I was chatting to an old lecturer of mine last week, who is teaching stats to undergraduates. She was talking about having to teach them qualitative research techniques, and I said I thought that was great, because when I was an undergraduate all I did was quantitative stuff (i.e. loads and loads of stats), but had little teaching, if any, on qualitative methods such as grounded theory or interpretative phenomenological analysis. When I said this to her she looked at me as though I had three heads and went on to have a rant at me about how useless qualitative research is, pointless, pathetic, a waste of time and resources etc etc. I was gobsmacked! In our field (Clinical Psychology), although quantitative research is dominant and hugely important, I thought the importance of qualitative work was finally becoming more well recognised! My own project was originally all quant, but I have since added a smallish qual study as I have come to realise that there are some aspects of human experience that simply can't be captured using numbers and stats. Have you guys also come across attitudes like this? I expect this sort of attitude from people who don't really understand qualitative research methods and the rigorous nature of these types of analyses, but not from someone in my own field! I was shocked! KB

Thats really interesting, because I've only really been taught qualitative methods and therefore I wouldn't follow anything else. I'm also in Psychology, but sort of the opposite end to you as I focus on Sociological theory as well, basically I combine the two but its transdisciplinary rather than interdisciplinary. So the only methods I can really apply in research are qualitative, eg. discourse analysis, memory work etc. In my opinion I couldn't get the same depth using quantitative methods, but then again I am not really looking to generalise my findings. In my opinion, and I'm only at MSc level so this might not be 'right', quant and qual are as good as each other, but it depends on what you're looking at. I think its really good when they complement each other, as you're doing, because it does give another level to quant research.

At my university, if there is a negative attitude it is towards quantitative research, but that is probably juse down to the type of research that is being produced there.

I think it depends on your subject area. My undergrad was a joint honours in criminology and psychology, and most of what we learnt was quantitative - there is a HUGE emphasis on stats in criminological studies, despite the fact that researchers will admit that stats often mean nothing, because not all crime is reported, etc, etc, however, for the social psychology side, we only did qualitative stuff. I've now moved over to education, and pretty much all the educational researchers I know and have read, use qualitative, while quantitative research in this area is in the minority.

I think there's still quite a bit of stigma around the use of qualitative methods because it detracts from the "absolute truth" which research is perceived to seek out. However, I can't see the point in stats anymore really, because it says nothing about human nature and the phenomenon we (or at least I) study. For physical sciences and maths I guess it's a completely different story, but for social sciences which attempt to understand and explain behaviour and lived experience, I think qualitative methods are the way forward.

======= Date Modified 08 Dec 2009 13:59:51 =======
======= Date Modified 08 Dec 2009 13:59:12 =======
Post deleted - went on a bit of a rant!

I have to do both for my PhD and although I can see the benefit of qualitative - I absolutely HATE it. I would far rather get my SPSS thang on!

although to be honest, you can twist stats to say anything you want anyway, just like qual!

I love this quan-qual debate that goes on. For all the fancy general linear models that SPSS can throw up, all the fancy things you can do with stats, it all comes down to one thing with quan - there is only one objective, unifying, measurable reality. That's bollocks. And I'm not talking about the way Mrs Jones views the world from Mr Bandana. If we want to get physical, what about quantum mechanics and the proselytised existence of multiple alternate realities? Kind of blows the quantitative positivistic paradigm out the water.
That leaves us with qualitative research and its lovely paradigms. I think it's only a number fetish and traditional (very old) research training and education that stops more people from embracing it. Certainly there's more too it that anyone realises. Sneaks, I'm surprised about the dismissive way you say that the results of qualitative research can easily be manipulated as desired. No, they cannot. As you know, to have any rigour you must maintain a very thorough audit trail so that others can follow exactly what you did and, if necessary, re-enact it. Quantitative research has it's place, but for the human sciences so does qualitative research. You can't study societal traditions or someone's end of life perceptions with a bloody 2-way ANOVA and confirmatory factor analysis.

ah Wal, perhaps I am a little bitter - if you have followed recent events on my accountability thread. I do though think that with quant and qual, you can basically decide what you want to come out of it and then find it somewhere - audit trail or not! At the moment I am bogged down in horrible Qual data, ask me again in 6 months when I have gone onto my questionnaire study and I wil probably be scowling about SPSS deficiencies!

One of my studies uses both, where I code statements and then compare groups using basic stats! I think that a combination of methods is the future *sneaks points into the sky*

Ah, it's refreshing to see some positive attitudes to qualitative research on the forum. I think most of the time people with negative attitudes towards qual stuff are those who have little understanding of how rigorous qualitative analyses can be...I have to admit, a couple of years ago I thought all qual researchers did was to root through a load of interview data and find quotes to back up whatever they wanted to say! I think I'm probably in a more quantitative department, if there's such a thing, as there is a lot of cognitive research and biological psychology/psychiatry research going on here, which tends to be analysed with stats. I do like my SPSS or whatever, and am actually coming to think that stats are the easier option now I'm faced with my qual data! Then again...stats will probably never be an easy option! KB

There was an interesting article in the Times Higher Education with numerous proessors and people from the ESRC saying that there is not enough research students and researchers using quantitative methods and the UK's international status in social science.

I guess that the fact that PhDs that involve 'hardcore' quantitative analysis get an enhanced stipend from the ESRC shows that they are keen to get more people doing quantitative PhDs in social science.

This is the link to the THE article:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409323&c=1

Hi Keenbean,

as you know the method used should depend on the research question. As such both methods have its place. However, I think people often have preferences, which may be based on their experience, skills and probably also prejudices. As such your lecturer in statistics may like numbers and may find it hard to deal with the openness and wideness of qualitative methods. I admit that is a bit strange though, that she is teaching qualitative research techniques as well!


:-)

How is your neck, foot etc.?

I think that qual. methods are more difficult for the reseracher during data gathering. You have to have your attention there all the time.
When you use quant. methods you can be more relaxed. You can just hand out your questionnaires and collect them...
But again this is only my opinion from my experience at social sciences.....

Hi! I completely agree Rick, I believe that both types of research have their place, and each can answer questions that the other method would not be suitable for. I just find it astounding that people so high up in their field (one which values both quant and qual research so highly) can be so ignorant about the uses and benefits of qual research...I can understand people not liking it or not wanting to do it, but it's the fact that people find it so easy to dismiss it as a waste of time that irritates me somewhat! It's funny you should say that Emmaki, I actually find it harder to collect quant data than qual, but then my quant data isn't just questionnaire measures, I have lots of neuropsychological tasks to work through as well, which takes a lot of itme and concentration! But then it's the qual stuff that takes all the time when it comes to the analysis! Well I'm just going to do both anyway, and enjoy the best and worst of both worlds! I'm getting there with the foot and neck thanks...still painful but been to see my supervisor yesterday and have plenty of things to keep me busy whilst I am immobile! KB xxx

I guess it depends on the subject....Whenever I used quant I found that gathering my data was easy as a process. While, now that I am doing interviews.....OMG!!!!!

Maybe it's a matter of personal preference..... Of course both methods have their pros and cons!;-)