The complementarity of quantitative and qualitative methods: evaluating educational activities using mixed methods.

This paper examines university social science and education students' views of research methodology, especially asking whether a negative research orientation towards quantitative methods exists. Finnish (n = 196) and US (n = 122) students answered a questionnaire concerning their views on quantitative, qualitative, empirical, and theoretical methods, their readiness to use quantitative and qualitative methods in their own research, and the difficulties they experienced in quantitative methods' learning. Students were clustered in groups according to their views. Students had varying combinations of views on the methods, that is different research orientations towards methods were found in both countries. Some of the students had a dichotic attitude towards quantitative and qualitative methods; they seemed to “choose their side” between these methods. In both countries a negative research orientation towards quantitative methods was found. It was connected with either difficulties in quantitative methods' learning or with a lower appreciation of empirical methods than that of other students. Major subject and study year had no effect, so the views were not discipline‐specific and students seemed to already have them on entering university. Views were quite stable during the course. A reduction in difficulties experienced with quantitative methods' learning was connected with a lowered over‐appreciation of qualitative methods at the end of the course.

Qualitative Versus Quantitative The literature on methodology distinguishes between qualitative and quantitative research methods. The term ‘qualitative’ does not refer to the quality of methods. Qualitative methods are those that are oriented towards the discovery of qualities of things – that is, the properties of objects, phenomena, situations, people, meanings and events. In contrast, quantitative methods are oriented towards the number or amount of these qualities. This chapter discusses a number of qualitative research methods that can be used in FPS projects. For quantitative research methods, we refer the reader to textbooks on social science methodology, such as those by Cooper and Schindler (2014) and Hair et al. (2005). Imagine marketing managers who would like to know the opinions of potential customers about a television commercial. They could ask some respondents to talk freely about their feelings with regard to the commercial, their associations, what they like about it and what they do not, and so on. Such a study would be qualitative in nature, since it aims to uncover the characteristics of people, in this case their attitude towards the commercial. The same marketing manager could also use a standardized questionnaire and ask respondents to express the degree to which they understand and like the commercial on a fivepoint scale. Such a study would be quantitative in nature, since it measures the value of a particular property in numbers. Qualitative research methods are particularly appropriate for studying people, groups, organizations and societies – for example, if you want to learn how people interpret their own situation, what their goals in life and work are and what strategies they employ to reach those goals. Such understanding is needed in most business problem-solving projects. Because there can be large and multifaceted differences between people and situations, it is often not effective to employ (only) a standardized measuring instrument. Qualitative research methods are relevant within more fields than just the social sciences. The natural and technical sciences use qualitative methods as well. Hendrik Casimir, a respected physicist and long-time director of Philips Laboratories, has stated: For although it is certainly true that quantitative measurements are of great importance, it is a grave error to suppose that the whole of experimental physics can be brought under this heading.

Performance and productivity production line system are very influenced by facility layout planning. Facilities composition if appropriate with flow of materials between departments, it will sustain the continuity of the system. PT. X engaged in the field of printing. Composition of the current layout facilities on the Plant has not fully optimized well and indeed has a potential possibility to be developed further in the future. This statement is supported from the result of existing MHPS which gives Rp 6.560.374,50 for total cost of material handling and 136329 metres for total distance. As for the purposes of this research are: evaluating the performance of current facility layout, designing the layout of the facility with qualitative and quantitative methods, comparing the current with proposed improvement layouts, as well as create a picture the new layout facility. The process of designing proposed layouts is done by using qualitative methods (CORELAP, BLOCPLAN & CRAFT) and quantitative methods (ABSMODEL & CRAFT) that both of the algorithms need same inputs, which are: current facility layout and the flow of material. Based from the results of calculation proposed layouts, show that layout from qualitative methods (CORELAP) gives maximal reduction to the total cost of material handling so that the amounts will be decreased to Rp 6.100.133,55 (reducing 7,02% from total cost of current layout), and 117264 metres for total distance (reducing 13,985%.). Kata kunci : facility layout, quantitative methods, qualitative methods

Phosphate solubilising bacteria possess the ability to solubilise insoluble phosphate to soluble forms enhancing the nutrient status of the soil. This process not only compensates increasing cost of phosphatic fertilisers but also minimises the negative environmental impacts associated with the application of inorganic fertilisers. Phosphate solubilising bacteria (PSB) were screened based on the size of a halo/ clear zone around the colony (NBRIP agar plate assay) and by measuring solubilise phosphorous content (colorimetric method). The aim of this work was to assess the comparative reliability of quantitative and qualitative methods of isolation of phosphate solubilising bacteria. Bacterial strains which showed very poor performance in qualitative method were proven to be good phosphates solubilisers in quantitative method and vice versa. Therefore no positive relationship among the values obtained from qualitative and quantitative methods could be observed. Furthermore qualitative method did not reflect the real ability of the phosphate solubilising bacteria to solubilise insoluble phosphates. From the results of the present study, it can be concluded that isolation of efficient phosphate solubilising bacteria through quantitative method could give better results than that of qualitative method.

When attending last year’s (2011) International Health Economics Association (iHEA) conference in Toronto, we were struck by the notion that almost all papers we listened to used a very similar quantitativemethodology, whereas qualitative methods barely seemed to play a role. This is unfortunate: (Health) economists could effectively integrate combinations of qualitative and quantitative methods into their research toolkit, without having to give up the formal modeling approach they are accustomed to. The population and institutions studied will rarely be identical with the population for which policy recommendations are derived, so that, to the extent that the two differ, the recommendations may only partially hold. However, acquiring knowledge about the compatibility of populations and institutions is a complex task, one that may require the type of data generated by qualitative research.

This chapter aims to present and discuss potentials of research designs which combine quantitative and qualitative methods in the sociology of religion. Qualitative and quantitative methods refer to two characteristic modes of producing knowledge. Quantitative studies are generally characterized by seeing social characteristics as variables, which are subject to standardized measurement and attributed with numeric values. Qualitative methods differ in scientific views, aims, and practical procedures. They often focus on hermeneutic interpretations of complex, contextualized cultural phenomena. One of the major arguments against combining quantitative and qualitative methods is that they are based on contradictory epistemological premises. The methodological dualism of quantitative and qualitative designs seems to follow Dilthey's well-known dualism between natural science and the humanities, which seeks either general explanatory laws or a meaningful comprehension of a specific event. Ontology and epistemology are influenced by scientific findings and methodological developments. Keywords:epistemology; ontology; qualitative methods; quantitative methods; religion; sociology

In the humanities, in the last two decades, there has been an evident increase of research combining quantitative and qualitative methods, techniques, approaches, concepts or language. This paper discusses the arguments for and against these research drafts, which most often appear in literature under the title mixed methods research. While some authors consider this type of research as the announcement of the third paradigm in studying social phenomena and the approach that shifts the war between the two paradigms into the past, other authors claim that the paradigms underlying the two basic research orientations are incompatible because they study essentially different phenomena, and therefore the methods from two research traditions cannot be combined in any way. The third viewpoint, which we advocate as well, argues that qualitative and quantitative methods cannot be applied together in one draft for the purposes of triangulation or cross-validation, but that they can be combined for complementary objectives. This paper describes the example of mixed methods draft of complementary objectives in pedagogy, which refers to evaluation of mathematics curriculum. The example shows that combining qualitative and quantitative methods is not only possible, but that it creates the conditions for arriving at data which would not be possible to obtain using only one or the other approach.

I found PhD study to be a stimulating, challenging and ideal conduit for exploring knowledge via discussion, argument and defence: to have the opportunity to explore method, methodology, epistemology, ontology and what may constitute 'acceptable' research practice is an enriching experience. I had previously heard of intepretivists decrying positivists et cetera, but I was unprepared to find quantitative researchers and lecturers openly dismissing qualitative approaches, and finding dismissals by qualitative researchers of the use of a quantitative approach: such are disappointing and confusing to a trainee researcher. Thus, a far less enriching experience for a trainee researcher is being faced with assumptions and preferences of experienced researchers that extend from defending approach to decrying any approaches that may not be aligned to their own. As a result, this paper will focus upon the quantitative-qualitative debate (QQD) and offer a critical evaluation upon the issues surrounding affiliations between method and epistemological paradigm. It will also question the validity of 'traditional' divides between qualitative and quantitative methods. This discussion will facilitate an answer to the question: 'can the researcher complement quantitative with qualitative method - and vice versa - within the same research paradigm and subsequent design'? I will explore here a claim that no more than a rhetorical link exists between method and epistemology and that the 'distinctions' between quantitative and qualitative methods are often erroneous and do not always reflect differing paradigmatic assumptions. Further, I will suggest quantitative and qualitative methods be used in a complementary fashion as opposed to an integrated approach. I will further claim that the quantitative-qualitative debate has much to offer trainee researchers and should thus be kept open, as long as unprejudiced and tolerant discussion is encouraged.

The Web is present in all fields of our life, from information and service Web pages to electronic public administration (e-government). Users of the Web are a heterogeneous and multicultural public, with different abilities and disabilities (visual, hearing, cognitive, and motor impairments). Web accessibility is about making websites accessible to all Internet users (both disabled and non-disabled). To assure and certify the fulfillment of Web accessibility guidelines, various accessibility evaluation methods have been proposed, and are classified in two types: qualitative methods (analytical and empirical) and quantitative methods (metric-based methods). As no method by itself is enough to guarantee full accessibility, many studies combine these qualitative and quantitative methods in order to guarantee better results. Some recent studies have presented combined evaluation methods between qualitative methods only, thus leaving behind the great power of metrics that guarantee objective results. In this chapter, a combined accessibility evaluation method based both on qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods is proposed. This proposal presents an evaluation method combining essential analytical evaluation methods and empirical test methods.

BackgroundQuantitative studies are becoming more recognized as important to understanding health care with all of its richness and complexities. The purpose of this descriptive survey was to provide a quantitative evaluation of the qualitative studies published in 170 core clinical journals for 2000.MethodsAll identified studies that used qualitative methods were reviewed to ascertain which clinical journals publish qualitative studies and to extract research methods, content (persons and health care issues studied), and whether mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative methods) were used.Results60 330 articles were reviewed. 355 reports of original qualitative studies and 12 systematic review articles were identified in 48 journals. Most of the journals were in the discipline of nursing. Only 4 of the most highly cited health care journals, based on ISI Science Citation Index (SCI) Impact Factors, published qualitative studies. 37 of the 355 original reports used both qualitative and quantitative (mixed) methods. Patients and non-health care settings were the most common groups of people studied. Diseases and conditions were cancer, mental health, pregnancy and childbirth, and cerebrovascular disease with many other diseases and conditions represented. Phenomenology and grounded theory were commonly used; substantial ethnography was also present. No substantial differences were noted for content or methods when articles published in all disciplines were compared with articles published in nursing titles or when studies with mixed methods were compared with studies that included only qualitative methods.ConclusionsThe clinical literature includes many qualitative studies although they are often published in nursing journals or journals with low SCI Impact Factor journals. Many qualitative studies incorporate both qualitative and quantitative methods.

Qualitative studies are gaining their credibility after a period of being misinterpreted as "not being quantitative." Qualitative method is a broad umbrella term for research methodologies that describe and explain individuals' experiences, behaviors, interactions, and social contexts. In-depth interview, focus groups, and participant observation are among the qualitative methods of inquiry commonly used in psychiatry. Researchers measure the frequency of occurring events using quantitative methods; however, qualitative methods provide a broader understanding and a more thorough reasoning behind the event. Hence, it is considered to be of special importance in psychiatry. Besides hypothesis generation in earlier phases of the research, qualitative methods can be employed in questionnaire design, diagnostic criteria establishment, feasibility studies, as well as studies of attitude and beliefs. Animal models are another area that qualitative methods can be employed, especially when naturalistic observation of animal behavior is important. However, since qualitative results can be researcher's own view, they need to be statistically confirmed, quantitative methods. The tendency to combine both qualitative and quantitative methods as complementary methods has emerged over recent years. By applying both methods of research, scientists can take advantage of interpretative characteristics of qualitative methods as well as experimental dimensions of quantitative methods.

Comparison study on qualitative and quantitative risk assessment methods for urban natural gas pipeline network

A useful framework for understanding methods is to think of them as being on a continuum of holistic and pattern focused to particularistic and specific. This paper argues for this conceptualization rather than thinking of quantitative and qualitative methods as oppositional and potentially contradictory. A case study provides an example of using both quantitative and qualitative methods in a holistic and pattern-focused study, while also attending to the values and goals of community psychology. The substantive research goal is to understand a child's experience of places related to school. Methods include ethnographic long-term participation and observation, interviews, multidimensional scaling, and social network analysis. Most quantitative method variables are generated from study participants; no outside structure is imposed. The quantitative methods extend and inform the qualitative methods, just as the qualitative methods extend and inform the quantitative methods. The quantitative and qualitative methods work reciprocally to extend and inform each other.

Department of Graduate Medical Education, Stanford Hospitals and Clinics, Stanford, California. edlera@aol.com(Edler)Kudos to Waisel et al. for his recent contribution to our journal, “Anesthesiology Trainees Face Ethical, Practical and Relational Challenges in Obtaining Informed Consent.”1And also to our editors, for highlighting the usefulness of nonbiomedical research paradigms. Waisel et al. used narrative analysis, one genre of qualitative research methods, to deepen our understanding of the theory that underlies obtain informed consent in the practice of anesthesiology. Narrative analysis is only one of many accepted methodologies included in the realm of qualitative research. Others include biographical methods, critical theory development, hermeneutics, action research, and historiography. Qualitative methods, in any form, are both similar and different from our more familiar, quantitative, statistically based methods.In both quantitative and qualitative methods there is an initially defined research question; optimal data sampling is based on known population characteristics; data collection and analysis follows rigorously defined protocols; and all sampling, data collection, analysis, and dissemination are in compliance with accepted research ethics.2However, unlike hypothesis testing and statistical methods, qualitative research employs an inductive approach; the aim of qualitative research is to generate a theory grounded in both confirming and disconfirming evidence, such as observation, interviews, and documentation. These methods for theory generation are more useful in situations of complex social interactions where reductionist, statistical methods cannot adequately encapsulate all social confounds into one testable hypothetical premise, to the exclusion of all others. Qualitative research methods have been a mainstay of social science and educational and psychological research for close to a century. And within the past two decades, they have been successfully merged with quantitative methods, especially in educational research, to both generate and confirm theory.2,3This innovative methodology is termed “mixed methods research.”4For those more interested in understanding and using complimentary qualitative methods, several outstanding and readily accessible reference texts are available.2In addition, both PubMed and the Education Resources Information Center have medical subject headings that allow the reader to identify literature that employs qualitative methods. Hopefully the paradigm wars are indeed over, and the era of paradigm cooperation has begun in anesthesiology as well.Department of Graduate Medical Education, Stanford Hospitals and Clinics, Stanford, California. edlera@aol.com

Qualitative and mixed methods play a prominent role in mental health services research. However, the standards for their use are not always evident, especially for those not trained in such methods. This article reviews the rationale and common approaches to using qualitative and mixed methods in mental health services and implementation research based on a review of the articles included in this special series along with representative examples from the literature. Qualitative methods are used to provide a “thick description” or depth of understanding to complement breadth of understanding afforded by quantitative methods, elicit the perspective of those being studied, explore issues that have not been well studied, develop conceptual theories or test hypotheses, or evaluate the process of a phenomenon or intervention. Qualitative methods adhere to many of the same principles of scientific rigor as quantitative methods but often differ with respect to study design, data collection, and data analysis strategies. For instance, participants for qualitative studies are usually sampled purposefully rather than at random and the design usually reflects an iterative process alternating between data collection and analysis. The most common techniques for data collection are individual semistructured interviews, focus groups, document reviews, and participant observation. Strategies for analysis are usually inductive, based on principles of grounded theory or phenomenology. Qualitative methods are also used in combination with quantitative methods in mixed-method designs for convergence, complementarity, expansion, development, and sampling. Rigorously applied qualitative methods offer great potential in contributing to the scientific foundation of mental health services research.