NR 505 Week 4 Discussion: Qualitative Design and Sampling
With the focus on qualitative design and sampling, this is a great opportunity to compare and
... [Show More] contrast quantitative and qualitative research approaches. For each of the following areas, apply information that considers one advantage and one disadvantage regarding
• control over study conditions with the quantitative research approach;
• control over study conditions with the qualitative research approach;
• extending or generalizing results from a sample to a larger group or population with the quantitative research approach; and
• extending or generalizing results from a sample to a larger group or population with the qualitative research approach.
Be sure to include scholarly references to support your information.
ANSWER
There are two main approaches to research: qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative methods to explore the phenomenon and understand the participants’ different constructions of their life experiences, followed by a quantitative method for the measurement and generalization of the findings based on the collection of data on large samples.
Quantitative methods have traditionally been considered more rigorous than qualitative methods, with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews being the 'gold standard' for determining evidence. There is an established ranking or hierarchy of evidence for assessing the quality and robustness of methodological approaches (Hoe & Hoare, 2012).
RCTs are experimental studies that are used to test the effectiveness of interventions between two or more groups, usually an intervention and a control group (Hoe & Hoare, 2012). Participants are randomly allocated to a group and the intervention is delivered under tightly controlled conditions to avoid systematic errors (bias) and random errors (chance). The study participants and/or those undertaking the research assessments may be blinded (single-blind where either the participant or the researcher is unaware to which group the participant has been randomly allocated, or double-blind where the participant and researcher are unaware of the allocation), where information about who is and who is not receiving the intervention is concealed until the trial is complete. Data are usually collected before and after the intervention and differences in outcome examined between the groups (McKeon & McKeon, 2016).
Qualitative research approach, which is based on grounded theory, operates almost in a reverse fashion; rather than starting with a hypothesis, it begins by data collection in the form of text (narrative) using in-depth interviews, FGD, observations, etc. The data analysis steps include extraction of key points from the text or the narrative which are marked as codes. The codes are then summarized into similar concepts in order to make the extensive text data more comprehensible. From the concepts, categories are formed.
According to Setia (2017), Qualitative research is often criticized for its lack of scientific analysis considerations. In particular, the criticisms of qualitative research relate to issues of representativeness and generalizability of the findings, reliability, and validity. Analytical concepts for qualitative research are defined, and suggestions based on the literature are given to enhance trustworthiness of focus group data and reporting (Setia, 2017).
For basic research (quantitative), generalizability is sacrificed for control in order to show specific underlying mechanisms. No matter how well-defined the population, there are so many inherent individual differences that investigators cannot account for all of these. To some readers, this may seem sloppy and neglectful to those all-critical steps to producing good research (McKeon & McKeon, 2016).
For epidemiological research (qualitative), control is sacrificed for generalizability (the ability to state, with confidence, universal conclusions that are common to the greater population). This research, while low on the control side, is critically important to elucidating the trends that affect the population at large, which can generate important scientific inquiry (McKeon & McKeon, 2016).
Both methods have limits in the quality of their results: for both, any change of context changes the meaning and the interpretation of the results, and for both, the quality of the inferences is limited in that the result is merely situated (QUAL) or in that the generalization does not deepen our knowledge of the specific context (QUANT). According to an ecological perspective, both methods can be lacking in value in that the transformative perspective has not been taken into consideration (McKeon & McKeon, 2016).
References:
Medina McKeon, J. M., & McKeon, P. O. (2016). A Balancing Act Between Control and Generalizability. International Journal of Athletic Therapy & Training, 21(2), 1-3. doi:10.1123/ijatt.2016-0010
Hoe, J., & Hoare, Z. (2012). Understanding quantitative research: part 1. Nursing Standard, 27(15-17), 52-57.
Setia, M. S. (2017). Methodology Series Module 10: Qualitative Health Research. Indian Journal of Dermatology, 62(4), 367-370. doi:10.4103/ijd.IJD_290_17
Response to Prof
One author I once read argued that quantitative and qualitative research do not exist as a dichotomy but rather on a continuum where the "best" approach is based on that research question. What are your thoughts?
Dr. Pat,
Your statement regarding the non-existent of the quantitative versus qualitative dichotomy is very interesting, for healthscience researches have recently gravitate toward using the “mixed” method. Quantitative and qualitative approaches sometimes are picked up and embedded one in the other to provide new insights required in public health. For example, in a randomized controlled trial, which was conducted to compare two doses (high and low) of a nurse- led psycho educational intervention to assist oncology outpatients to effectively manage their pain, qualitative data was collected in the form of audiotapes of the intervention sessions with nurse and patient for exploring the issues, strategies, and interactions experienced during the intervention. The study provided evaluation of the processes along with the outcomes of the intervention.
Mixed method approach helps in having a more comprehensive understanding of the structure and functioning of society at large. Mixed method research intentionally integrates quantitative and qualitative methods rigorously to draw on the strengths of each other to ensure that the results of a study are more close to reality.
Reference;
Kaur, M. (2016). Application of Mixed Method Approach in Public Health Research. Indian Journal Of Community Medicine, 41(2), 93-97. doi:10.4103/0970-0218.173495
Response to Peer:
Thank you Luisa, class several of you have brought up the potential bias in qualitative research. As you read studies, look to see if the researcher addresses this potential limitation to the study.
Hello Luisa,
I enjoyed reading your post, for your layout was very easy to understand. I agree with the biases as limitations or disadvantages, though not only in qualitative design, but also in quantitative as well.
According to Malone, Nicholl & Tracey (2014), it is not possible to completely remove systematic bias or to have a complete awareness of all possible types of systematic bias. Thus, on-going awareness of the potential presence of bias in the research process ensures that systematic bias may be kept to a minimum. Such awareness also facilitates a more meaningful critical scrutiny of research results and conclusions prior to submission for publication. When attempting to eliminate one type of systematic bias, a researcher may inadvertently introduce another form of bias. A researcher’s goal should be to identify potential bias in the study design and implementation, to minimize identified potential bias where feasible and, where this is not possible, present study findings in a way that informs the reader of the degree to which any residual bias exists. The extent of bias should be described, as it may be of sufficient importance to exercise caution when deriving conclusions from the study findings and translating them into clinical practice.
Reference:
Malone, H., Nicholl, H., & Tracey, C. (2014). Awareness and minimization of systematic bias in research. British Journal of Nursing, 23(5), 279-282. [Show Less]