or
explanations. The field is viewed through the experientially engaged and perceptually limited
lens of the researcher using a qualitative filter.

Field research is often called qualitative research. Field research has no prepackaged research
designs. Rather, specific data collection methods, sampling procedures, and analysis styles are
used to create unique, question-specific designs that evolve throughout the research process.
These qualitative or field designs take the form of either a case study or a topical study
(Benjamin F. Crabtree, William L. Miller, 1992).

Field research can also be considered either a broad approach to qualitative research or a method
of gathering qualitative data. The essential idea is that the researcher goes "into the field" to
observe the phenomenon in its natural state or in situ. As such, it is probably most related to the
method of participant observation. The field researcher typically takes extensive field notes
which are subsequently coded and analyzed in a variety of ways.

Grounded Theory

Grounded theory is a qualitative research approach that was originally developed by Glaser and
Strauss in the 1960s. The self-defined purpose of grounded theory is to develop theory about
phenomena of interest. But this is not just abstract theorizing they're talking about. Instead the
theory needs to be grounded or rooted in observation -- hence the term.

Grounded theory is a complex iterative process. The research begins with the raising of
generative questions which help to guide the research but are not intended to be either static or
confining. As the researcher begins to gather data, core theoretical concept(s) are identified.
Tentative linkages are developed between the theoretical core concepts and the data. This early
phase of the research tends to be very open and can take months. Later on the researcher is more
engaged in verification and summary. The effort tends to evolve toward one core category that is
central.

There are several key analytic strategies:

 Coding is a process for both categorizing qualitative data and for describing the
implications and details of these categories. Initially one does open coding, considering
 the data in minute detail while developing some initial categories. Later, one moves to
more selective coding where one systematically codes with respect to a core concept.
 Memoing is a process for recording the thoughts and ideas of the researcher as they
evolve throughout the study. You might think of memoing as extensive marginal notes
and comments. Again, early in the process these memos tend to be very open while later
on they tend to increasingly focus in on the core concept.
 Integrative diagrams and sessions are used to pull all of the detail together, to help make
sense of the data with respect to the emerging theory. The diagrams can be any form of
graphic that is useful at that point in theory development. They might be concept maps or
directed graphs or even simple cartoons that can act as summarizing devices. This
integrative work is best done in group sessions where different members of the research
team are able to interact and share ideas to increase insight.

Eventually one approaches conceptually dense theory as new observation leads to new linkages
which lead to revisions in the theory and more data collection. The core concept or category is
identified and fleshed out in detail.

When does this process end? One answer is: never! Clearly, the process described above could
continue indefinitely. Grounded theory doesn't have a clearly demarcated point for ending a
study. Essentially, the project ends when the researcher decides to quit.

What do you have when you're finished? Presumably you have an extremely well-considered
explanation for some phenomenon of interest -- the grounded theory. This theory can be
explained in words and is usually presented with much of the contextually relevant detail
collected (on line).