Tayyaba anwar

52204

Practical problems in Qualitative And Quantitative Research Method

Mam Sumaira Naz

Psychology
Practical problems in Qualitative And Quantitative Research Method

Practical challenges of using qualitative inquiry in the field of health and the challenges

of performing an interpretive research based on professional experience as a qualitative

researcher and on available literature.

Qualitative research methods involve systematic collection, organizing, and interpretation

of material in textual form derived from talk or observations. They are useful to explore

the meanings of social phenomena as experienced by individuals in their natural context.

The health community still looks at qualitative research with skepticism and accuses it for

the subjective nature and absence of facts. Scientific standards, criteria and checklists do

exist and the adequacy of guidelines has been vigorously debated within this cross-

disciplinary field.

Clinical knowledge consists of interpretive action and interaction – factors that involve

communication, shared opinions, and experiences. The current quantitative research

methods indicate a confined access to clinical knowledge, since they insert only the

questions and phenomena that can be controlled, measured, and are countable where it is

necessary to investigate, share and contest the tacit knowledge of an experienced

practitioner. Qualitative research focuses on the people's social world, and not their

disease. It is concerned with increased understanding of the meaning of certain conditions

for health professionals and patients, and how their relationships are built in a particular

social context. These kinds of research allow exploration of the social events as

experienced by individuals in their natural context. Qualitative inquiry could contribute to

a broader understanding of health science considering the substantial congruence between

The globalization progress augments the necessity of qualitative research.

Corbin (2008) reported that in the past 10 years, the interest in qualitative methods in

general and grounded theory in particular has burgeoned according to a review of the

literature and dissertation abstracts.

A researcher engaged in qualitative research will be confronted with a number of

challenges. Identifying the research problem and forming the research question are some

of the initial challenges that researchers encounter in the early stages of a qualitative

research project. Researchers and students sometimes fail to understand that adopting a

qualitative approach is only the first stage in the process of selecting an appropriate

research methodology.

Once the initial research question has been identified, the crucial decision to be made is

on the selection of an appropriate method, such as content analysis, ethnography, or

grounded theory, and selecting the research design as well. Subsequent arrangements

would be on the proper methods of data collection, participants, and the research setting,

according to the methodology and the research question. Qualitative researchers should

also handle other important concerns such as data analysis, ethical issues, and rigor

methods of results.

Virtues of qualitative research

Qualitative research does not promise a clear or direct and orderly method of tackling

research problems in health studies. It does not provide researchers with a set of rules to

be followed or give them a comforting sense of security and safety backup against

possible mistakes on the road to knowledge. This research method depends on the “power

of words and images,” but does not offer the assimilated meanings such as numbers and
equations; it is rather “an attentive search of meaning and understanding” and an attempt

for profound comprehension and awareness of the problems and phenomena. The

essentially “diagnostic and exploratory nature” of qualitative research is invaluable in

developing conceptualizations in health as an evolving discipline. It tenders the possible

tap into the sea of complex interactions in health that can be as follows.

Researchers launch the quest for new theories in health which should acknowledge that

“qualitative research is an approach rather than a particular set of techniques, and its

appropriateness derives from the nature of the social phenomena to be explored.”[9] In

qualitative research, knowledge derives from the context-specific perspective on the

experienced phenomena, interpretations, and explanation of social experiences.

Why qualitative research in the health professions?

Researcher should justify the reason for which he or she selected qualitative research.

Qualitative researchers pursue a holistic and exclusive perspective. The approach is

helpful in understanding human experiences, which is important for health professionals

who focus on caring, communication, and interaction.[10] Many potential researchers

intend to find the answer to the questions about a problem or a major issue in clinical

practice or quantitative research can not verify them.

In fact, they choose qualitative research for some significant reasons:

 The emotions, perceptions, and actions of people who suffer from a medical

condition can be understood by qualitative research

 The meanings of health professions will only be uncovered through observing the

interactions of professionals with clients and interviewing about their experience.

This is also applicable to the students destined for the healthcare field
 Qualitative research is individualized; hence, researchers consider the participants

as whole human beings, not as a bunch of physical compartments

 Observation and asking people are the only ways to understand the causes of

particular behaviors. Therefore, this type of research can develop health or

education policies; policies for altering health behavior can only be effective if the

behavior's basis is clearly understood.[10,11]

Research question and aim

Qualitative research is exciting because it asks questions about people's everyday lives

and experiences. A qualitative researcher will have the chance of discovering the

“significant truths” in the lives of people. That is a wonderful privilege, but you need to

get those questions right if you dig into people's lives and ask about their real

experiences. An adequate and explicit research question, or a set of interrelated questions,

builds the basis for a good research. But excellent research questions are not easy to write

at all. A good research requires a good research question as well because it allows us to

identify what we really want to know. However, at the beginning of a project, researchers

may be uncertain about what exactly they intend to know, so vague questions can lead to

an unfocused project.

Common problems coming up with a research question include:

 Deciding about the research area among a range of issues that are heeded in your

field of interest

 Not capable of pointing toward any interesting area or topic sufficient to focus a

major piece of work on

certain topic

 Knowing what area and topic is specifically difficult to articulate a clear question.

Quantitative Research: Lack of Detail

Many people criticize quantitative research because the researchers have very little

ability to find out more detail. For example, many quantitative research methods use

questionnaires as a means of finding out percentages of the population that possess

certain characteristics or think certain things. Imagine if a questionnaire asks if you

wished to vote for the Republicans or the Democrats in the next election. Someone

answering this question may want to vote for the Green party, but not have the option

available to state that. Within the confines of the quantitative study, they will have to

choose between the two. This may not seem like a relevant fact, but if 10 percent of

people who answered Democrat actually preferred Greens, a massive trend will be

missed because of the rigid nature of the study. Qualitative research would catch this

discrepancy through use of open-ended questions.

Quantitative Research: Missing Variables

The rigid and fixed nature of quantitative research can also result in a relevant

variable being missed entirely. If someone was conducting a qualitative study into the

intelligence levels of children and trying to determine whether firstborn children are

more intelligent than all subsequent children, they may measure children’s IQ, and

then note whether they are firstborn, second, third or fourth. This may produce a

result stating that, according to the statistics, firstborn children are indeed more

intelligent, and each subsequent child has a lower IQ than the one before. This seems
to be a relevant finding, but it overlooks the possible variable that intelligent parents

have fewer children. This could mean that the first- and second-born children have

relatively intelligent parents, and fifth-born children have less intelligent parents, so

the conclusion of the study is misleading.

Failing to identify your research typology: It is widely accepted that there are six types

of qualitative research: Phenomenological Model, the Ethnographic Model, Grounded

Theory, Case Study, Historical Model and the Narrative Model (which includes textual

analysis). A journal editor receiving a qualitative manuscript that fails to clearly

differentiate which of the typologies the study follows instantly presumes that the

researcher is unacquainted with the ‘research guardrails’ and expectations that should be

followed in completing robust qualitative research. My main point here is that it is very

easy to expose research naivety through failing to clarify which research paradigm, from

within the qualitative family of alternatives, to which a researcher is adhering.

Number Fetishization

89% of statistics can be misleading. Yes, that number was made up on the spot, but

statements like that can be quite compelling when inserted into press releases or

marketing literature.

Beware similarly focusing too deeply on one number or statistical outcome because it can

quickly lead you astray. Keep in mind that the accepted 95 percent statistical certainty

means there is still a 1 out of 20 chance that the data you collected was simply a random

pattern.

For example, a study indicating that subjects overwhelmingly chose blue cups over red

ones does not indicate that a brand should move wholesale towards blue designs. Findings
like blue preference must be tested with many other controls and assembled into an

experimental framework along with other variables like size, design, etc. So that each

conclusion builds off the other. Ideally, studies are repeated to rule out the possibility that

the first results were simply random data noise. Also, remember the importance of large

sample sizes.

Falsely Compelling Correlations

95 percent confidence means that in a test with 7 metrics and 21 potential correlations, at

least one false correlation could appear. Some correlations also emerge quite

unexpectedly, as illustrated by the humorous website “Spurious Correlations.”

Look for indicators of correlation beyond statistical strength. One such measure is

gradient, which suggests that a correlation between A stimulus and B event is more likely

if a greater use of A causes more B. You can also simply try to reproduce your results.

Most importantly, see if you can find evidence of the causal relationship by looking to

other studies and research papers that have dealt in similar areas. Always be tentative

with your conclusions and try and back them up with other studies before declaring them

too loudly.
Refrences:

Brannen, J. (1988) The study of sensitive subjects. Sociological review. 36 (3) pp.522-

563

Holloway I. Qualitative research in health care. United States: mcgraw-Hill

International; 2005.

Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication Inc.; 2008.

Kinmond K. Coming up with a research question. Doing your qualitative psychology

project. 2012. Pp. 23–36.