This chapter is concerned with the overlap between quantitative and qualitative

research strategies. The point made in the chapter is that connections between
epistemology and ontology, on the one hand, and between these and research
methods, on the other, are tendencies rather than fixed and absolute differences.
This chapter explores:
• aspects of qualitative research that can contain elements of the natural
science model;
• aspects of quantitative research that can contain elements of
interpretivism;
• the idea that research methods are more independent of epistemological
and ontological assumptions than is sometimes supposed;
• ways in which the quantitative/qualitative contrast may break down;
• studies in which qualitative research is used to analyze quantitative
research and vice versa;
• the use of quantification in qualitative research;
• arguments against the combination of quantitative and qualitative
research;
• two versions of the debate on combining quantitative and qualitative
research, one concentrating on methods of research and the other on

1
 epistemological issues;
• different ways in which multi-strategy research has been carried out; and
• the claim that multi-strategy research is not inherently superior to research
employing just one research strategy.

1
Chapter 14 synthesizes many of the ideas we’ve already covered throughout the term
and examines the ways in which different approaches are complementary or
divergent. Both research orientations help us gain knowledge of the social world and
drawing on the insights of multiple perspectives is much more conducive to good
research and produces a deeper level of understanding.

Nonetheless, it’s important to remember that certain epistemological (ideas about

knowledge) and ontological (ideas about reality) positions may be associated with a
particular research method. For example, we’ve seen that the natural science
(empirical, objectivist) epistemology is often paired with social survey research, and
the interpretivist epistemology is often paired with qualitative interviewing.

Multi-strategy research is research that that integrates quantitative and qualitative

approaches. It is sometimes referred to as mixed-methods research. Just because a
mixed methods approach is used, does not mean we can automatically assume
there’s a connection between methods and philosophical assumptions.

What do you think?

1. What are some of the arguments (critiques) against integrating

2
 quantitative and qualitative methods?
2. What are some different ways in which quantitative and qualitative
strategies could be combined to improve the quality of research
findings?
3. When might a combined research strategy be superior to one relying
on a single approach? When might it be less helpful to combine
methods?

2
Recall: Qualitative research often exhibits features associated with a natural science
(positivist) model
The link between qualitative research and a natural science model are discussed in
terms of
• Empiricist overtones (e.g., desire for direct contact with reality, procedures in
which theories are grounded in data, the meanings people give to their actions
can be ascertained through the senses, etc.)
• Specific problem focus (e.g., it is not intended to be generalizable)
• Hypothesis and theory-testing (e.g., analytic induction, grounded theory)
• Realism. Realism is understood as a ‘middle way’ between the
constructivist and objectivist debate. It takes the view that the “social
world is reproduced and transformed in daily life” (Bhaskar, 1989). Critical
realism argues that social reality is produced by mechanisms that are real
but not directly observable, and social scientists construct hypotheses
about them and need to explain mechanisms of causal influence.

3
In the lesson for chapter 9, we examined the primary differences between
quantitative and qualitative approaches. In reality, it is problematic to view the
orientations as starkly different because there is some overlap between the
approaches.

Epistemological and Ontological Considerations: Research methods are much more

“free-floating” in terms of epistemology and ontology than presented in chapter 4
and 9. People using a particular research strategy do not always share the same
epistemological and ontological assumptions and use of certain research methods
may not always be accompanied by the expected epistemology and ontology.

Interpreting, constructing or revealing meaning: Qualitative researchers claim access

to participants’ world view (although this is rarely proved through respondent
validation), but many quantitative researchers are also interested in issues of
meaning (e.g., those who study attitudes using surveys). Quantitative researchers
claim attitudinal questions can access meaning, particularly if respondents are
questioned in advance to create survey questions on attitudes. Similarly, quantitative
methods (such as quantitative approaches to content analysis) can be used to
establish how people create their sense of reality. For example, one could study the
content of TV shows quantitatively to illustrate one way in which gender socialization

4
takes place. Quantitative research is typically seen as interpretivist but may also be used in
constructionist research (e.g., youthful lifestyle and breast cancer).

Behaviour versus meaning: Quantitative and qualitative researchers alike are

typically interested both in what people do and in what they think even if they go
about their investigations in different ways. Many perspectives in quantitative social
science now consider meaning to be important and qualitative research often
involves the study of behaviour.

Theories and concepts tested in research versus those emerging from the data:
Much quantitative research (e.g., survey research) is often inductive and hypotheses
and theories may not emerge until after the data have been gathered. With surveys,
in particular, the number of potential hypotheses is vast, and many are formulated
after the data collection.

Numbers versus words: The use of numbers does not describe the quantitative
methods only; some qualitative researchers engage in a limited amount of
quantification. Some quantitative researchers gather or analyze qualitative data to
better understand their subject matter or to generate ideas. For example, Bell’s
(2007) study of western Canadian separatism.

Artificial versus natural setting: Artificiality is not only an issue in quantitative work.
Qualitative research often presents itself as naturalistic, claiming it studies people in
their natural setting. However, qualitative interviewing may take people away from
their natural settings and participant observation may introduce some artificiality and
reactivity.

4
The two different approaches can be combined to bring new quality to the studies.
Quantitative research can be examined using qualitative methods such as using
description not only for the presentation of findings, but to persuade users of the
credibility of the study.

Ethnostatistics is a mutual *combined qualitative/quantitative) approach that entails

bringing qualitative methods to examine quantitative data. It is “the study of the
construction, interpretation, and display of statistics in quantitative social research”
(Gephart, 1988, p. 9).

Metaethnography (Hodson, 1996) is another example of a mutual approach that

uses a quantitative approach with qualitative research. It can compare findings from
different settings and contexts, not otherwise accessible to a single researcher by
using reliability measures for coding. It includes independent coding and comparison
of a specific amount (e.g., 10 per cent) of the coding results to establish a sense of
reliability.

5
A quantitative research approach to qualitative research can be done in the form of
metaethnography.

5
Quantification in qualitative research can be done through:

Thematic analysis: An implicit quantification may determine the identification and

prominence of certain themes rather than others

Quasi-quantification in qualitative research: Use of terms like “many,” “often,”

“rarely,” etc.

Combating anecdotalism through limited quantification: Using actual numbers can

counter the criticism that qualitative data are too anecdotal and do nothing to
indicate the extent to which certain beliefs or behaviours occur

6
The strengths, weaknesses, and challenges of multi-strategy research are examined in
chapter 14 and we see that quantitative and qualitative methods do have areas of overlap.

Arguments against multi-strategy approaches are concerned that the i epistemic and
ontological foundations of each orientation is fundamentally incompatible.

The embedded methods argument:

Research methods are permanently embedded in either epistemological or
ontological commitments. For example, use of participant observations necessarily means
that the researcher takes an interpretivist position that is inconsistent with the natural
science model. There is reason to question the embedded methods argument because
quantitative and qualitative research are paradigms in which epistemological
assumptions, values, and methods are inextricably intertwine.

The epistemological argument:

This position is similar the the embedded methods argument and claims that
quantitative and qualitative research are based on incompatible epistemological
principles therefore, multi-strategy research is not possible. People making this claim
also maintain that the two general orientations are ontologically incompatible

7
The paradigm argument: The quantitative and qualitative approaches are based on
separate paradigms that are epistemologically and ontologically incommensurable

An argument in favour of a multi-strategy approach is the technical argument.

The technical argument:
Research methods are perceived as being independent of any specific
epistemological position; therefore, the multi-strategy method is both feasible and
desirable. Quantitative and qualitative methods are simply techniques that can be used
without necessarily adopting a particular epistemological (or ontological) position. The
selection of a method is a decision about which window the researcher will open to look into
the “room”

7
For those in favour of the multi-strategy approach to research, Hammersley provides
a useful framework for ensuring quality of findings. It includes:
• Triangulation: the use of one type of research to corroborate the other
• Facilitation: the use of one type of research to aid another
• Complementarity: using two strategies so that diverse aspects of an
investigation can be combined

Triangulation: The use of quantitative research to corroborate qualitative findings,

and vice versa (e.g., several observers, theoretical principles, sources of data and
methodologies). Triangulation can also take place within a research strategy (e.g.,
using different quantitative methods in one project)

Facilitation: The use of one research strategy to assist with research that uses a
different strategy, e.g., qualitative facilitates quantitative and quantitative facilitates
qualitative. The results can be either mutually reinforcing or show consistent or
inconsistent results. This may occur in a number of ways including:
Suggesting hypotheses (often by using qualitative data to generate
hypotheses for quantitative research)
Aiding measurement (often by using qualitative data to design questionnaire

8
 items)
Providing research participants (quantitative studies may identify people who
could participate in qualitative research)

Complementarity: Filling the gaps by using two or more approaches where a single
approach would not be sufficient, This can be used to illustrate static and process
features of a social phenomenon. It can also be used to collect data at different
levels, and test the generality of findings encountered in qualitative research by using
quantitative data gathered from random samples. Qualitative data can be used to
interpret the relationship between variables found in quantitative research (e.g.,
qualitative research can be used to describe the mechanism of how variables
influence each other). Different methods can be used to study different aspects of a
phenomenon. The two methods can be used from the start of the research to answer
two different sets of questions

8
In summary, quantitative research can facilitate qualitative by
• filling in gaps
• providing a combination of static description of social life and also
capturing active social process features
• offering researcher and participant perspectives
• adding generality
• interpreting relationships between variables
• allowing for study from different aspects

When the researcher cannot rely on either a quantitative or a qualitative method

alone, a multi-strategy approach can be used to fill in the gaps. There is a two-step
approach to planning multi-strategy research:
1. The priority decision: Will the principal data-gathering tool be
qualitative or quantitative?
2. The sequence decision: Should the “complementary” method be
used first, as a preliminary to the principal method, or second, as a
follow-up?
*M = method

9
The Problem of Generality: There’s a tendency in qualitative research to present
findings without evidence indicating how typical they are. Quantitative comparisons
can be of use to fill the gap.

Qualitative Research and the Relationship between Variables: Qualitative research

may help to interpret the relationship between variables. One strategy is to look for
an intervening variable -- one that is influenced by the independent variable but in
turn effects the dependent variable

Studying Different Aspects of a Phenomenon: Macro and micro orientations can be

differently useful based on the research question. In multi-strategy research, the
different methods may be geared to addressing different kinds of research questions

10
Multi-strategy research is becoming more common. Methods are increasingly seen
simply as a technique of data collection. Multi-strategy research is not necessarily
superior to one-method or one strategy research.

Four points must be borne in mind:

• Multi-strategy research must be competently designed and conducted:
otherwise its findings will be suspect, no matter how many methods are
employed.
• Multi-strategy research must be appropriate for the research questions
asked. There is no point in collecting additional kinds of data on the
assumption that “more is better.”
• Multiple methods are likely to take considerably more time and financial
resources than research using just one approach. Spreading resources too
thinly can dilute the effectiveness of the research.
• Not all researchers have the skills and training required to carry out both
quantitative and qualitative research, and their “trained incapacities” may
prevent them from integrating the different forms of research.

11
As you become more proficient with the tools and techniques of academia, you will
become a better researcher, teacher, analyst and thinker

12
The point of this course is to introduce you to some of the different methods used in
Global Studies research. It’s also to show you that there are many ways of ‘doing’
research and a lot of disagreement about which way(s) is/are best. Most importantly,
researchers are obliged to protect their subjects from harm. Next, they should ensure
they’re producing high-quality, useful work by choosing an effective research
question and using a good research design for their study. Finally, they want to test
their findings to ensure their results are accurate.

I hope you found this course useful for your own studies and will be able to use it in
future research in Global Studies and in your future careers. Don’t forget to review
using the practice quizzes and participate in this week’s tutorial discussions.

13