Much of the debate about quantitative versus qualitative research centers on the differences of beliefs, within the field of psychology, specifically, how to make psychology more acceptable in the scientific arena. Nastasi & Schensul (2005) argue that this debate, between which research paradigm is best, is propelled by extremists in either camp. Scientists argue that qualitative research opens the door for too much bias as researchers beliefs become intertwined with their studies (Nastasi & Schensul, 2005). Patton (2002) sees this intermingling as just one of the schools of thought within qualitative research. Patton (2002) further contends that this form of research- auto ethnography- has its place in the field of psychology and thus, scientific studies. Still, strong opposition to the possibility of bias has caused the field of psychology to be dominated by quantitative research (Nastasi & Schensul, 2005).
Then too, qualitative research is grounded in constructivist teachings (Baban, 2008). The idea of studying the human and the human condition, as noted by Laureate (2006), is the core principle of constructivist thought and qualitative research. These ideas are necessary to be studied if researchers are to truly understand their populations. However, this notion of studying the human is also a point of contention between quantitative and qualitative researchers. It should be noted that quantitative research is positivistic in nature (Baban, 2008). This means that according to those who believe in positivistic science, believes that there are definite right and wrong answers to life’s questions (Patton, 2002). Those who are constructionists feel that no answer is more right than another (Patton, 2002). Clearly, these differences in ideals could spell trouble for the field of psychology, as many argue against combining the schools of thought regarding research (Baban, 2008).
Finally, individuals within opposing schools of thought got together to work collaboratively. They noticed that working together, helped to reveal key aspects of a social problem, which one method could not reveal alone (Baban, 2008). What’s more, this combination of sorts gave way to a field called mixed methods. Now, this mixed methods field is widely accepted as suitable for researching social problems (Laureate, 2006).
Personally, I proscribe to the idea that, no one school of thought is better than the other. In fact, I believe that a research question should determine the appropriate school of thought- qualitative or quantative- that is used (Laureate, 2006). The question and purpose of my question will determine how I perform a study. Some questions are much better suited to one paradigm versus the other.
References:
Babon, A. (2008). Reconceptualization of the division between quantitative and qualitative research methods. Cognition, Brain & Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11(4), 337- 343.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2006). Research design. Baltimore: Author.
Nastasi, B. K. & Schensul, S. L. (2005). Contributions of qualitative research to the validity of intervention research. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 177-195.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Variety in qualitative inquiry: Theoretical orientations. In Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed., pp. 75-142). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Reprinted by Permission of Sage Publications, Inc
