Discuss
the following statement: “Quantitative research is more important than
qualitative research because it results in statistical information and
conclusive findings.”
“Quantitative research is
more important than qualitative research because it results in statistical
information and conclusive findings” stated that the functions of quantitative research are
more important than qualitative research. However, this statement is not that
suitable and reliable nowadays. Quantitative research, as well as qualitative
research, plays a significant role in today marketing research area. They
enable researchers to analyze and evaluate people's behaviours and thinking for
a particular topic. Most companies use this research methodology to get
reliable and primary data. "The distinction between qualitative and
quantitative research are closely parallels the distinction between exploratory
and conclusive research (Belliveau,
Abbie and Somermeyer 2002)."
Qualitative data are gathered primarily in the
form of spoken or written language rather than in the form of numbers. This type of research is to identify the social
meaning and individuals' interaction in terms of gathering people feelings,
views, attitudes, interests, motivations and beliefs (Donald E 2005) .In other words, the
researchers are more likely to get the results by understanding how people
perform their human actions in society. For this reason, qualitative research
is not only a useful tool for the identification of population study, but also
more accurate than quantitative research (McDaniel
and Gates 1988). In
other words, qualitative research yields insight rather than compute, to
investigate rather than pin down. For instance, focus group, which is one type
of qualitative research, can produces insight into complex issues such as
customer preferences (Hanson and Grimmer 2007) .
There are several strengths of qualitative research. First is its ability to provide complex expressive descriptions and to find out the underlying reasons and motivation from the interviewee. Secondly, it is also more flexible as the format is less structured than quantitative research. Third, the information gathered is more as it is of an open-ended questions interview, which makes the information harder to replicate (Wolstenholme 1999) .
There are several strengths of qualitative research. First is its ability to provide complex expressive descriptions and to find out the underlying reasons and motivation from the interviewee. Secondly, it is also more flexible as the format is less structured than quantitative research. Third, the information gathered is more as it is of an open-ended questions interview, which makes the information harder to replicate
At the same time the extremely
strengths and contributions of qualitative
methods can conversely be weaknesses if they are used badly for superficial
analysis. First,
the sample size for conducting a qualitative research is smaller when compared
to quantitative research, which means it may be not as representative as
quantitative research, as they are not selected on a probability basis (L. T 1994) . Second, the
interpretation from the findings may be subject to considerable interpreter
bias, as it is up to the interpreter to judge and conclude on the findings (Zikmund
et al. 2009, 79). Third, the volume of
the data collected is not as much as quantitative methods, which thus may not
be as credible (Rubin and Earl R
2009)
.
All in
all, exploratory research by using qualitative methods does not mean that it
lacks value, it simply means that such research cannot convey what is does not
promise.
Based
on the data collected from various qualitative tests, a precise series of
informational requirements were developed for a quantitative test. Quantitative
research, unlike qualitative research, uses a more standardised format of
questioning and predetermined answer options in questionnaires. These
questionnaires use various scale types, namely nominal, ordinal and interval,
to reflect the various categories represented. On the other hand, when used cautiously along
with quantitative research, qualitative methods help to interpret and better
understand the complex reality of a given topic and the implications of
quantitative data (Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector’s Field
Guide. n.d.), qualitative research can benefit quantitative research and vice
versa. When designing questionnaires, it is essential to
determine what information is needed and how individual questions should be
framed, while considering whether the target respondents are able and willing
to answer the questions (Grover and Vriens 2006) .
The favourable of
implementing quantitative research methodology is such that they can provide
wide coverage range of circumstances; they can be cost-effective and fast;
where statistics are generated from large samples, they may be of considerable
relevance to policy decisions; comparison and replication are permissible;
independence of the observer from the subject observed; subject under analysis
is measured through objective methods rather than being inferred subjectively
through sensation, reflection or intuition; reliability and validity may be
determined more impartially than qualitative methods; and the last factor is
that quantitative research methodology emphasises on the need to formulate
hypothesis for subsequent verification (Johnson and Christensen 2010).
However,
comparing with qualitative research, quantitative research is rather inflexible
and artificial; they are not very effective in understanding processes or the
implication that people attach to actions; they are not very useful to generate
theories and lastly, as they focus on what is, or what has been recently, they
make it hard for policy makers to infer what changes and measures should take
place in the future (Johnson and Christensen 2010) .
Both
methods are found strengths and weaknesses to
examine the strengths and weaknesses of qualitative and quantitative system
dynamics and to relate these to their respective tool sets. Therefore, qualitative and
quantitative research methods can complement each other (Matsuo 2005) . There is three
areas can be identified in which mixed methods appear to be superior to single
method approaches: they can answer research questions that the other
methodologies cannot; they provide stronger inferences and provide the
opportunity for presenting a greater diversity of divergent views (Todd D. 1979) . For example, Volvo
was concerned that the U.S. automotive market was undergoing vast changes that
could affect its market share. So that Volvo decided to do a major research
study involved both a quantitative and qualitative phase (McDaniel and Gates 1988). Both are more insightful
and less expensive due to a shorter questionnaire. The Volvo example shows how
qualitative research can be used subsequent to quantitative research. If the
situation possible to use the two methodologies, it will effect a better final
research product.
In
summary, using mixed methods can assist company to resolve the difficulty that whether
wants to use either qualitative or quantitative method in their marketing
research. They can simply use the mixed methods to support the company to
target their market successfully as well as increase their profit.
Reference
Donald E, Polkinghorne. 2005. "Language and Meaning:
Data Collection in Qualitative Research." Journal of Counseling
Psychology 52, no. 2: 137-145.
Hanson, Dallas, and Martin Grimmer. 2007. "The mix of
qualitative and quantitative research in major marketing journals,
1993-2002." European Journal of Marketing 41, no. 2: 58-70.
Johnson, Burke, and Larry Christensen. 2010. Educational
Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. califonia:
Sage.
L. T, Carr. 1994. "The strengths and weaknesses of
quantitative and qualitative research: what method for nursing?" Journal
of Advanced Nursing 80, no. 3: 154-156.
Selling in the world's largest consumer market. 2007.
http://www.chinasuccessstories.com/2007/09/19/selling-in-the-worlds-largest-consumer-market/
(accessed April 12, 2010).
Todd D, Jick. 1979. "Administrative Science Quarterly
." Qualitative Methodology 24, no. 4: 174.
Wolstenholme, E. F. 1999. "System Dynamics for Policy,
Strategy and Management Education." The Journal of the Operational
Research Society 50, no. 4: 50-62.
No comments:
Post a Comment