03 15

Using both qualitative and quantitative research methods to answer a question is called ______

using both qualitative and quantitative research methods to answer a question is called ______

To investigate students' perception.

I use 20 closed-ended questions (multiple choice and 5-likert scale) and the 5 qualitative question like open-ended questions in a survey.

As I know survey could help me to gain data (even the perception, feelings) from the large number of students so that I can classify them according to the level of anxiety to conduct the in-depth interview further. So, Is the survey as I've described called qualitative survey even it comprise theclosed-ended questions? and Does it mean that I am completely doing the qualitative research?

Hope to see your response!

Research Flashcards | Quizlet

Chronic illnesses are prime examples of conditions that by their very nature need to be studied from a combination of perspectives, using both qualitative and quantitative methods. We suggest that the success of health research on managing these conditions lies in the shared application of both qualitative and quantitative research perspectives, methods and tools. In addition, we argue that effective research into long-term chronic illnesses requires not only combined research efforts but also longitudinal programs of study, so that the experience of managing chronic conditions can be captured over time.

Key words: Chronic disease; combined methods; longitudinal studies; qualitative research; quantitative research; research design


Individuals experiencing the symptoms of chronic illnesses often struggle to accept and live with a given condition long before the illness has been given a name and in advance of seeking treatment. Chronic diseases are usually diagnosed and named by physicians; this often leads to long-term treatment and monitoring of activities by a range of clinicians and other caregivers involved in the management of such conditions.

In particular, research that helps extend our understanding of how best to manage such chronic diseases and corresponding illness experiences requires a broad range of perspectives and skills. Holman1 delineates a clear need for incorporating qualitative inquiry into medical research by highlighting the case of chronic diseases. He concludes that “good medical research recognizes the complementarity and interpretation of quantitative and qualitative methods of inquiry.”

Unfortunately, the ability to combine research expertise across traditional methodological boundaries is often thwarted. Qualitative and quantitative researchers often operate with a different set of assumptions about the world and ways of learning about it. These assumptions may be seen as mutually and inevitably irreconcilable. Researchers are often taught to master only one type of method and, so, become comfortable with their expertise in handling either quantitative or qualitative analysis, but not both. The result is that the two major approaches (qualitative and quantitative) are seldom combined and their respective strengths are ignored by adherents of each approach.

A review of MEDLINE citations for the period 1993 to September 1997 indicates that 305 quantitative studies of chronic diseases were published, while only 112 qualitative studies were published (providing numerical evidence, at least, of a continuing preference for quantitative analysis). In all, 47 papers citing both quantitative and qualitative techniques were referenced. Many of these studies, however, simply used qualitative diagnostic measurements within essentially quantitative, quasi-experimental designs or else included reviews of both qualitative and quantitative literature relevant to the chronic condition of interest. Only 13 could truly be categorized as combined method studies.

Whether this is evidence of an active debate or simply the existence of two separate tracks of research efforts, the use of one method or the other clearly remains the predominant approach to the study of chronic diseases. This trend mirrors the situation with respect to health research in general. The inherent danger in this strict separation of research perspectives is the likely production of incomplete results regarding the health problem being studied.

5 Unfortunately, these definitions tend to establish two separate and contrary schools of research, emphasizing the arguments commonly engaged in to justify the use of one or the other technique, rather than simply stating the varying positions and perspectives contained within qualitative and quantitative research paradigms.

The Usual Distinctions

Quantitative and qualitative research methods are most often associated with deductive and inductive approaches, respectively. Deductive research begins with known theory and tests it, usually by attempting to provide evidence for or against a pre-specified hypothesis. Inductive research begins by making observations, usually in order to develop a new hypothesis or contribute to new theory. Quantitative research is usually linked to the notion of science as objective truth or fact, whereas qualitative research is more often identified with the view that science is lived experience and therefore subjectively determined. Quantitative research usually begins with pre-specified objectives focused on testing preconceived outcomes.

When applying quantitative methods, numerical estimation and statistical inference from a generalizable sample are often used in relation to a larger “true” population of interest. In qualitative research, narrative description and constant comparison are usually used in order to understand the specific populations or situations being studied. As a result, quantitative research is most often seen as a method trying to demonstrate causal relationships under standardized (controlled) conditions. Conversely, qualitative research is usually seen as a method seeking better understanding of some particular, natural (uncontrolled) phenomenon. A summary of the kinds of distinctions often made concerning the use and value of both methods is provided in Table 1.

The nature of the general theoretical debate, then, is characterized by fundamentally different understandings or beliefs about scientific research, in particular, and the world, in general. Adherence to different and separate paradigms can trap researchers into believing that there is only one true “scientific” way to conduct research.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>