Why is qualitative research sometimes given preference over

Why is qualitative research sometimes given preference over
quantitative research? Outline and discuss the main principles of
qualitative research in your answer.
Robin Brooker
There is considerable dispute and controversy surrounding the appropriateness of both,
qualitative and quantitative research strategy. According to Bryman (2012) even the definition
of “qualitative research” is subject to considerable discord. However, for the purposes of this
essay, “qualitative research” will be defined as research that focuses on meaning as opposed to
focusing on numerical data (one defining feature of a quantitative research strategy). This
essay will argue that certain preferences, attributes and values of the researcher influence the
preference of research strategy in sociological research. Firstly, the precedence of qualitative
research for varying epistemological and ontological standpoints will be addressed. Following
this, the influence of theory and theorists for choice of research strategy will be examined.
Then, the conflict between the desire for contextual understanding or generalisability will be
investigated. Lastly, the relationship between process and reasoning and qualitative research
will be assessed.
There is considerable dispute within sociology over the most appropriate epistemological
standpoint. Epistemology is defined as the ‘philosophical theory of knowledge’ (Scott and
Marshall, 2009: 221). It can be asserted, that those who take an interpretivist epistemological
standpoint (that is one based on gaining understanding of the world through the perspective
of its participants and the meanings they give to social action) are more likely to favour
qualitative research methods (Bryman, 2012). This is due to qualitative research methods
allowing deeper insight into individual behaviours and the meanings associated. There are
numerous research methods that take a qualitative approach, including
ethnography/participant observation, focus groups and qualitative analysis of documents and
texts. The interpretivist stance often rejects a quantitative research strategy, arguing that
1
quantitative methods provide an understanding of human behaviour, but no meaningful
explanation for it (Bryman, 2012). If the researcher is concerned with cause, quantitative
methods are more suitable, with correlations and numerical comparisons being possible
(Bryman, 2012). However, if the researcher requires a world-view, qualitative research is more
appropriate (Bryman, 2012). Qualitative research methods largely involve subjective
interpretation, criticized by those who give preference to objectivity and the natural scientific
method. However, Schutz (1962) argued that there is an explicit contrast between the subject
matter in sociological study (humans and social behaviour) and natural scientific study (that is
atoms, molecules etc.), rendering research strategy modelled on the natural sciences
incompatible (cited in Bryman, 2012).
In contrast, researchers who take a positivist epistemological view – arguing that sociological
study should be based on the natural sciences - are likely to reject qualitative methods for
quantitative alternatives. Quantitative methods are often defined as methods that involve the
collection and analysis of numerical data (Scott and Marshall, 2009). The collection and
analysis of numerical data is considered largely objective, contrasting to the subjective
interpretation of meaning occurring in qualitative methods. In addition, positivists assert that
research needs to be value free, ensuring that error is limited, thereby maximizing the validity
of findings (Bryman, 2012). Therefore, positivists who favour quantitative research argue that
qualitative methods are open to researcher bias and false interpretation (Macionis and
Plummer, 2012). It should be noted that epistemology is not limited to interpretivism and
positivism, they are augmented by the emergence of a new epistemology, “queer theory”,
which is concerned with the apparent bias in sociology towards heterosexuality, with queer
theory emphasizing the value of homosexual-voices being heard (Macionis and Plummer,
2012). The choice of research strategy applicable to emerging epistemologies is unclear, with
the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods. Hence, it is likely that the researcher’s
ideology and other variables will influence their preference of methodology in their
sociological research.
2
Qualitative methodology allows the researcher to see through the eyes of the people being
studied (Bryman, 2012). Arguably, the most effective method by which the researcher can take
the perspective of those being studied is participant observation. Armstrong’s (1993) study
into football hooliganism, involved Armstrong becoming a participant himself, by becoming a
supporter of Sheffield United Football Club (cited in Bryman, 2012). Bryman (2012) asserts
that by becoming a participant, Armstrong could see through the eyes of the people being
studied. Interpretivists favour research methods that allow the researcher to see through the
eyes of the participants, as they are the most effective at showing meaning and individual
interpretation. This stance is largely empathetic (Bryman, 2012), so preference for qualitative
research methods may be preferential to those who argue that the role of the sociologist is to
help individuals, especially those on the edges of society, such as the homeless, elderly and
ethnic minorities.
Moreover, qualitative research takes on a constructionist ontological position (Bryman, 2012).
Ontology is defined as any means of attaining understanding of the world (Scott and Marshall,
2009). Constructionists assert that social properties and meaning are constructed through
social interactions and interpretation, and do not exist independently of these (Robson, 2011).
Therefore, constructionists argue that the only way to gain insight into these meanings is
through the micro-level study of social interactions using qualitative research methods.
Robson (2011) asserts that constructionists argue that there are many social realities, and the
role of the researcher is to understand the many constructions of meaning. Becker (1982) adds
that social reality is in a constant state of reconstruction, with social reality being formed by
social interaction (cited in Bryman, 2012).
Furthermore, the suitability of qualitative research methods depends on the interaction being
researched. Qualitative research is useful in researching minority groups or groups of
individuals not directly involved in mainstream interactions of societies, such as the homeless
and the elderly, with the use of appropriate sampling techniques to reach these populations,
such as snowball sampling (Bryman, 2012). Quantitative methods often fail to reach these
groups. For example, postal-questionnaires fail to reach the homeless population; therefore
3
data on this minority group is not obtained. Qualitative methods, such as ethnography and
unstructured interviews with the minority groups, are therefore, more likely to provide more
accurate data. Moreover, certain quantitative methods may prove difficult with certain closed
settings (Bryman, 2012). Mattley’s (2006) investigation into working for a sex-fantasy phone
line, would have been difficult without covert observation, a research method whereby the
researcher undertakes a role within a group, without giving true acknowledgment for the real
reasons of the individual being there, being used (cited in Bryman, 2012). Surveys and other
quantitative methods are unlikely to stimulate accurate and truthful answers from individuals
in these settings. Additionally, many individuals may refuse to give consent for the study,
meaning limited data is gathered. Therefore, the suitability of the research method is
dependent on the research setting and those being researched.
Competing theories and their ascribed theorists often favour one research strategy. Durkheim,
who is associated with functionalism, relied heavily on statistical evidence (quantitative data)
in his theory of suicide (Macionis and Plummer, 2012). Durkheim (2006) used the
representativeness of statistical data with its large base of participants and cultural variability,
to create a generalised overarching theory (Durkheim, 2006). However, constructionists would
assert that the diversity of meanings, mean an overarching theory is not possible, with the
rejection of the quantitative methods used to arrive at this conclusion. Interpretivists are likely
to assert that qualitative methods, such as unstructured interviews and observational
techniques should be used to come to understand the individual meanings attached to suicide.
They argue that it is this that creates the social reality. The theory of suicide asserted by
Douglas (1967) can be described as interpretivist.
Those who take a feminist stance are likely to favour qualitative research methods. Many
writers assert that qualitative research methods are associated with feminist ideology
(Bryman, 2012). Bryman (2012) asserts that qualitative research arguably provides women
with a voice, and in contrast to quantitative research, women are not treated as objects and
controlled by the procedures of the researcher. The objectivity, structure and distance between
the researcher and participant is largely incompatible with the feminist values (Bryman, 2012).
4
However, it should be noted that in recent times, many feminist researchers have relaxed their
aggressive stance towards quantitative methods (Bryman, 2012).
Furthermore, those who take the theoretical stance of Symbolic Interactionism are likely to
favour qualitative methods. Symbolic Interactionism was developed by the Chicago School
(Becker, 1999). Symbolic Interactionists argue that social interaction consistently takes place,
with variation and changes in an individual’s perception of social reality (Macionis and
Plummer, 2012). Therefore, qualitative methods that allow the researcher to see through the
eyes of the participant to gain a micro-level understanding of the perceptions and meanings
given by the individual, allow for the criteria of Symbolic Interactionism to be met. However, a
conflict exists with the common view that the Chicago School, and the theoretical stance of
Symbolic Interactionism, associated with qualitative research strategy, is inaccurate (Becker,
1999). Hughes (1897-1983), a renowned sociologist of the Chicago School, who had close links
to development of symbolic interactionism, favoured both quantitative and qualitative
research strategy (Hughes, nd, cited in Becker, 1999). Thus, the theoretical stance is not always
indicative of preferred research strategy.
What is more, qualitative research methods often provide significant amounts of description,
with much of this description being trivial (Bryman, 2012). Geertz (1973) argued for a 'thick
description' of the social settings, events and the individuals within it (cited in Bryman, 2012:
392). According to qualitative researchers, this descriptive detail allows for contextual
understanding of social interactions, whereby social behaviour can be understood in terms of
the environment in which it operates (Bryman, 2012). For example, to understand why some
Muslim women wear the burka, it is necessary to understand the wider Islamic belief system.
However, it can be asserted that the findings of qualitative research, because of the focus on
the context of particular communities, cannot be generalised across societies and cultures
(Bryman, 2012). In contrast, quantitative research usually takes place on a greater scale, with
more participants, thus allowing for increased generalisability of findings. For example, largescale surveys, such as the UK Census provide vast amounts of quantitative data, thus showing
generalisability. However, many researchers argue that the desire for descriptive detail and
contextual understanding is greater than the importance of generalisability. Highly
5
generalisable findings mean increased representativeness for the overall population. This has
practical implications. If government bodies fund the research, highly generalisable and
representative findings are required, as the likely intention of research is to influence social
policy. Therefore highly representative and generalisable findings are arguably more suitable
than qualitative methods such as participant observation, which has high contextual
understanding, but low representativeness and generalisability.
Qualitative research is arguably more suitable for researchers who have made general
observations, as opposed to those who have already formulated theories to be tested.
Qualitative research commonly involves an “inductive” reasoning process, with a grounded
theory (Bryman, 2012). This involves initial observations and formation of broad research
questions; following this, data is collected and then a theory is formulated based on the data
collected (Bryman, 2012). Furthermore, if current literature and research on a particular
subject is limited, it is likely that qualitative research will be given preference (Bryman, 2012),
if only to provide a baseline understanding which would allow for informed quantitative
research and the formation of an initial theory.
In the late 1980's, Sudhir Venkatesh carried out an ethnographic study in a large Chicago
ghetto that was located next to Chicago University (Venkatesh, 2009). One research technique
used in ethnography is participant observation, whereby the researcher becomes a member of
the group being studied and engages in the social and cultural practices of that group
(Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007). Prior to data collection, Venkatesh had limited knowledge
of street gangs in the Chicago ghetto and theories and concepts were developed during data
collection based on the observations made (Venkatesh, 2009).
In contrast, quantitative research methods are usually associated with deductive reasoning
(Macionis and Plummer, 2012). To give a simplified illustration of the process, deductive
reasoning involves the formation of a theory and associated hypotheses, data collection and
analysis, and then the formation of conclusions and findings (Bryman, 2012). In short, the goal
6
is to test a specific theory. The formation of surveys, interviews and questionnaires would be
difficult without an initial theory being used, thus quantitative methods often use a deductive
reasoning process. Phil Zuckerman (2008), in his research on religion in Nordic countries,
relied heavily on interviews with the citizens of Denmark and Sweden (Zuckerman, 2008). It
would have been difficult for Zuckerman to develop the questions required for interview,
without having an initial theory to base the questions on. In addition, deductive reasoning
reflects the processes that occur in the natural sciences (Bryman, 2012), thus the association
of quantitative methods and deductive reasoning, increases the preference of quantitative
methods for those researchers who take the positivist epistemological position. Furthermore,
some researchers may argue that starting an ethnographic study with the intention of testing
theories, researcher confirmation bias is likely to occur, whereby data and observations will be
collected that complement the theory being tested. Thus, deductive reasoning is incompatible
with qualitative methods. Therefore, the choice of whether quantitative or qualitative research
methods are used depends on whether the researcher already holds specific theories, or
whether the researcher plans to develop theories based on the data obtained. However,
research studies that have followed the inductive reasoning process are often iterative.
Whereas deduction occurs at the end of a study and following formation of a theory based on
data collection, further data will be collected to support and test the theory that has been
formulated (Bryman, 2012).
The preference over the flexibility and structure of the study will affect the suitability of
qualitative research methods. According to Bryman (2012), qualitative research methods are
more flexible and lack structure, with a rejection of determined formats for study (Bryman,
2012). Bryman (2012) asserts that if structured plans are used, the researcher is beginning the
study with preliminary ideas of what they are going to encounter, thus a true picture and an
accurate worldview of the participants cannot be obtained. Thus, researchers favour
qualitative methods when they desire lack of structure and flexibility, to allow the genuine
perspectives of the participants to be revealed. Moreover, this allows for deeper description
and a contextual understanding that is fundamental to the qualitative research process. The
researchers enter with a limited knowledge and through qualitative methods make rich,
descriptive observations. This contrasts with the reasoning process of deduction, whereby a
7
theory has already been formed, thus the researcher will concentrate on finding specific
concepts and data to support the theory and reject contradictory findings.
In conclusion, researchers often prefer qualitative research strategies over quantitative
research strategies. Qualitative research strategies are often given preference when the
researcher takes an interpretivist epistemological standpoint, whereby the researcher is
concerned with the meaning given to social action by the participants. Likewise, those who
take an ontologically constructionist position, are more likely to favour qualitative research.
Furthermore, there is a close affiliation between the inductive reasoning process and a
qualitative research strategy. The theoretical stance of the researcher will influence adherence
to their preferred research methods. In contrast, functional positivists who give preference to
the natural scientific methods of objectivity and value-free sociology, often prefer quantitative
methods. However, it should be noted that reasons for preference of a qualitative research
strategy are not limited to those stated within this essay.
8
References
Becker HS (1999) The Chicago School, So-Called. Qualitative Sociology 22(1): 3-12.
Bryman A (2012) Social Research Methods 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Douglas JD (1967) The Social Meanings of Suicide. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Durkheim E (2006) On Suicide (R Buss, Trans.). London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Hammersley M and Atkinson P (2007) Ethnography: Principles in practice 3rd edn. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Macionis JJ and Plummer K (2012) Sociology: A global introduction 5th edn. Harlow: Pearson
Education Limited.
Robson C (2011) Real World Research: A resource for users of social research methods in applied
settings 3rd edn. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Scott J and Marshall G (2009) A Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Venkatesh SA (2009) Gang Leader For A Day: A rogue sociologist crosses the line. London:
Penguin Books Ltd.
Zuckerman P (2008) Society Without God: What the least religious nations can tell us about
contentment. New York: New York University Press.
9