Question

Differentiate between qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. What are the major differences in approach reflective of a philosophical base?

Answer 1

Ans. Qualitative research is a type of empathic, empirical, exploratory, direct, physical research. It helps you understand reasons, motivations, opinions, trends that hide behind the more quantitative data of quantitative research.

Quantitative research

As the word itself says, quantitative research helps you quantify, use numeric data or just data that can then be easily transformed into statistics, and it measures behavior, opinions and attitudes of a large sample of respondents.

differences between qualitative and quantitative research:

Theory / research ratio : Qualitative research: Inductive setting that is articulated in the context of “discovery”, the researcher rejects the formulation of theories. Theory and research work simultaneously.

Quanti: Sequential phases, based on a deductive approach that is articulated in the context of “justification”. The theory precedes the research.

Concepts : Quali: They seek to find the character of uniqueness.

Quanti: Definitive and operative, they are the theory and are converted from the beginning into variables.

Relationship with the studied environment :

Quali: (active subject) Naturalistic approach: space and actions are analyzed in the present time during the research.

Quanti: (passive subject) Experimental approach: the subject is not responsive but this is not a problem.

Interaction researcher/respondent :

Quali: Essential, it is necessary that empathy arises between the two parts.

Quanti: Almost absent, the interviewer must be warm and human but must not interact outside the questionnaire.

Search design :

Quali: Without a structure, open, in search of unexpected options, it gets modified in progress.

Quanti: Closed structure, planned in advance.

Representativeness of the respondent :

Quali: Inexistent. Different info are taken on different levels of depth.

Quanti: It is necessary to use representative samples.

Uniformity of the detection instrument :

Quali: Absent. Not necessarily always the same.

Quanti: It is necessary to use a standard.

Nature of data :

Quali: Soft: Data collected in their integrity, subjective.

Quanti: Hard: objective and standardized data.

Type of respondent :

Quali: Unique individual.

Quanti: Variable individual.

Type of analysis :

Quali: Case based, prospettiva olistica del comportamento umano.

Quanti: Variable based, mathematical and statistical techniques.

Presentation of data :

Quali: Quotes, narrative-style extracts, to allow reality as it has been experienced during the study.

Quanti: Tables and graphs, statistics, analysis and comparison with data obtained and data from past years and with estimates.

Generalization:

Quali Absent. Identification of the Weberian ideal types, interpretation of reality.

Quanti: Necessary. Individual fragmentation, correlation between variables, conceptual unit in the random model.

Scope of results :

Quali: Limited number of cases.

Quanti: Significant number, representativity.

Methodology :

Quali: Observation of the respondent in the focus room, interviews with privileged witnesses.

Quanti: Structured questionnaire for CATI, CAWI or PAPI.

Qualitative Methods :

Methods include focus groups, in-depth interviews, and reviews of documents for types of themes.

Primarily inductive process used to formulate theory or hypotheses.

More subjective: describes a problem or condition from the point of view of those experiencing it.

Text based.

More in-depth information on a few cases.

Unstructured or semi-structured response options.

No statistical tests.

Can be valid and reliable: largely depends on skill and rigor of the researcher.

Time expenditure lighter on the planning end and heavier during the analysis phase.

Less generalizable.

Quantitative Methods:

Surveys, structured interviews & observations, and reviews of records or documents for numeric information.

Primarily deductive process used to test pre-specified concepts, constructs, and hypotheses that make up a theory.

More objective: provides observed effects (interpreted by researchers) of a program on a problem or condition.

Number based.

Less in-depth but more breadth of information across a large number of cases.

Fixed response options.

Statistical tests are used for analysis.

Can be valid and reliable: largely depends on the measurement device or instrument used.

Time expenditure heavier on the planning phase and lighter on the analysis phase.

More generalizable.

Ans2. Academic advising interactions can and do profoundly alter individual lives, and as such, it’s important for us to reflect on what we think we know and to recognize how we came to that understanding. For example, when a student seeks advisor input on selecting a general education course, what guides the response? Setting aside some pragmatic concerns of what courses are available, or what requirements the student has already completed, the advisor’s response is influenced by beliefs about the role of general education in meeting higher education’s outcomes as well as by what the advisor knows about students like the one who posed the question. In this very typical interaction, the advisor uses both theory and philosophy to inform practice.

When used in academic advising the term philosophy is meant to indicate critical examination of practices and assumptions. describes philosophy as reflective thinking that lays the context for experience. A philosophy is thinking about our thinking. This usage is consistent with other definitions of philosophy as a way of using critical, logical, and systematic thinking to examine deeply held beliefs or social practices. A philosophy is a way of thinking that provides the context in which decisions about action are made, and prompts us to devote attention to intentions and ethics.

In addition, a critical and systematic way of thinking about current beliefs and practice adds intentionality and deliberation to our work This intentionality occurs in a personal philosophy, developed and maintained by an individual, and in a community-based or discipline-based philosophy, developed and maintained by a social group. A personal and community based philosophy share the same premise; both examine deeply held beliefs and practices. As a member of a community, a personal philosophy should align with a community held philosophy; otherwise there may be inconsistency, contradiction, and dispute for the individual, the community, or both.

Theory : In academic advising, we are often most concerned with theories which describe various elements of human behavior that typically derive from social sciences; however, theories from humanities have been used to inform practice. A theory is a set of statements, principles, or ideas by which authority we make claims about the world. For example, cognitive dissonance theory predicts what humans will typically do when confronted with situations that bring their reality and expectations into conflict. Advisors can use this theory to predict results from particular interventions. When based in scientific disciplines, theories are testable and can be falsified through empirical observations.

Relationship between philosophy, theory, and practice:

Philosophy and theory are perpetually linked; philosophy influences how one sees the world, theory shapes how one intentionally interacts with that world. A philosophy impacts the definition of important problems and theories provide strategies to arrive at solutions to those problems. Together, philosophy and theory guide decisions about the approach taken in an academic advising encounter.

For example, an advisor may engage a student in reflective conversation about the student’s decision to drop a course. But why? What drove that choice of approach? Perhaps that advisor is informed by self-authorship theory, which suggests that students need to be prompted and supported in reflective thinking in order to help them make meaning of an educational experience. But why does the advisor think self-authorship theory and its subsequent methods are relevant to his or her work? Self-authorship theory is based in the philosophy that it is desirable for individuals to learn to balance a complex array of factors, including their own identities and values, when making decisions. If the advisor subscribes to the philosophy that higher education ought to promote students’ abilities to do this, and the philosophy that academic advising plays a role in meeting these outcomes, then self-authorship theory is relevant, as are the methods that stem from it. When presented with a different scenario, the advisor may draw from other relevant theories to interpret and react to the situation.

But what if the advisor does not—or feels too pressed for time to—approach advising from a basis in theory and philosophy? How would the advisor decide what is important? How would the advisor be guided in how to proceed? For example, an advisor who has not considered his or her personal advising philosophy, or the philosophy of education espoused by his or her institution, or who has not acquired a tool kit of theories and their attendant approaches, may encounter the same student who is considering dropping a course in a transactional manner. Or, worse, perhaps the advisor reacts to the situation from habit, or assumption, and responds in ways that damage a student’s resiliency or commitment to education.