Possible Ways to Blend Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods Ian McDowell Seminar Presentation 1997

Overview of Talk Research methods gradually evolving in recognition of inadequacies in current methods Two paradigms: positivist / quantitative vs. subjectivist / postmodern There are strengths in each … Types of blend of the two, in: –study design –data collection –analysis –comunicating results

Styles of Thought ( how do we know that we know what we think we know?) Many dualisms throughout history of thought: Quantitative vs. qualitative Deductive vs. inductive Right brain and left Yin and Yang Apollonian and Dionysiac Male and female Reductionist vs. systems thinking

Changing philosophies of knowledge 17th & 18th centuries: order, logic and science, world seen through senses. Mechanical world. Realism and logical positivism 19 th century - social revolution: can we analyze behaviour logically? Idealism: the human mind as source of knowledge; people, not logic, crucial in explaining reality 20 th century - phenomenology; qualitative research

Two paradigms Challenge: biological variability – should we focus on the general or the specific? General = public health; epidemiology; deduction. Nomothetic Specific = clinical medicine; psychology; induction. Idiographic

Quantitative approach Describes and imposes external structure on data Gives parsimonious summary of results: reductionist (for example, shared variance is attributed to one variable; hence it is reductionistic) Seeks to isolate systems from their enviornment and to generalize Efficient, but incomplete view of interconnectedness of reality Asks the “How?” question Externally valid

Qualitative approach Interprets, explains; generates concepts Seeks to be open, flexible The investigator is the instrument; art versus science Sampling becomes a crucial issue (in data collection and in analysis) “Somewhat magical approach to analysis” Asks the “Why?” question Particularizes; internally valid

Blending Qualitative and Quantitative Metaphor of binocular vision Seeks to array strengths of one against limitations of the other Nature of the balance may depend on stage of study: qualitative in a process evaluation, quantitative in outcome study, for example

Five blends Hierarchical model: one method takes the lead i. qualitative leads ii. quantitative leads Partnership model: equal but contrasting contributions iii.sequential iv.cyclical v.simultaneous application (triangulation)

Applying these Types of Blend In different stages of research: 1.Conceptualizing the study 2.Collecting data 3.Analysing data 4.Interpreting the data

Stage 1: Conceptualizing the Study Hierarchical model, quantitative leading, in “hard” studies Hierarchical model, qualitative leading, in “soft” topics Partnership model applicable in mixed studies or in broad programme of research that involves sequence of individual studies Sequential partnership in formulating study: qualitative leads into quantitative

Stage 2: Collecting the Data Goal of blending approaches is to compensate for limitations in each approach Hierarchical model illustrated by data supplementation (e.g., qualitative interviews highlight responses to a standardised questionnaire) Partnership sequential model illustrated in qualitative work to develop questionnaires

Stage 3: Data analysis Generally hierarchical; determined by design of study. Orientation of funding agencies often makes it hard to achieve a true balance (“disciplinary racism”) Hierarchical, quantitative leading illustrated by analyses of outliers Hierarchical, qualitative leading: case studies are followed by secondary analysis fo quantitative data (e.g. a survey) to estimate representativeness of insights gained from the case study Iterative analyses in partnership model, but this will probably be criticized from both camps.

4: Interpretation & Dissemination Hierarchical, quantitative leading: –Use case histories or quotations to illustrate quantitative results –Use qualitative results to comment on exceptions to the rule Hierarchical, qualitative leading: use quantitative results to validate what people suspected all along

Future Directions There’s increasing awareness in funding agencies of the importance of qualitative research. It’s a start, but…. However, the paradigms are sufficiently different that it’s very hard to blend them: attempts rapidly lead to criticism that you are perverting the tenets of each approach Disciplinary purity seems remarkably important to academics – a fundamental part of personal identity – so conflicts will be common A successful blend will be truly “transdisciplinary”