How Far is the Qualitative and Quantitative Divide More Imagined than Real? Philosophy and Traditions in Management Research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.102.15106Keywords:
Qualitative, QuantitativeAbstract
This article represent the debate in the two main research approaches namely qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative and quantitative approaches have special roles in research studies in numerous disciplines. Despite the debate on the division between the two approaches, there are a series of advantages and disadvantages, though depending on the aims and objectives of researchers. However, there is intense and significant disagreement concerning both nature of data and philosophical assumptions. Researchers, for that reason, increasingly demonstrate interest in merging the two concepts, in order to reap the merits of each as can be noticed in the increase number of this integrated approach in the management research.
References
Barth F. (1999), Comparative methodologies in the analysis of anthropological data, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Brady E & David.C. (2004), Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Bryman A. & Bell E (2015), Business research methods, Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press.
Carr, L. (1994), ‘The strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research: What method for nursing,’ Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 20, pp.716-721.
Carpini M. (2013), ‘Breaking boundaries: Can we bridge the quantitative versus qualitative divide through the study of entertainment and politics?’ International Journal of Communication, vol.7, pp. 531-551
Choy L. (2014), ‘The strengths and weaknesses of research methodology: comparison and complimentary between qualitative and quantitative approaches,’ IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol.19, no. 4, PP. 99-104.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S., (2000), Handbook of Qualitative Research, London: Sage Publications.
Dey J &Nentwich J. (2007), ‘The identity politics of qualitative research. A discourse analytic inter-text,’ Qualitative Social Research, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 27-47.
Eberle, S. (2005), ‘Promoting qualitative research in Switzerland,’ Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 31.
Elman, C. (2005), “Explanatory typologies in qualitative studies of international politics.” International Organization, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 293-326.
Forte M. (2002), ‘Is it real? Problems and prospects of research in "the real world"’ Qualitative Social Research,
Gerring J. & Craig T. (2011), ‘Quantitative and qualitative: A question of comparability,’ International Encyclopedia of Political Science.
Goldthorpe, H. (2000), On sociology: Numbers, narratives, and the integration of research and theory, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Griffin J. (1992), ‘Temporality, events, and explanation in historical sociology: An introduction,’ Sociological Methods and Research, vol. 20, no.4, pp. 403-27.
Hughes, C. (2002), Key concepts in feminist theory and research, London, Sage.
Lieberman, S. (2005), ‘Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research,’ American Political Science Review, pp. 435-52.
McLaughlin, E. (1991), ‘Oppositional poverty: The quantitative/qualitative divide and other dichotomies,’ The Sociological Review, vol. 39, pp. 292-308.
Neuman, W. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches 6th Edition, Pearson International Edition, USA.
Parker, I. (2004), ‘Criteria for qualitative research in psychology,’ Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 1, pp. 95-106.
Popay J. (2003). Qualitative research and the epidemiological imagination a vital relationship. Barcelona, Gaceta Sanitaria, Ediciones Doyma.
Prasad, A.& Prasad, P. (2002), ‘The coming of age of interpretive organizational research,’ Organizational Research Methods, vol. 5, no.1, pp. 4-11.
Ramona, S. (2011), “Advantages and disadvantages of quantitative and qualitative information risk approaches,’ Chinese Business Review, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 1106-1110.
Sandberg, J. (2005), ‘How do we justify knowledge produced within interpretive approaches?’ Organizational Research Methods, vol. 8, pp. 41-68.
Schwandt, T. (1997), ‘Farewell to criteriology,’ Qualitative Inquiry, 2, 58-72.
Smith, C. (1989), ‘The Qualitative Significance of Quantitative Representation,’ In Barry Glassner and Jonathan D. Moreno (eds), The Qualitative-Quantitative Distinction in the Social Sciences. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 112, pp. 29-42.
Shweder, A. (1996), ‘Quanta and qualia: What is the ‘object’ of ethnographic method?’ In Richard Jessor, Anne Colby, and Richard A. Shweder (eds), Ethnography and Human Development: Context and Meaning in Social Inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Yilmaz, K. (2013), ‘Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences,’ European Journal of Education. 48, 311-325.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Abdulrahman Alsoaery, Hessa Alshehri, Halah Abdullah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
