Interrogating the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide Martyn Hammersley The Open University NCRM Research Methods Festival, St Catherine’s College, Oxford, July 2012

How To Define the Divide? As: The difference between using qualitative or quantitative data, along with the methods typically employed for these? Or as: The difference between the methodological ideas to be found amongst qualitative researchers versus those that are found amongst quantitative researchers?

Narrowing the Focus There are some ideas that are to be found amongst qualitative researchers today that I am going to rule out right at the beginning. These claim that the task of research is to: 1.Capture ‘lived reality’. 2.Critically evaluate social institutions and make recommendations for change. 3.Directly engage in bringing about some practical improvement in the world. 4.Question the credibility of all social knowledge and expertise.

The Task of Social Research? To answer descriptive and explanatory questions about social phenomena. In practice, most social research is concerned with producing explanations. This means that, wittingly or unwittingly, it engages in causal analysis, if we interpret that phrase in broad terms. However, it is a premiss of my discussion that, generally speaking, this task is not achieved very effectively.

A Reconceptualisation of the Divide Identifying the options available in relation to each aspect of the research process, namely: Formulating research questions Planning the research Selecting cases for investigation Collecting data Analysing data Writing research reports The multiple ways in which these options can be combined must also be recognised.

Within-case and Cross-case Analysis There can be investigation of associations and sequences within a particular case, and of participant ideas about what causes what there. This evidence serves as a resource that, along with theoretical interpretation, allows explanatory ideas to be developed and tested. Cross-case analysis: examination of similar and different cases, along the lines of J. S. Mill’s methods, in which theoretical interpretations are developed and tested against the evidence.

Combination of, and Variation Within, these Strategies These two strategies can be combined, and very often this will be necessary in order to develop and test explanatory hypotheses effectively. There are also some alternative options within the two strategies. In the case of cross-case analysis, we can draw a distinction between single-factor and configurational approaches.

Single Factor versus Configurational Approaches Single factor: For example, ‘Do differences in social class background determine level of educational achievement over and above differences in ability?’ Configurational: ‘What combinations of factors seem to determine differences in educational achievement?’

Differences in Assumption about Causation A deterministic approach to causation requires that the set of factors identified must always produce the specified type of outcome when certain specifiable conditions are met; and that this is the only set of factors that will do this. A contributional approach is concerned with identifying factors that significantly increase the likelihood or size of some outcome, without their being either necessary or sufficient conditions for it.

Two Currently Influential Approaches to Cross-Case Analysis Correlational analysis of the kind used in much quantitative (and some qualitative) work involves a single-factor approach, perhaps with other factors being controlled to estimate the candidate factor’s contribution to the likelihood or level of the outcome. Qualitative Comparative Analysis adopts a configurational strategy and a deterministic approach to causation, though this is moderated via notions of quasi-sufficiency and quasi-necessity.

Conclusions Causal analysis is a central task in social science. It is a very demanding one. Neither side of the divide currently deals with it in a very effective manner. But there are resources on both sides that can be developed, and in some cases can be combined, to improve the success of our efforts.

Select Bibliography Bergman, M. M. (2008) „The straw men of the qualitative-quantitative divide and their influence on mixed methods research ‟, in M. M. Bergman (eds.), Advances in Mixed Methods Research: Theories and Applications. London: Sage. Bryman, A. (1988) Quantity and Quality in Social Research, London, Allen and Unwin. Bryman, A. (2008) ‘The end of the paradigm wars?’, in Alasuutari, P., Bickman, L., and Brannen, J. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Research Methods, London, Sage. Cooper, B., Glaesser, J., Gomm, R., and Hammersley, M. (2012) Challenging the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide: Explorations in case-focused causal analysis, London, Continuum. Hammersley, M. (1992) ‘Deconstructing the qualitative-quantitative divide’, in Brannen, J. (ed.) Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research, Aldershot, Avebury. Hammersley, M. (1996) 'The relationship between quantitative and qualitative research', in J Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Psychology and the Social Sciences, Leicester, British Psychological Society Books. Hammersley, M. ‘Causality as Conundrum: The Case of Qualitative Inquiry’ Methodological Innovations Online [Online], 2(3), (2008, January 3). Available at: : 5.pdf Hammersley, M. (2008) Questioning Qualitative Inquiry, London, Sage. Ercikan, K. and Roth, W-M. (2006) ‘What good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative?’, Educational Researcher, 35, 5, pp Vogt, W. (2008) ‘Quantitative versus qualitative is a distraction: variations on a theme by Brewer and Hunter (2006)’, Methodological Innovations Online, 3, 1, pp Wood, M. and Welch, C. (2010) ‘Are “qualitative” and “quantitative” useful terms for describing research?’, Methodological Innovations Online 5, 1, pp56-71.

Advert Cooper, B., Glaesser, J., Gomm, R., and Hammersley, M. (2012) Challenging the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide: Explorations in case-focused causal analysis, London, Continuum