Verified by 
Key points
- Neither a quantitative nor a qualitative methodology is the right way to approach every scientific question.
- Rather, the nature of the question determines which methodology is best suited to address it.
- Often, researchers benefit from a mixed approach that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative methodologies.
As a researcher who has used a wide variety of methodologies, I understand the importance of acknowledging that we, as researchers, do not pick the methodology; rather, the research question dictates it. So, you can only imagine how annoyed I get when I hear of undergraduates designing their research projects based on preconceived notions, like "quantitative is more straightforward," or "qualitative is easier." Apart from the fact that neither of these assertions is actually the case, these young researchers are blatantly missing one of the foundational steps of good research: If you are interested in researching a particular area, you must get to know the area (i.e., through reading) and then develop a question based on that reading.
The nature of the question will dictate the most appropriate methodological approach.
I’ve debated with researchers in the past who are "exclusively" qualitative or "exclusively" quantitative. Depending on the rationale for their exclusivity, I might question a little deeper, learn something, and move on, or I might debate further. Sometimes, I throw some contentious statements out to see what the responses are like. For example, "Qualitative research, in isolation, is nothing but glorified journalism." This one might not be new to you. Yes, qualitative is flawed, but so, too, is quantitative.
Let's try this one: "Numbers don’t lie, just the researchers who interpret them." If researchers are going to have a pop at qual for subjectivity, why don’t they recognize the same issues in quant? The numbers in a results section may be objectively correct, but their meaningfulness is only made clear through the interpretation of the human reporting them. This is not a criticism but is an important observation for those who believe in the absolute objectivity of quantitative reporting. The subjectivity associated with this interpretation may miss something crucial in the interpretation of the numbers because, hey, we’re only human.
With that, I love quantitative research, but I’m not unreasonable about it. Let’s say we’ve evaluated a three-arm RCT—the new therapeutic intervention is significantly efficacious, with a large effect, for enhancing "x" in people living with "y." One might conclude that this intervention works and that we must conduct further research on it to further support its efficacy—this is, of course, a fine suggestion, consistent with good research practice and epistemological understanding.
However, blindly recommending the intervention based on the interpretation of numbers alone might be suspect—think of all the variables that could be involved in a 4-, 8-, 12-, or 52-week intervention with human participants. It would be foolish to believe that all variables were considered—so, here is a fantastic example of where a qualitative methodology might be useful. At the end of the intervention, a researcher might decide to interview a random 20 percent of the cohort who participated in the intervention group about their experience and the program’s strengths and weaknesses. The findings from this qualitative element might help further explain the effects, aid the initial interpretation, and bring to life new ideas and concepts that had been missing from the initial interpretation. In this respect, infusing a qualitative approach at the end of quantitative analysis has shown its benefits—a mixed approach to intervention evaluation is very useful.
What about before that? Well, let’s say I want to develop another intervention to enhance "z," but there’s little research on it, and that which has been conducted isn’t of the highest quality; furthermore, we don’t know about people’s experiences with "z" or even other variables associated with it.
To design an intervention around "z" would be ‘jumping the gun’ at best (and a waste of funds). It seems that an exploration of some sort is necessary. This is where qualitative again shines—giving us an opportunity to explore what "z" is from the perspective of a relevant cohort(s).
Of course, we cannot generalize the findings; we cannot draw a definitive conclusion as to what "z" is. But what the findings facilitate is providing a foundation from which to work; for example, we still cannot say that "z" is this, that, or the other, but it appears that it might be associated with "a," "b" and "c." Thus, future research should investigate the nature of "z" as a particular concept, in relation to "a," "b" and "c." Again, a qualitative methodology shows its worth. In the previous examples, a qualitative method was used because the research questions warranted it.
Through considering the potentially controversial statements about qual and quant above, we are pushed into examining the strengths and weaknesses of research methodologies (regardless of our exclusivity with a particular approach). This is useful if we’re going to think critically about finding answers to our research questions. But simply considering these does not let poor research practice off the hook.
For example, credible qualitative researchers acknowledge that generalizability is not the point of their research; however, that doesn’t stop some less-than-credible researchers from presenting their "findings" as generalizable as possible, without actually using the word. Such practices should be frowned upon—so should making a career out of strictly using qualitative methodology in an attempt to find answers core to the human condition. All these researchers are really doing is spending a career exploring, yet never really finding anything (despite arguing to the contrary, albeit avoiding the word "generalize").
The solution to this problem, again, is to truly listen to what your research question is telling you. Eventually, it’s going to recommend a quantitative approach. Likewise, a "numbers person" will be recommended a qualitative approach from time to time—flip around the example above, and there’s a similar criticism. Again, embrace a mixed approach.
What's the point of this argument?
I conduct both research methodologies. Which do I prefer? Simple—whichever one helps me most appropriately answer my research question.
Do I have problems with qualitative methodologies? Absolutely—but I have issues with quantitative methods as well. Having these issues is good—it means that you recognize the limitations of your tools, which increases the chances of you "fixing," "sharpening" or "changing out" your tools when necessary.
So, the next time someone speaks with you about labeling researchers as one type or another, ask them why they think that way, ask them which they think you are, and then reflect on the responses alongside your own views of methodology and epistemology. It might just help you become a better researcher.
