Qualitative vs Quantitative research

Quantitative research is a more comprehensive approach while qualitative research is detail

oriented and endeavors to achieve a deeper understanding of the case involved. A way to think of
this is to view one method as strategic and the other as tactical. Qualitative exploration techniques
and quantitative examination strategies each produces favorable circumstances as far as
correlations. Subjective exploration strategies would incorporate exercises, for example, singular
meetings, little gathering interviews, center gatherings and observational studies. The bulk of
qualitative research falls under the classification of descriptive designs but can turn into quantitative
research when the researchers endeavor to make comparisons or to exhibit a random sample of
opinions (Newman, 2016). Quantitative or qualitative research methodology employs methods that
in vast spectrum. Methods include focus groups, in-depth interviews and reviews of documents for
types of themes, surveys, structured interviews & observations, and reviews of records or
documents for numeric information. It is a process inductive to formulate theories or hypotheses
versus deductive process used in the quantitative approach.

In quantitative research, the problem is the guide to questions or hypothesis that are asked
in the study. While using qualitative research, the problem being discussed creates the
importance of the central idea. Quantitative research uses a more closed-ended approach
and uses set responses to questions. Whereas, the qualitative approach uses open ended
questions to the participant. Quantitative research depends on the quantity of the data it is
researching by using a large number of participants, set responses and reporting the facts in
an unbiased manner. Qualitative research uses a smaller group of participants and writes
their report based on their own bias and judgment and the researchers own personal
reflection (Creswell, 2012).

Which technique to pick, subjective or quantitative, is a critical inquiry in creating research

thinks about. As a rule, the exploration questions themselves help the specialist to figure out
which sort of techniques would prompt the best kind of answers for the study. On the off
chance that a scientist is more inspired by the “why” behind human conduct, subjective
strategies, for example, in individual meetings, ethnographic studies and center gatherings
will consider furthermore customized addressing. This sort of addressing will bear the cost of
the analyst to make clearer associations between the “what” of human conduct and the
“why.” On the other hand, if a specialist is keener on deciding the “what happens when “or”
when it happens” sorts of data, then quantitative examination will better permit that on the
grounds that quantitative exploration evaluates human conduct in ways that permit a
scientist to attract a few speculations to the all-inclusive community from the assembled
information. For exploration regarding online networking practices of teenagers versus their
disconnected from the net practices, I would surmise that a mix of both sorts of examination
would be valuable to me. In measuring the practices, it is valuable to use quantitative
strategies, for example, reviews and agendas so I can accumulate gauge information about
what sorts of practices young people are displaying both regarding their online practices and
their disconnected from the net practices. I think it is productive to finish the overviews and
agendas both by doing a substance critique of their communicative media interactions and
by having the participant’s do a self-reporting. Along these lines, I could have some
examination information also that may prompt a few speculations about how young people
report their practices. I surmise that some subjective strategies, for example, perceptions and
meetings or center gatherings would gather some data about what members see and feel
inside their own particular universes, in their own particular words. Why do they act the way
they do and how does their conviction framework affect their practices on and disconnected
from the net? In spite of the fact that online networking has given a voice to such a large
number of voiceless individuals, I am not persuaded that either doing “voiceless” exploration
utilizing reviews and quantitative strategies or subjective techniques, for example, meetings
or center gatherings will prompt a full answer if used freely. In this way, I totally concur with
Albert Einstein who said, “Not all that matters that can be checked numbers, and not all that
matters that tallies can be checked” (Treadwell, 2014, p. 191).