quantitative research methods vs

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base

Methodology

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research | Differences, Examples & Methods

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research | Differences, Examples & Methods

Published on April 12, 2019 by Raimo Streefkerk . Revised on June 22, 2023.

When collecting and analyzing data, quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings. Both are important for gaining different kinds of knowledge.

Common quantitative methods include experiments, observations recorded as numbers, and surveys with closed-ended questions.

Quantitative research is at risk for research biases including information bias , omitted variable bias , sampling bias , or selection bias . Qualitative research Qualitative research is expressed in words . It is used to understand concepts, thoughts or experiences. This type of research enables you to gather in-depth insights on topics that are not well understood.

Common qualitative methods include interviews with open-ended questions, observations described in words, and literature reviews that explore concepts and theories.

The differences between quantitative and qualitative research, data collection methods, when to use qualitative vs. quantitative research, how to analyze qualitative and quantitative data, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about qualitative and quantitative research.

Quantitative and qualitative research use different research methods to collect and analyze data, and they allow you to answer different kinds of research questions.

Quantitative and qualitative data can be collected using various methods. It is important to use a data collection method that will help answer your research question(s).

Many data collection methods can be either qualitative or quantitative. For example, in surveys, observational studies or case studies , your data can be represented as numbers (e.g., using rating scales or counting frequencies) or as words (e.g., with open-ended questions or descriptions of what you observe).

However, some methods are more commonly used in one type or the other.

Quantitative data collection methods

Surveys : List of closed or multiple choice questions that is distributed to a sample (online, in person, or over the phone).
Experiments : Situation in which different types of variables are controlled and manipulated to establish cause-and-effect relationships.
Observations : Observing subjects in a natural environment where variables can’t be controlled.

Qualitative data collection methods

Interviews : Asking open-ended questions verbally to respondents.
Focus groups : Discussion among a group of people about a topic to gather opinions that can be used for further research.
Ethnography : Participating in a community or organization for an extended period of time to closely observe culture and behavior.
Literature review : Survey of published works by other authors.

A rule of thumb for deciding whether to use qualitative or quantitative data is:

Use quantitative research if you want to confirm or test something (a theory or hypothesis )
Use qualitative research if you want to understand something (concepts, thoughts, experiences)

For most research topics you can choose a qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods approach . Which type you choose depends on, among other things, whether you’re taking an inductive vs. deductive research approach ; your research question(s) ; whether you’re doing experimental , correlational , or descriptive research ; and practical considerations such as time, money, availability of data, and access to respondents.

Quantitative research approach

You survey 300 students at your university and ask them questions such as: “on a scale from 1-5, how satisfied are your with your professors?”

You can perform statistical analysis on the data and draw conclusions such as: “on average students rated their professors 4.4”.

Qualitative research approach

You conduct in-depth interviews with 15 students and ask them open-ended questions such as: “How satisfied are you with your studies?”, “What is the most positive aspect of your study program?” and “What can be done to improve the study program?”

Based on the answers you get you can ask follow-up questions to clarify things. You transcribe all interviews using transcription software and try to find commonalities and patterns.

Mixed methods approach

You conduct interviews to find out how satisfied students are with their studies. Through open-ended questions you learn things you never thought about before and gain new insights. Later, you use a survey to test these insights on a larger scale.

It’s also possible to start with a survey to find out the overall trends, followed by interviews to better understand the reasons behind the trends.

Qualitative or quantitative data by itself can’t prove or demonstrate anything, but has to be analyzed to show its meaning in relation to the research questions. The method of analysis differs for each type of data.

Analyzing quantitative data

Quantitative data is based on numbers. Simple math or more advanced statistical analysis is used to discover commonalities or patterns in the data. The results are often reported in graphs and tables.

Applications such as Excel, SPSS, or R can be used to calculate things like:

Average scores ( means )
The number of times a particular answer was given
The correlation or causation between two or more variables
The reliability and validity of the results

Analyzing qualitative data

Qualitative data is more difficult to analyze than quantitative data. It consists of text, images or videos instead of numbers.

Some common approaches to analyzing qualitative data include:

Qualitative content analysis : Tracking the occurrence, position and meaning of words or phrases
Thematic analysis : Closely examining the data to identify the main themes and patterns
Discourse analysis : Studying how communication works in social contexts

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Chi square goodness of fit test
Degrees of freedom
Null hypothesis
Discourse analysis
Control groups
Mixed methods research
Non-probability sampling
Quantitative research
Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Research bias

Rosenthal effect
Implicit bias
Cognitive bias
Selection bias
Negativity bias
Status quo bias

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

In mixed methods research , you use both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods to answer your research question .

The research methods you use depend on the type of data you need to answer your research question .

If you want to measure something or test a hypothesis , use quantitative methods . If you want to explore ideas, thoughts and meanings, use qualitative methods .
If you want to analyze a large amount of readily-available data, use secondary data. If you want data specific to your purposes with control over how it is generated, collect primary data.
If you want to establish cause-and-effect relationships between variables , use experimental methods. If you want to understand the characteristics of a research subject, use descriptive methods.

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organizations.

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

Prepare and organize your data.
Review and explore your data.
Develop a data coding system.
Assign codes to the data.
Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

A research project is an academic, scientific, or professional undertaking to answer a research question . Research projects can take many forms, such as qualitative or quantitative , descriptive , longitudinal , experimental , or correlational . What kind of research approach you choose will depend on your topic.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Streefkerk, R. (2023, June 22). Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research | Differences, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved April 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/qualitative-quantitative-research/

Is this article helpful?

Raimo Streefkerk

Other students also liked, what is quantitative research | definition, uses & methods, what is qualitative research | methods & examples, mixed methods research | definition, guide & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research: Comparing the Methods and Strategies for Education Research

A woman sits at a library table with stacks of books and a laptop.

No matter the field of study, all research can be divided into two distinct methodologies: qualitative and quantitative research. Both methodologies offer education researchers important insights.

Education research assesses problems in policy, practices, and curriculum design, and it helps administrators identify solutions. Researchers can conduct small-scale studies to learn more about topics related to instruction or larger-scale ones to gain insight into school systems and investigate how to improve student outcomes.

Education research often relies on the quantitative methodology. Quantitative research in education provides numerical data that can prove or disprove a theory, and administrators can easily share the number-based results with other schools and districts. And while the research may speak to a relatively small sample size, educators and researchers can scale the results from quantifiable data to predict outcomes in larger student populations and groups.

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research in Education: Definitions

Although there are many overlaps in the objectives of qualitative and quantitative research in education, researchers must understand the fundamental functions of each methodology in order to design and carry out an impactful research study. In addition, they must understand the differences that set qualitative and quantitative research apart in order to determine which methodology is better suited to specific education research topics.

Generate Hypotheses with Qualitative Research

Qualitative research focuses on thoughts, concepts, or experiences. The data collected often comes in narrative form and concentrates on unearthing insights that can lead to testable hypotheses. Educators use qualitative research in a study’s exploratory stages to uncover patterns or new angles.

Form Strong Conclusions with Quantitative Research

Quantitative research in education and other fields of inquiry is expressed in numbers and measurements. This type of research aims to find data to confirm or test a hypothesis.

Differences in Data Collection Methods

Keeping in mind the main distinction in qualitative vs. quantitative research—gathering descriptive information as opposed to numerical data—it stands to reason that there are different ways to acquire data for each research methodology. While certain approaches do overlap, the way researchers apply these collection techniques depends on their goal.

Interviews, for example, are common in both modes of research. An interview with students that features open-ended questions intended to reveal ideas and beliefs around attendance will provide qualitative data. This data may reveal a problem among students, such as a lack of access to transportation, that schools can help address.

An interview can also include questions posed to receive numerical answers. A case in point: how many days a week do students have trouble getting to school, and of those days, how often is a transportation-related issue the cause? In this example, qualitative and quantitative methodologies can lead to similar conclusions, but the research will differ in intent, design, and form.

Taking a look at behavioral observation, another common method used for both qualitative and quantitative research, qualitative data may consider a variety of factors, such as facial expressions, verbal responses, and body language.

On the other hand, a quantitative approach will create a coding scheme for certain predetermined behaviors and observe these in a quantifiable manner.

Qualitative Research Methods

Case Studies : Researchers conduct in-depth investigations into an individual, group, event, or community, typically gathering data through observation and interviews.
Focus Groups : A moderator (or researcher) guides conversation around a specific topic among a group of participants.
Ethnography : Researchers interact with and observe a specific societal or ethnic group in their real-life environment.
Interviews : Researchers ask participants questions to learn about their perspectives on a particular subject.

Quantitative Research Methods

Questionnaires and Surveys : Participants receive a list of questions, either closed-ended or multiple choice, which are directed around a particular topic.
Experiments : Researchers control and test variables to demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships.
Observations : Researchers look at quantifiable patterns and behavior.
Structured Interviews : Using a predetermined structure, researchers ask participants a fixed set of questions to acquire numerical data.

Choosing a Research Strategy

When choosing which research strategy to employ for a project or study, a number of considerations apply. One key piece of information to help determine whether to use a qualitative vs. quantitative research method is which phase of development the study is in.

For example, if a project is in its early stages and requires more research to find a testable hypothesis, qualitative research methods might prove most helpful. On the other hand, if the research team has already established a hypothesis or theory, quantitative research methods will provide data that can validate the theory or refine it for further testing.

It’s also important to understand a project’s research goals. For instance, do researchers aim to produce findings that reveal how to best encourage student engagement in math? Or is the goal to determine how many students are passing geometry? These two scenarios require distinct sets of data, which will determine the best methodology to employ.

In some situations, studies will benefit from a mixed-methods approach. Using the goals in the above example, one set of data could find the percentage of students passing geometry, which would be quantitative. The research team could also lead a focus group with the students achieving success to discuss which techniques and teaching practices they find most helpful, which would produce qualitative data.

Learn How to Put Education Research into Action

Those with an interest in learning how to harness research to develop innovative ideas to improve education systems may want to consider pursuing a doctoral degree. American University’s School of Education Online offers a Doctor of Education (EdD) in Education Policy and Leadership that prepares future educators, school administrators, and other education professionals to become leaders who effect positive changes in schools. Courses such as Applied Research Methods I: Enacting Critical Research provides students with the techniques and research skills needed to begin conducting research exploring new ways to enhance education. Learn more about American’ University’s EdD in Education Policy and Leadership .

What’s the Difference Between Educational Equity and Equality?

EdD vs. PhD in Education: Requirements, Career Outlook, and Salary

Top Education Technology Jobs for Doctorate in Education Graduates

American University, EdD in Education Policy and Leadership

Edutopia, “2019 Education Research Highlights”

Formplus, “Qualitative vs. Quantitative Data: 15 Key Differences and Similarities”

iMotion, “Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research: What Is What?”

Scribbr, “Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research”

Simply Psychology, “What’s the Difference Between Quantitative and Qualitative Research?”

Typeform, “A Simple Guide to Qualitative and Quantitative Research”

Request Information

Qualitative vs Quantitative Research Methods & Data Analysis

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

What is the difference between quantitative and qualitative?

The main difference between quantitative and qualitative research is the type of data they collect and analyze.

Quantitative research collects numerical data and analyzes it using statistical methods. The aim is to produce objective, empirical data that can be measured and expressed in numerical terms. Quantitative research is often used to test hypotheses, identify patterns, and make predictions.

Qualitative research , on the other hand, collects non-numerical data such as words, images, and sounds. The focus is on exploring subjective experiences, opinions, and attitudes, often through observation and interviews.

Qualitative research aims to produce rich and detailed descriptions of the phenomenon being studied, and to uncover new insights and meanings.

Quantitative data is information about quantities, and therefore numbers, and qualitative data is descriptive, and regards phenomenon which can be observed but not measured, such as language.

What Is Qualitative Research?

Qualitative research is the process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting non-numerical data, such as language. Qualitative research can be used to understand how an individual subjectively perceives and gives meaning to their social reality.

Qualitative data is non-numerical data, such as text, video, photographs, or audio recordings. This type of data can be collected using diary accounts or in-depth interviews and analyzed using grounded theory or thematic analysis.

Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Denzin and Lincoln (1994, p. 2)

Interest in qualitative data came about as the result of the dissatisfaction of some psychologists (e.g., Carl Rogers) with the scientific study of psychologists such as behaviorists (e.g., Skinner ).

Since psychologists study people, the traditional approach to science is not seen as an appropriate way of carrying out research since it fails to capture the totality of human experience and the essence of being human. Exploring participants’ experiences is known as a phenomenological approach (re: Humanism ).

Qualitative research is primarily concerned with meaning, subjectivity, and lived experience. The goal is to understand the quality and texture of people’s experiences, how they make sense of them, and the implications for their lives.

Qualitative research aims to understand the social reality of individuals, groups, and cultures as nearly as possible as participants feel or live it. Thus, people and groups are studied in their natural setting.

Some examples of qualitative research questions are provided, such as what an experience feels like, how people talk about something, how they make sense of an experience, and how events unfold for people.

Research following a qualitative approach is exploratory and seeks to explain ‘how’ and ‘why’ a particular phenomenon, or behavior, operates as it does in a particular context. It can be used to generate hypotheses and theories from the data.

Qualitative Methods

There are different types of qualitative research methods, including diary accounts, in-depth interviews , documents, focus groups , case study research , and ethnography.

The results of qualitative methods provide a deep understanding of how people perceive their social realities and in consequence, how they act within the social world.

The researcher has several methods for collecting empirical materials, ranging from the interview to direct observation, to the analysis of artifacts, documents, and cultural records, to the use of visual materials or personal experience. Denzin and Lincoln (1994, p. 14)

Here are some examples of qualitative data:

Interview transcripts : Verbatim records of what participants said during an interview or focus group. They allow researchers to identify common themes and patterns, and draw conclusions based on the data. Interview transcripts can also be useful in providing direct quotes and examples to support research findings.

Observations : The researcher typically takes detailed notes on what they observe, including any contextual information, nonverbal cues, or other relevant details. The resulting observational data can be analyzed to gain insights into social phenomena, such as human behavior, social interactions, and cultural practices.

Unstructured interviews : generate qualitative data through the use of open questions. This allows the respondent to talk in some depth, choosing their own words. This helps the researcher develop a real sense of a person’s understanding of a situation.

Diaries or journals : Written accounts of personal experiences or reflections.

Notice that qualitative data could be much more than just words or text. Photographs, videos, sound recordings, and so on, can be considered qualitative data. Visual data can be used to understand behaviors, environments, and social interactions.

Qualitative Data Analysis

Qualitative research is endlessly creative and interpretive. The researcher does not just leave the field with mountains of empirical data and then easily write up his or her findings.

Qualitative interpretations are constructed, and various techniques can be used to make sense of the data, such as content analysis, grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), or discourse analysis.

For example, thematic analysis is a qualitative approach that involves identifying implicit or explicit ideas within the data. Themes will often emerge once the data has been coded.

Key Features

Events can be understood adequately only if they are seen in context. Therefore, a qualitative researcher immerses her/himself in the field, in natural surroundings. The contexts of inquiry are not contrived; they are natural. Nothing is predefined or taken for granted.
Qualitative researchers want those who are studied to speak for themselves, to provide their perspectives in words and other actions. Therefore, qualitative research is an interactive process in which the persons studied teach the researcher about their lives.
The qualitative researcher is an integral part of the data; without the active participation of the researcher, no data exists.
The study’s design evolves during the research and can be adjusted or changed as it progresses. For the qualitative researcher, there is no single reality. It is subjective and exists only in reference to the observer.
The theory is data-driven and emerges as part of the research process, evolving from the data as they are collected.

Limitations of Qualitative Research

Because of the time and costs involved, qualitative designs do not generally draw samples from large-scale data sets.
The problem of adequate validity or reliability is a major criticism. Because of the subjective nature of qualitative data and its origin in single contexts, it is difficult to apply conventional standards of reliability and validity. For example, because of the central role played by the researcher in the generation of data, it is not possible to replicate qualitative studies.
Also, contexts, situations, events, conditions, and interactions cannot be replicated to any extent, nor can generalizations be made to a wider context than the one studied with confidence.
The time required for data collection, analysis, and interpretation is lengthy. Analysis of qualitative data is difficult, and expert knowledge of an area is necessary to interpret qualitative data. Great care must be taken when doing so, for example, looking for mental illness symptoms.

Advantages of Qualitative Research

Because of close researcher involvement, the researcher gains an insider’s view of the field. This allows the researcher to find issues that are often missed (such as subtleties and complexities) by the scientific, more positivistic inquiries.
Qualitative descriptions can be important in suggesting possible relationships, causes, effects, and dynamic processes.
Qualitative analysis allows for ambiguities/contradictions in the data, which reflect social reality (Denscombe, 2010).
Qualitative research uses a descriptive, narrative style; this research might be of particular benefit to the practitioner as she or he could turn to qualitative reports to examine forms of knowledge that might otherwise be unavailable, thereby gaining new insight.

What Is Quantitative Research?

Quantitative research involves the process of objectively collecting and analyzing numerical data to describe, predict, or control variables of interest.

The goals of quantitative research are to test causal relationships between variables , make predictions, and generalize results to wider populations.

Quantitative researchers aim to establish general laws of behavior and phenomenon across different settings/contexts. Research is used to test a theory and ultimately support or reject it.

Quantitative Methods

Experiments typically yield quantitative data, as they are concerned with measuring things. However, other research methods, such as controlled observations and questionnaires , can produce both quantitative information.

For example, a rating scale or closed questions on a questionnaire would generate quantitative data as these produce either numerical data or data that can be put into categories (e.g., “yes,” “no” answers).

Experimental methods limit how research participants react to and express appropriate social behavior.

Findings are, therefore, likely to be context-bound and simply a reflection of the assumptions that the researcher brings to the investigation.

There are numerous examples of quantitative data in psychological research, including mental health. Here are a few examples:

Another example is the Experience in Close Relationships Scale (ECR), a self-report questionnaire widely used to assess adult attachment styles .

The ECR provides quantitative data that can be used to assess attachment styles and predict relationship outcomes.

Neuroimaging data : Neuroimaging techniques, such as MRI and fMRI, provide quantitative data on brain structure and function.

This data can be analyzed to identify brain regions involved in specific mental processes or disorders.

For example, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) is a clinician-administered questionnaire widely used to assess the severity of depressive symptoms in individuals.

The BDI consists of 21 questions, each scored on a scale of 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more severe depressive symptoms.

Quantitative Data Analysis

Statistics help us turn quantitative data into useful information to help with decision-making. We can use statistics to summarize our data, describing patterns, relationships, and connections. Statistics can be descriptive or inferential.

Descriptive statistics help us to summarize our data. In contrast, inferential statistics are used to identify statistically significant differences between groups of data (such as intervention and control groups in a randomized control study).

Quantitative researchers try to control extraneous variables by conducting their studies in the lab.
The research aims for objectivity (i.e., without bias) and is separated from the data.
The design of the study is determined before it begins.
For the quantitative researcher, the reality is objective, exists separately from the researcher, and can be seen by anyone.
Research is used to test a theory and ultimately support or reject it.

Limitations of Quantitative Research

Context: Quantitative experiments do not take place in natural settings. In addition, they do not allow participants to explain their choices or the meaning of the questions they may have for those participants (Carr, 1994).
Researcher expertise: Poor knowledge of the application of statistical analysis may negatively affect analysis and subsequent interpretation (Black, 1999).
Variability of data quantity: Large sample sizes are needed for more accurate analysis. Small-scale quantitative studies may be less reliable because of the low quantity of data (Denscombe, 2010). This also affects the ability to generalize study findings to wider populations.
Confirmation bias: The researcher might miss observing phenomena because of focus on theory or hypothesis testing rather than on the theory of hypothesis generation.

Advantages of Quantitative Research

Scientific objectivity: Quantitative data can be interpreted with statistical analysis, and since statistics are based on the principles of mathematics, the quantitative approach is viewed as scientifically objective and rational (Carr, 1994; Denscombe, 2010).
Useful for testing and validating already constructed theories.
Rapid analysis: Sophisticated software removes much of the need for prolonged data analysis, especially with large volumes of data involved (Antonius, 2003).
Replication: Quantitative data is based on measured values and can be checked by others because numerical data is less open to ambiguities of interpretation.
Hypotheses can also be tested because of statistical analysis (Antonius, 2003).

Antonius, R. (2003). Interpreting quantitative data with SPSS . Sage.

Black, T. R. (1999). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: An integrated approach to research design, measurement and statistics . Sage.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology . Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3, 77–101.

Carr, L. T. (1994). The strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research : what method for nursing? Journal of advanced nursing, 20(4) , 716-721.

Denscombe, M. (2010). The Good Research Guide: for small-scale social research. McGraw Hill.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln. Y. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications Inc.

Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968). The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Nursing research, 17(4) , 364.

Minichiello, V. (1990). In-Depth Interviewing: Researching People. Longman Cheshire.

Punch, K. (1998). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London: Sage

Further Information

Designing qualitative research
Methods of data collection and analysis
Introduction to quantitative and qualitative research
Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?
Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data
Qualitative data analysis: the framework approach
Using the framework method for the analysis of
Qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research
Content Analysis
Grounded Theory
Thematic Analysis

Bipolar Disorder
Therapy Center
When To See a Therapist
Types of Therapy
Best Online Therapy
Best Couples Therapy
Best Family Therapy
Managing Stress
Sleep and Dreaming
Understanding Emotions
Self-Improvement
Healthy Relationships
Student Resources
Personality Types
Guided Meditations
Verywell Mind Insights
2023 Verywell Mind 25
Mental Health in the Classroom
Editorial Process
Meet Our Review Board
Crisis Support

Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research in Psychology

Anabelle Bernard Fournier is a researcher of sexual and reproductive health at the University of Victoria as well as a freelance writer on various health topics.

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

Key Differences

Quantitative Research Methods

Qualitative research methods.

How They Relate

In psychology and other social sciences, researchers are faced with an unresolved question: Can we measure concepts like love or racism the same way we can measure temperature or the weight of a star? Social phenomena⁠—things that happen because of and through human behavior⁠—are especially difficult to grasp with typical scientific models.

At a Glance

Psychologists rely on quantitative and quantitative research to better understand human thought and behavior.

Qualitative research involves collecting and evaluating non-numerical data in order to understand concepts or subjective opinions.
Quantitative research involves collecting and evaluating numerical data.

This article discusses what qualitative and quantitative research are, how they are different, and how they are used in psychology research.

Qualitative Research vs. Quantitative Research

In order to understand qualitative and quantitative psychology research, it can be helpful to look at the methods that are used and when each type is most appropriate.

Psychologists rely on a few methods to measure behavior, attitudes, and feelings. These include:

Self-reports , like surveys or questionnaires
Observation (often used in experiments or fieldwork)
Implicit attitude tests that measure timing in responding to prompts

Most of these are quantitative methods. The result is a number that can be used to assess differences between groups.

However, most of these methods are static, inflexible (you can't change a question because a participant doesn't understand it), and provide a "what" answer rather than a "why" answer.

Sometimes, researchers are more interested in the "why" and the "how." That's where qualitative methods come in.

Qualitative research is about speaking to people directly and hearing their words. It is grounded in the philosophy that the social world is ultimately unmeasurable, that no measure is truly ever "objective," and that how humans make meaning is just as important as how much they score on a standardized test.

Used to develop theories

Takes a broad, complex approach

Answers "why" and "how" questions

Explores patterns and themes

Used to test theories

Takes a narrow, specific approach

Answers "what" questions

Explores statistical relationships

Quantitative methods have existed ever since people have been able to count things. But it is only with the positivist philosophy of Auguste Comte (which maintains that factual knowledge obtained by observation is trustworthy) that it became a "scientific method."

The scientific method follows this general process. A researcher must:

Generate a theory or hypothesis (i.e., predict what might happen in an experiment) and determine the variables needed to answer their question
Develop instruments to measure the phenomenon (such as a survey, a thermometer, etc.)
Develop experiments to manipulate the variables
Collect empirical (measured) data
Analyze data

Quantitative methods are about measuring phenomena, not explaining them.

Quantitative research compares two groups of people. There are all sorts of variables you could measure, and many kinds of experiments to run using quantitative methods.

These comparisons are generally explained using graphs, pie charts, and other visual representations that give the researcher a sense of how the various data points relate to one another.

Basic Assumptions

Quantitative methods assume:

That the world is measurable
That humans can observe objectively
That we can know things for certain about the world from observation

In some fields, these assumptions hold true. Whether you measure the size of the sun 2000 years ago or now, it will always be the same. But when it comes to human behavior, it is not so simple.

As decades of cultural and social research have shown, people behave differently (and even think differently) based on historical context, cultural context, social context, and even identity-based contexts like gender , social class, or sexual orientation .

Therefore, quantitative methods applied to human behavior (as used in psychology and some areas of sociology) should always be rooted in their particular context. In other words: there are no, or very few, human universals.

Statistical information is the primary form of quantitative data used in human and social quantitative research. Statistics provide lots of information about tendencies across large groups of people, but they can never describe every case or every experience. In other words, there are always outliers.

Correlation and Causation

A basic principle of statistics is that correlation is not causation. Researchers can only claim a cause-and-effect relationship under certain conditions:

The study was a true experiment.
The independent variable can be manipulated (for example, researchers cannot manipulate gender, but they can change the primer a study subject sees, such as a picture of nature or of a building).
The dependent variable can be measured through a ratio or a scale.

So when you read a report that "gender was linked to" something (like a behavior or an attitude), remember that gender is NOT a cause of the behavior or attitude. There is an apparent relationship, but the true cause of the difference is hidden.

Pitfalls of Quantitative Research

Quantitative methods are one way to approach the measurement and understanding of human and social phenomena. But what's missing from this picture?

As noted above, statistics do not tell us about personal, individual experiences and meanings. While surveys can give a general idea, respondents have to choose between only a few responses. This can make it difficult to understand the subtleties of different experiences.

Quantitative methods can be helpful when making objective comparisons between groups or when looking for relationships between variables. They can be analyzed statistically, which can be helpful when looking for patterns and relationships.

Qualitative data are not made out of numbers but rather of descriptions, metaphors, symbols, quotes, analysis, concepts, and characteristics. This approach uses interviews, written texts, art, photos, and other materials to make sense of human experiences and to understand what these experiences mean to people.

While quantitative methods ask "what" and "how much," qualitative methods ask "why" and "how."

Qualitative methods are about describing and analyzing phenomena from a human perspective. There are many different philosophical views on qualitative methods, but in general, they agree that some questions are too complex or impossible to answer with standardized instruments.

These methods also accept that it is impossible to be completely objective in observing phenomena. Researchers have their own thoughts, attitudes, experiences, and beliefs, and these always color how people interpret results.

Qualitative Approaches

There are many different approaches to qualitative research, with their own philosophical bases. Different approaches are best for different kinds of projects. For example:

Case studies and narrative studies are best for single individuals. These involve studying every aspect of a person's life in great depth.
Phenomenology aims to explain experiences. This type of work aims to describe and explore different events as they are consciously and subjectively experienced.
Grounded theory develops models and describes processes. This approach allows researchers to construct a theory based on data that is collected, analyzed, and compared to reach new discoveries.
Ethnography describes cultural groups. In this approach, researchers immerse themselves in a community or group in order to observe behavior.

Qualitative researchers must be aware of several different methods and know each thoroughly enough to produce valuable research.

Some researchers specialize in a single method, but others specialize in a topic or content area and use many different methods to explore the topic, providing different information and a variety of points of view.

There is not a single model or method that can be used for every qualitative project. Depending on the research question, the people participating, and the kind of information they want to produce, researchers will choose the appropriate approach.

Interpretation

Qualitative research does not look into causal relationships between variables, but rather into themes, values, interpretations, and meanings. As a rule, then, qualitative research is not generalizable (cannot be applied to people outside the research participants).

The insights gained from qualitative research can extend to other groups with proper attention to specific historical and social contexts.

Relationship Between Qualitative and Quantitative Research

It might sound like quantitative and qualitative research do not play well together. They have different philosophies, different data, and different outputs. However, this could not be further from the truth.

These two general methods complement each other. By using both, researchers can gain a fuller, more comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon.

For example, a psychologist wanting to develop a new survey instrument about sexuality might and ask a few dozen people questions about their sexual experiences (this is qualitative research). This gives the researcher some information to begin developing questions for their survey (which is a quantitative method).

After the survey, the same or other researchers might want to dig deeper into issues brought up by its data. Follow-up questions like "how does it feel when...?" or "what does this mean to you?" or "how did you experience this?" can only be answered by qualitative research.

By using both quantitative and qualitative data, researchers have a more holistic, well-rounded understanding of a particular topic or phenomenon.

Qualitative and quantitative methods both play an important role in psychology. Where quantitative methods can help answer questions about what is happening in a group and to what degree, qualitative methods can dig deeper into the reasons behind why it is happening. By using both strategies, psychology researchers can learn more about human thought and behavior.

Gough B, Madill A. Subjectivity in psychological science: From problem to prospect . Psychol Methods . 2012;17(3):374-384. doi:10.1037/a0029313

Pearce T. “Science organized”: Positivism and the metaphysical club, 1865–1875 . J Hist Ideas . 2015;76(3):441-465.

Adams G. Context in person, person in context: A cultural psychology approach to social-personality psychology . In: Deaux K, Snyder M, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology . Oxford University Press; 2012:182-208.

Brady HE. Causation and explanation in social science . In: Goodin RE, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Political Science. Oxford University Press; 2011. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.013.0049

Chun Tie Y, Birks M, Francis K. Grounded theory research: A design framework for novice researchers . SAGE Open Med . 2019;7:2050312118822927. doi:10.1177/2050312118822927

Reeves S, Peller J, Goldman J, Kitto S. Ethnography in qualitative educational research: AMEE Guide No. 80 . Medical Teacher . 2013;35(8):e1365-e1379. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2013.804977

Salkind NJ, ed. Encyclopedia of Research Design . Sage Publishing.

Shaughnessy JJ, Zechmeister EB, Zechmeister JS. Research Methods in Psychology . McGraw Hill Education.

By Anabelle Bernard Fournier Anabelle Bernard Fournier is a researcher of sexual and reproductive health at the University of Victoria as well as a freelance writer on various health topics.

News alert: UC Berkeley has announced its next university librarian

Secondary menu

Log in to your Library account
Hours and Maps
Connect from Off Campus
UC Berkeley Home

Search form

Research methods--quantitative, qualitative, and more: overview.

Quantitative Research
Qualitative Research
Data Science Methods (Machine Learning, AI, Big Data)
Text Mining and Computational Text Analysis
Evidence Synthesis/Systematic Reviews
Get Data, Get Help!

About Research Methods

This guide provides an overview of research methods, how to choose and use them, and supports and resources at UC Berkeley.

As Patten and Newhart note in the book Understanding Research Methods , "Research methods are the building blocks of the scientific enterprise. They are the "how" for building systematic knowledge. The accumulation of knowledge through research is by its nature a collective endeavor. Each well-designed study provides evidence that may support, amend, refute, or deepen the understanding of existing knowledge...Decisions are important throughout the practice of research and are designed to help researchers collect evidence that includes the full spectrum of the phenomenon under study, to maintain logical rules, and to mitigate or account for possible sources of bias. In many ways, learning research methods is learning how to see and make these decisions."

The choice of methods varies by discipline, by the kind of phenomenon being studied and the data being used to study it, by the technology available, and more. This guide is an introduction, but if you don't see what you need here, always contact your subject librarian, and/or take a look to see if there's a library research guide that will answer your question.

Suggestions for changes and additions to this guide are welcome!

START HERE: SAGE Research Methods

Without question, the most comprehensive resource available from the library is SAGE Research Methods. HERE IS THE ONLINE GUIDE to this one-stop shopping collection, and some helpful links are below:

SAGE Research Methods
Little Green Books (Quantitative Methods)
Little Blue Books (Qualitative Methods)
Dictionaries and Encyclopedias
Case studies of real research projects
Sample datasets for hands-on practice
Streaming video--see methods come to life
Methodspace- -a community for researchers
SAGE Research Methods Course Mapping

Library Data Services at UC Berkeley

Library Data Services Program and Digital Scholarship Services

The LDSP offers a variety of services and tools ! From this link, check out pages for each of the following topics: discovering data, managing data, collecting data, GIS data, text data mining, publishing data, digital scholarship, open science, and the Research Data Management Program.

Be sure also to check out the visual guide to where to seek assistance on campus with any research question you may have!

Library GIS Services

Other Data Services at Berkeley

D-Lab Supports Berkeley faculty, staff, and graduate students with research in data intensive social science, including a wide range of training and workshop offerings Dryad Dryad is a simple self-service tool for researchers to use in publishing their datasets. It provides tools for the effective publication of and access to research data. Geospatial Innovation Facility (GIF) Provides leadership and training across a broad array of integrated mapping technologies on campu Research Data Management A UC Berkeley guide and consulting service for research data management issues

General Research Methods Resources

Here are some general resources for assistance:

Assistance from ICPSR (must create an account to access): Getting Help with Data , and Resources for Students
Wiley Stats Ref for background information on statistics topics
Survey Documentation and Analysis (SDA) . Program for easy web-based analysis of survey data.

Consultants

D-Lab/Data Science Discovery Consultants Request help with your research project from peer consultants.
Research data (RDM) consulting Meet with RDM consultants before designing the data security, storage, and sharing aspects of your qualitative project.
Statistics Department Consulting Services A service in which advanced graduate students, under faculty supervision, are available to consult during specified hours in the Fall and Spring semesters.

Related Resourcex

IRB / CPHS Qualitative research projects with human subjects often require that you go through an ethics review.
OURS (Office of Undergraduate Research and Scholarships) OURS supports undergraduates who want to embark on research projects and assistantships. In particular, check out their "Getting Started in Research" workshops
Sponsored Projects Sponsored projects works with researchers applying for major external grants.
Next: Quantitative Research >>
Last Updated: Apr 3, 2023 3:14 PM
URL: https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/researchmethods

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

Knowledge Base
Methodology
Qualitative vs Quantitative Research | Examples & Methods

Qualitative vs Quantitative Research | Examples & Methods

Published on 4 April 2022 by Raimo Streefkerk . Revised on 8 May 2023.

When collecting and analysing data, quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings. Both are important for gaining different kinds of knowledge.

Common quantitative methods include experiments, observations recorded as numbers, and surveys with closed-ended questions. Qualitative research Qualitative research is expressed in words . It is used to understand concepts, thoughts or experiences. This type of research enables you to gather in-depth insights on topics that are not well understood.

The differences between quantitative and qualitative research, data collection methods, when to use qualitative vs quantitative research, how to analyse qualitative and quantitative data, frequently asked questions about qualitative and quantitative research.

Quantitative and qualitative research use different research methods to collect and analyse data, and they allow you to answer different kinds of research questions.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Quantitative and qualitative data can be collected using various methods. It is important to use a data collection method that will help answer your research question(s).

Many data collection methods can be either qualitative or quantitative. For example, in surveys, observations or case studies , your data can be represented as numbers (e.g. using rating scales or counting frequencies) or as words (e.g. with open-ended questions or descriptions of what you observe).

However, some methods are more commonly used in one type or the other.

Quantitative data collection methods

Surveys : List of closed or multiple choice questions that is distributed to a sample (online, in person, or over the phone).
Experiments : Situation in which variables are controlled and manipulated to establish cause-and-effect relationships.
Observations: Observing subjects in a natural environment where variables can’t be controlled.

Qualitative data collection methods

Interviews : Asking open-ended questions verbally to respondents.
Focus groups: Discussion among a group of people about a topic to gather opinions that can be used for further research.
Ethnography : Participating in a community or organisation for an extended period of time to closely observe culture and behavior.
Literature review : Survey of published works by other authors.

A rule of thumb for deciding whether to use qualitative or quantitative data is:

Use quantitative research if you want to confirm or test something (a theory or hypothesis)
Use qualitative research if you want to understand something (concepts, thoughts, experiences)

For most research topics you can choose a qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods approach . Which type you choose depends on, among other things, whether you’re taking an inductive vs deductive research approach ; your research question(s) ; whether you’re doing experimental , correlational , or descriptive research ; and practical considerations such as time, money, availability of data, and access to respondents.

Quantitative research approach

You survey 300 students at your university and ask them questions such as: ‘on a scale from 1-5, how satisfied are your with your professors?’

You can perform statistical analysis on the data and draw conclusions such as: ‘on average students rated their professors 4.4’.

Qualitative research approach

You conduct in-depth interviews with 15 students and ask them open-ended questions such as: ‘How satisfied are you with your studies?’, ‘What is the most positive aspect of your study program?’ and ‘What can be done to improve the study program?’

Based on the answers you get you can ask follow-up questions to clarify things. You transcribe all interviews using transcription software and try to find commonalities and patterns.

Mixed methods approach

It’s also possible to start with a survey to find out the overall trends, followed by interviews to better understand the reasons behind the trends.

Qualitative or quantitative data by itself can’t prove or demonstrate anything, but has to be analysed to show its meaning in relation to the research questions. The method of analysis differs for each type of data.

Analysing quantitative data

Quantitative data is based on numbers. Simple maths or more advanced statistical analysis is used to discover commonalities or patterns in the data. The results are often reported in graphs and tables.

Applications such as Excel, SPSS, or R can be used to calculate things like:

Average scores
The number of times a particular answer was given
The correlation or causation between two or more variables
The reliability and validity of the results

Analysing qualitative data

Qualitative data is more difficult to analyse than quantitative data. It consists of text, images or videos instead of numbers.

Some common approaches to analysing qualitative data include:

Qualitative content analysis : Tracking the occurrence, position and meaning of words or phrases
Thematic analysis : Closely examining the data to identify the main themes and patterns
Discourse analysis : Studying how communication works in social contexts

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to test a hypothesis by systematically collecting and analysing data, while qualitative methods allow you to explore ideas and experiences in depth.

In mixed methods research , you use both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods to answer your research question .

The research methods you use depend on the type of data you need to answer your research question .

If you want to measure something or test a hypothesis , use quantitative methods . If you want to explore ideas, thoughts, and meanings, use qualitative methods .
If you want to analyse a large amount of readily available data, use secondary data. If you want data specific to your purposes with control over how they are generated, collect primary data.
If you want to establish cause-and-effect relationships between variables , use experimental methods. If you want to understand the characteristics of a research subject, use descriptive methods.

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

Prepare and organise your data.
Review and explore your data.
Develop a data coding system.
Assign codes to the data.
Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Streefkerk, R. (2023, May 08). Qualitative vs Quantitative Research | Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved 9 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/quantitative-qualitative-research/

Is this article helpful?

Raimo Streefkerk

How it works

Qualitative Vs Quantitative Research – A Comprehensive Guide

Published by Carmen Troy at August 13th, 2021 , Revised On September 20, 2023

What is Quantitative Research?

Quantitative research is associated with numerical data or data that can be measured. It is used to study a large group of population. The information is gathered by performing statistical, mathematical, or computational techniques.

Quantitative research isn’t simply based on statistical analysis or quantitative techniques but rather uses a certain approach to theory to address research hypotheses or questions, establish an appropriate research methodology, and draw findings & conclusions .

Characteristics of Quantitative Research

Some most commonly employed quantitative research strategies include data-driven dissertations, theory-driven studies, and reflection-driven research. Regardless of the chosen approach, there are some common quantitative research features as listed below.

Quantitative research tests or builds on other researchers’ existing theories whilst taking a reflective or extensive route.
Quantitative research aims to test the research hypothesis or answer established research questions.
It is primarily justified by positivist or post-positivist research paradigms.
The research design can be relationship-based, quasi-experimental, experimental, or descriptive.
It draws on a small sample to make generalisations to a wider population using probability sampling techniques.
Quantitative data is gathered according to the established research questions using research vehicles such as structured observation, structured interviews, surveys, questionnaires, and laboratory results.
The researcher uses statistical analysis tools and techniques to measure variables and gather inferential or descriptive data. In some cases, your tutor or dissertation committee members might find it easier to verify your study results with numbers and statistical analysis.
The study results’ accuracy is based on external and internal validity and authenticity of the data used.
Quantitative research answers research questions or tests the hypothesis using charts, graphs, tables, data, and statements.
It underpins research questions or hypotheses and findings to make conclusions.
The researcher can provide recommendations for future research and expand or test existing theories.

What is Qualitative Research?

Qualitative research is a type of scientific research where a researcher collects evidence to seek answers to a question . It is associated with studying human behavior from an informative perspective. It aims at obtaining in-depth details of the problem.

As the term suggests, qualitative research is based on qualitative research methods, including participants’ observations, focus groups, and unstructured interviews.

Qualitative research is very different in nature when compared to quantitative research. It takes an established path towards the research process , how research questions are set up, how existing theories are built upon, what research methods are employed, and how the findings are unveiled to the readers.

You may adopt conventional methods, including phenomenological research, narrative-based research, grounded theory research, ethnographies, case studies, and auto-ethnographies.

Does your Research Methodology Have the Following?

Great Research/Sources
Perfect Language
Accurate Sources

If not, we can help. Our panel of experts makes sure to keep the 3 pillars of Research Methodology strong.

Characteristics of Qualitative Research

Again, regardless of the chosen approach to qualitative research, your dissertation will have unique key features as listed below.

The research questions that you aim to answer will expand or even change as the dissertation writing process continues . This aspect of the research is typically known as an emergent design where the research objectives evolve with time.
Qualitative research may use existing theories to cultivate new theoretical understandings or fall back on existing theories to support the research process. However, the original goal of testing a certain theoretical understanding remains the same.
It can be based on various research models, such as critical theory, constructivism, and interpretivism.
The chosen research design largely influences the analysis and discussion of results and the choices you make . Research design depends on the adopted research path: phenomenological research, narrative-based research, grounded theory-based research, ethnography, case study-based research, or auto-ethnography.
Qualitative research answers research questions with theoretical sampling, where data gathered from the organisation or people are studied.
It involves various research methods to gather qualitative data from participants belonging to the field of study. As indicated previously, some of the most notable qualitative research methods include participant observation, focus groups, and unstructured interviews.
It incorporates an inductive process where the researcher analyses and understands the data through his own eyes and judgments to identify concepts and themes that comprehensively depict the researched material.
The key quality characteristics of qualitative research are transferability, conformity, confirmability, and reliability.
Results and discussions are largely based on narratives, case study and personal experiences, which help detect inconsistencies, observations, processes, and ideas.
Qualitative research discusses theoretical concepts obtained from the results whilst taking research questions and/or hypotheses to draw general conclusions .

Confused between qualitative and quantitative methods of data analysis? No idea what discourse and content analysis are?

We hear you.

Whether you want a full dissertation written or need help forming a dissertation proposal, we can help you with both.
Get different dissertation services at ResearchProspect and score amazing grades!

When to Use Qualitative and Quantitative Research Model?

The research title, research questions, hypothesis , objectives, and study area generally determine the dissertation’s best research method.
If the primary aim of your research is to test a hypothesis, validate an existing theory or perhaps measure some variables, then the quantitative research model will be the more appropriate choice because it might be easier for you to convince your supervisor or members of the dissertation committee with the use of statistics and numbers.
On the other hand, oftentimes, statistics and a collection of numbers are not the answer, especially where there is a need to understand meanings, experiences, and beliefs.
If your research questions or hypothesis can be better addressed through people’s observations and experiences, you should consider qualitative data.
If you select an inappropriate research method, you will not prove your findings’ accuracy, and your dissertation will be pretty much meaningless. To prove that your research is authentic and reliable, choose a research method that best suits your study’s requirements.
In the sections that follow, we explain the most commonly employed research methods for the dissertation, including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methods.

Now that you know the unique differences between quantitative and qualitative research methods, you may want to learn a bit about primary and secondary research methods.

Here is an article that will help you distinguish between primary and secondary research and decide whether you need to use quantitative and/or qualitative methods of primary research in your dissertation.

Alternatively, you can base your dissertation on secondary research, which is descriptive and explanatory.

Limitations of Quantitative and Qualitative Research

What is quantitative research, what is qualitative research.

Qualitative or quantitative, which research type should I use?

The research title, research questions, hypothesis , objectives, and study area generally determine the dissertation’s best research method.

What’s the Difference: Qualitative vs Quantitative Research?

Discover the differences between qualitative vs quantitative research. Learn how to choose the right methodology for your research project.

There are several methodologies for conducting research, with qualitative and quantitative research being two of the most prominent. Qualitative research focuses on understanding an individual’s experiences and points of view through observation and interviews, whereas quantitative research analyses and draws conclusions based on numerical data. Both strategies have benefits as well as drawbacks, and selecting the appropriate methodology can have a considerable influence on the outcome of a study.

In this article, we will look at the differences between qualitative vs quantitative research, their benefits and drawbacks, and how to analyze based on each method. By the end of this article, you will have a better grasp of these two research methods and will be better prepared to select the best one for your research.

What is Qualitative Research?

Qualitative research is a research method that focuses on understanding individuals’ experiences, perspectives, and behaviors in their natural environment. This method is frequently used to investigate complex phenomena that are difficult to quantify, such as beliefs, attitudes, and feelings. Data for qualitative research is often gathered through methods such as observation, interviews, and focus groups. The information gathered is frequently non-numerical and might comprise text, audio, and visual records.

One of the distinctive features of qualitative research is the emphasis on context and the subjective interpretation of data. Rather than attempting to generalize the findings to a broader population, qualitative researchers strive to grasp the meaning and relevance of the data acquired by evaluating it in its context.

This strategy helps researchers to obtain a better understanding of the experiences and points of view of the individuals being examined, as well as find patterns and themes that may not have been obvious using other research methods.

What is Quantitative Research?

Quantitative research is a research method that focuses on the systematic collecting and analysis of numerical data. This strategy is frequently used to investigate correlations between variables and to make predictions or generalizations about a wider population based on a sample. Quantitative research often entails gathering data using methods such as surveys, experiments, and structured observations, and then evaluating the data using statistical techniques.

One of the distinctive features of quantitative research is its emphasis on impartiality and the use of standardized measurements. Quantitative researchers use rigorous methods for gathering and analyzing information to reduce the effect of personal bias and subjectivity.

This method enables researchers to test hypotheses, identify cause-and-effect correlations, and draw statistical inferences about a wider population.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Qualitative Research

When deciding on the methodology to use, researchers should examine the advantages and disadvantages of qualitative research, as follows:

Data richness and depth: Qualitative research enables researchers to collect rich, detailed data about participants’ experiences, attitudes, and points of view, which can offer a more complete picture of the phenomena under investigation.
Flexibility: Qualitative research is adaptive and flexible, allowing researchers to change their method in response to new or unexpected discoveries.
Understanding participants: Since qualitative research frequently involves direct involvement with individuals, researchers can get a better grasp of their personal experiences and points of view.
Contextualization: Qualitative research stresses the relevance of context and subjective data interpretation, which can give insights into how individuals make meaning of their experiences in their specific settings.
Hypothesis generation: By recognizing patterns and themes in the data, qualitative research may be utilized to develop hypotheses for additional research.

Disadvantages

Limited generalizability: Since qualitative research occasionally relies on small sample size, it may not be representative of the wider population, its generalizability is limited.
Subjectivity: Qualitative research entails subjective data interpretation, which may be impacted by the researcher’s bias or personal perspective.
Time-consuming: As qualitative research includes in-depth data collecting and processing, it may be time-consuming.
Difficulties in analysis: Qualitative data can be complicated and difficult to analyze, especially when non-textual material such as photos or audio recordings are included.
Data saturation: Qualitative research might reach a point where new information does not yield significant insights, limiting the relevance of further data collection.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Quantitative Research

Quantitative research, like qualitative research, has advantages and disadvantages that researchers should consider when selecting this method for their study.

Generalizability: Since quantitative research is frequently based on a larger sample size, it can yield statistically valid findings that can be generalized to a broader population.
Objectivity: Quantitative research places an emphasis on objectivity and standardized measurements, which reduces the impact of personal bias and subjectivity.
Replicability: Quantitative research provides an established method and standardized measurements, allowing other researchers to replicate the research.
Statistical analysis: Statistical analysis is possible in quantitative research, which may assist researchers evaluate hypotheses and discover cause-and-effect connections.
Effective data analysis: Quantitative research frequently involves numerical data, which may be quickly examined using statistical tools.

Disadvantages

Lack of depth: As quantitative research frequently depends on standardized measurements, it may overlook the intricacies of participants’ experiences and points of view.
Limited comprehension: Quantitative research frequently focuses on specific aspects of the phenomenon being examined, it may not give an in-depth understanding of the entire phenomenon being studied.
Inflexibility: Since quantitative research relies on a set methodology and established measurements, it is frequently inflexible.
Limited context: Quantitative research may fail to recognize the significance of context and may neglect the impact of subjective data interpretation.
Measurement error: Quantitative research is based on numerical data, which might be prone to measurement errors or inaccuracies.

Data Collection Methods: Qualitative vs Quantitative Research

The collection of data methods differs in different ways between qualitative vs quantitative research.

Qualitative research often employs data-collecting methods such as interviews, focus groups, observation, and document analysis. Using these methods, researchers may acquire extensive, detailed data about participants’ experiences, perspectives, and points of view.

Interviews and focus groups, for example, allow researchers to interact directly with participants and delve deeper into their personal experiences and points of view. Researchers can use observation to study participants’ behavior in their natural environment and capture their experiences in real-time.

They might investigate written or visual materials such as diaries, letters, or photos to get insights into participants’ experiences and points of view through document analysis.

Quantitative research often uses methods for collecting data such as surveys, experiments, and structured observations. These methods enable researchers to acquire numerical data that can then be examined statistically.

Surveys entail asking individuals to answer a series of standardized questions, usually in writing or online. Experiments entail tinkering with one or more variables in order to test hypotheses and quantify the effect on a dependent variable. Structured observations entail gathering data in a methodical manner, frequently utilizing pre-determined categories or checklists.

Overall, data-collecting methods are employed in both qualitative and quantitative research, although the methods utilized change based on the research’s methodology and the type of data being gathered. Quantitative research focuses on numerical data that can be evaluated using statistical tools, whereas qualitative research emphasizes rich, detailed data that can give insights into participants’ experiences and points of view.

How to Analyze Qualitative vs Quantitative Data

Due to the nature of the data, analyzing qualitative and quantitative data requires different methodologies.

The identification of patterns, themes, and categories in collected data is the primary objective of qualitative data analysis . This method frequently includes the following steps:

Transcribing or turning recorded data into text is usually the first stage in assessing qualitative data.
Data coding entails the researcher reading and rereading the data in order to uncover patterns, themes, and categories. To aid in this process, the researcher may employ software programs.
The researcher then generates themes and sub-themes that arise from the data once the data has been coded.
Finally, depending on the data collected, the researcher evaluates the themes and sub-themes, drawing conclusions and providing suggestions.

When it comes to quantitative data analysis , statistical approaches are used to examine the numerical data obtained. The process frequently includes the following steps:

Cleaning the data is the first step in interpreting quantitative data since it removes errors, inconsistencies, and outliers.
The researcher then arranges the data into an analyzable format, such as a spreadsheet or database.
To summarize the data, the researcher may use descriptive statistics such as mean, median, or mode.
Finally, the researcher may employ inferential statistics such as t-tests or ANOVA to test hypotheses and evaluate if the results are statistically significant.

Your Creations, Ready within Minutes!

Mind the Graph is a valuable resource for scientists and researchers who need to create professional-looking scientific illustrations and graphics in a matter of minutes! With its range of tools and resources, the platform makes it easy to create high-quality visuals that effectively communicate research findings to a wide audience.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

About Jessica Abbadia

Jessica Abbadia is a lawyer that has been working in Digital Marketing since 2020, improving organic performance for apps and websites in various regions through ASO and SEO. Currently developing scientific and intellectual knowledge for the community's benefit. Jessica is an animal rights activist who enjoys reading and drinking strong coffee.

Content tags

Qualitative vs. quantitative data: what’s the difference?

Last updated

7 February 2023

Reviewed by

When gathering or analyzing research, remember not all data is created equal. Taking a step back to analyze the core differences between data types will ultimately lead to better research outcomes. Your hypotheses will become clearer, data collection will improve, and your analysis will be aligned with your inputs and the answers you seek.

Learning the difference between qualitative and quantitative data is an important first step—so where should you start?

A key difference in data is the division between quantitative versus qualitative data. Misunderstanding the difference can lead to interpretive errors and faulty judgments.

In contrast, when you clarify and apply those differences to your own data pool, you’ll have more clarity in your research outcomes and feed into better strategic decision-making.

All your data in one place

Analyze your qualitative and quantitative data together in Dovetail and uncover deeper insights

What are the differences between qualitative vs. quantitative data?

Understanding the fundamental differences between qualitative and quantitative data is crucial. It helps you hone your research to deliver accurate, reliable outcomes.

Looking at the root origin of the words themselves is a good first step toward mastering these differences.

What is quantitative data?

The exact definition of quantitative is “having quantity” or “measurable.”

Quantitative data is exact and objective. You can express it as a number or measurement. It relates to things like:

Quantities of things

Amounts and volumes

Units of weight and measurements

Percentage, fractions, and ratios

Frequencies, rates, or durations

Test scores

Most of these measurements invoke the idea of formats, like Fahrenheit versus Celsius and miles versus kilometers. The definition of what’s being measured can sometimes come into question. Just because something can be expressed as a number doesn’t mean it is its most appropriate form.

Here’s a good measure of quantitative data: if someone asks “what” is being measured, the answer should be extremely simple, concise, and specific. It shouldn’t leave room for interpretation.

In cases where quantitative data fails to account for other important facts or creates contention over its value, there is likely a degree of ambiguity or subjectivity that hasn’t been explored enough. This is what qualitative data can deliver.

What is qualitative data?

Qualitative data is inherently inexact and subjective. It requires interpretation and value judgments.

The origin meaning of qualitative stems from the Latin word qualitas, meaning “a quality, property, or nature.” It relates to the “possession of qualities without reference to quantities.”

This invokes expressions of meaning and value—but it’s still data. So what does qualitative data represent in practical terms?

It represents the qualities and categories of things. Categorization still requires consistency, so qualitative data doesn’t come at the expense of clarity. It’s flexible, but not without reason. The data must be renewed if a category’s boundaries shift.

Consider the following statement: “The gas station is eight miles away as the crow flies, and we can walk straight there with a gas can.”

This directional information depends on how you interpret it qualitatively. Your interpretation will be subjective and based on context. You’ll make a qualitative assessment or value judgment.

Qualitative data requires a description of the quality of things since it’s linguistic instead of numerical. It invites and even requires, interpretation.

Here are some examples of qualitative data:

Responses to direct or indirect questions

Evaluations against a criteria or a set of standards

Opinions or assessments

Open-ended survey responses

Pure qualitative data alone can be viewed as unrepresentative or inconclusive. It can be less helpful to businesses, which require concrete, actionable items.

When qualitative data reveal answers and insight into the topic you are researching, it should be correlated with quantitative data. This combination will show whether qualitative responses and anecdotes translate into hard, quantifiable numbers.

Quantitative vs. qualitative data gathering

Whether responses are represented numerically or using descriptive language is a question of methodology. It doesn’t alter the subject under investigation.

Note that qualitative and quantitative data are different tools to address different objectives. The innate value of either type of data depends on context.

If you want to determine value in a quantitative sense, you might use a questionnaire with a rating scale to measure the numerical value consumers rate a product or service. The qualitative value would be the positive impact it delivers on their lives or for their families.

Can a question be both qualitative and quantitative?

Whether you quantify or qualify something often depends on what’s being reflected by that data and the intentions for doing so. Consider the following examples of line-blurring challenges between quantitative and qualitative data:

What’s the price of a commodity? Is it the price measured in a currency with fluctuating value, such as a USD paper note? Or is it measured to a fixed weight and standard, such as a US-minted $1 silver coin? Is the value fluctuating or fixed? If it’s fluctuating, a fully quantitative measure requires more information (e.g., $X in USD at 12PM on January 1st, 2023).

What’s the value of a priceless museum artifact? Is it (1) the price the museum paid to obtain it, (2) the market value an experienced appraiser assigns to it, or (3) the experiential value it provides to museum visitors who admire it? The question becomes, which value is being considered? The term “priceless” can be taken literally as a measure of qualitative value, or as a figure of speech meaning “very expensive.”

What’s the ROI of a park or tree? Is it the amount of real estate, crop, or another commodity that can be obtained using that natural resource? Or is it the emotional and health benefits it provides to people who use and enjoy it?

The same thing can be assigned to both quantitative and qualitative data, depending on who is asking and why. Measures that attempt to take both quantitative and qualitative values into account are possible, but only when the people depending on the data (and what it represents) agree on the terms.

What is quantitative research?

Quantitative research involves:

Measuring, counting

Experimenting

Correlating

Calculating

You can consider this data statistically and scientifically reliable when it’s produced with enough rigor. It’s not open to interpretation unless the researcher breaks the rules and conventions of quantitative data collection and analysis.

This data is essential for statistical analysis, but only when objectively and clearly defined. If this isn’t the case and what is being measured is unclear, the data will be unreliable due to the lack of clearly defined parameters. It doesn’t matter how painstaking or impressive the analysis is.

The robustness of quantitative data relies on having a solid dataset, free from outliers and atypical qualifying factors that reflect the real-world conditions of what you’re trying to measure.

If there’s disagreement over quantitative research’s robustness, it’s likely there are unaddressed questions about what the right thing to measure is and why. This must be thoroughly addressed well before measurement takes place.

What is qualitative research?

In qualitative research , data can be:

Grouped and themed

Labeled and coded

Ranked and ordered

Placed in its overall cultural context

How well it relates to quantitative data is important, but it exists independently of it.

Pure qualitative research must be interpreted. You can use it to categorize what will later be measured quantitatively (e.g., a medical condition’s degrees of severity within a medical research paper, like mild, moderate, or severe). When done well, categories, labels, and groups of data clarify the categories to be analyzed qualitatively, and later measured quantitatively.

Qualitative data can lay the foundation for quantitative analysis by creating defined categories in which to explore data later on. Deciding what category boundaries to set is a judgment call, but the category’s relevance is only as good as the quality of the qualitative research that underpins it.

Applying qualitative vs. quantitative data

Researchers need to be fully aware of what’s being measured and how to agree on which type of data to use to address specific research questions. Otherwise, a measure loses meaning because the definition isn’t consistent or categorical. Just as quantitative data is exact, qualitative data should be clearly defined.

Guessing at what quantitative data represents can lead to confusion, as measures don’t relate to real-world operations. It challenges the purpose of previous data collection efforts. When that purpose changes, it offers an opportunity to reevaluate the right type (or category) of data to analyze.

When to use quantitative or qualitative data

It all begins with a decision between quantifying (measurements) or qualifying (interpretations).

A classic example is the difference between hard and soft skills in the workplace. Soft skills are difficult to measure. Hard skills are easy to measure but much less useful.

You should use qualitative data when:

You have many “why” questions (quantitative methods can address your “what” questions)

The topic is subjective (e.g., why customers feel a certain way about a brand)

Quantitative data can’t be of any further use and you’ve learned all you can from it

You’re no longer clear on what’s being measured by your quantitative data

Categorizing large amounts of non-contextualized or varied data

Your measured data is not verifying your hypotheses

The quantitative data is not lining up with daily realities

Your organization has too many “data silos”

Quantitative data is most important for:

Hard, regular, and discrete data points

Tracking expenses, profits, and other financial matters

Inventory, product, and supply chain management

Timing and scheduling

Keeping tabs on clearly defined KPIs

Delving deeper into an information category that’s already proven its value to you

Sizing and prioritizing opportunities or challenges

Don’t be afraid to switch between qualitative and quantitative data. Just be clear when you do.

Benefits and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research

Numbers are not always the be-all and end-all—especially if a definition is not exact or complete. Fortunately, qualitative research’s disadvantages are typically quantitative research’s advantages, and vice versa. Consider their differences, but don’t set them at odds.

Consider the following question as an example: is the value of a workaholic’s time better defined by its impact on their family or their shareholders? Both parties likely have qualitative and quantitative (respectively) standards in mind, as follows:

Their shareholders consider measurable profits, KPIs, etc.

Their family considers quality time and the strength of their bond

Each party would consider the value of the workaholic’s time differently, according to their purpose. However, these values can easily be seen as conflicting, prompting any of the three parties to think in one of two modes:

Profitability (quantitatively measured)

Quality of time (qualitatively measured)

The limitations and benefits of either data type depend on who’s asking. You’ll need to achieve the right balance between these two modes of data analysis to:

Demonstrably improve the quality of measurements

Naturally, align motives with benchmarks

To get the best answers to your questions, continually review the way you ask them. In the example above, the workaholic could aim to improve the quality of profitable time and the profitability of quality time. This prevents them from seeing hard and soft data as oppositional.

More proactively, data in one category can be used to fill the gaps left by the other category. Today’s apps do just that by synthesizing immense volumes of research data for greater immediate use.

Making quantitative and qualitative data cohesive

Neither qualitative nor quantitative data alone create the full picture. Used at the right time and for the right reasons, either type of data can offer insight and answers to questions to improve research and wider strategy outcomes.

Favoring quantitative or qualitative data over the other without valid reason risks inaccurate and valueless research. The sky’s the limit when you use them wisely (however much the sky’s edge is open to interpretation…).

Learn more about qualitative research data analysis software

Get started today.

Go from raw data to valuable insights with a flexible research platform

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 21 December 2023

Last updated: 16 December 2023

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 15 February 2024

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Last updated: 20 December 2023

Latest articles

Qualitative Vs Quantitative Research

Table of Contents

Qualitative research and quantitative research are two different approaches used in conducting research. Here’s a brief explanation of the differences between the two:

Qualitative Research is exploratory research that seeks to understand a phenomenon in its natural setting from the perspective of the people involved. It uses methods like interviews, focus groups, and observation to gather data.

Quantitative Research is structured research that focuses on measuring and analyzing numerical data. It uses methods like surveys, experiments, and statistical analysis to gather and analyze data.

Data Collection

Qualitative Research uses non-numeric data, such as words, images, and observations, to gather data. This data is often subjective and can be difficult to analyze.

Quantitative Research, on the other hand, uses numerical data, such as survey responses or experimental measurements, to gather data. This data is objective and easier to analyze.

Data Analysis

Qualitative Research uses an interpretive approach to analyze data, meaning that the researcher is interested in understanding the meaning behind the data. This often involves identifying patterns, themes, and relationships in the data.

Quantitative Research, on the other hand, uses statistical analysis to identify patterns and relationships in the data. This involves using mathematical formulas and statistical tests to analyze the data.

Qualitative Research is often used to gain a deeper understanding of a phenomenon or to generate hypotheses for further research. It is commonly used in fields like anthropology, sociology, and psychology.

Quantitative Research is often used to test hypotheses or to make predictions about a phenomenon. It is commonly used in fields like economics, engineering, and biology.

Differences between Qualitative and Quantitative Research

About the author.

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

Inductive Vs Deductive Research

Exploratory Vs Explanatory Research

Basic Vs Applied Research

Generative Vs Evaluative Research

Reliability Vs Validity

Longitudinal Vs Cross-Sectional Research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Front Psychol

Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Generalization and Replication–A Representationalist View

In this paper, we provide a re-interpretation of qualitative and quantitative modeling from a representationalist perspective. In this view, both approaches attempt to construct abstract representations of empirical relational structures. Whereas quantitative research uses variable-based models that abstract from individual cases, qualitative research favors case-based models that abstract from individual characteristics. Variable-based models are usually stated in the form of quantified sentences (scientific laws). This syntactic structure implies that sentences about individual cases are derived using deductive reasoning. In contrast, case-based models are usually stated using context-dependent existential sentences (qualitative statements). This syntactic structure implies that sentences about other cases are justifiable by inductive reasoning. We apply this representationalist perspective to the problems of generalization and replication. Using the analytical framework of modal logic, we argue that the modes of reasoning are often not only applied to the context that has been studied empirically, but also on a between-contexts level. Consequently, quantitative researchers mostly adhere to a top-down strategy of generalization, whereas qualitative researchers usually follow a bottom-up strategy of generalization. Depending on which strategy is employed, the role of replication attempts is very different. In deductive reasoning, replication attempts serve as empirical tests of the underlying theory. Therefore, failed replications imply a faulty theory. From an inductive perspective, however, replication attempts serve to explore the scope of the theory. Consequently, failed replications do not question the theory per se , but help to shape its boundary conditions. We conclude that quantitative research may benefit from a bottom-up generalization strategy as it is employed in most qualitative research programs. Inductive reasoning forces us to think about the boundary conditions of our theories and provides a framework for generalization beyond statistical testing. In this perspective, failed replications are just as informative as successful replications, because they help to explore the scope of our theories.

Introduction

Qualitative and quantitative research strategies have long been treated as opposing paradigms. In recent years, there have been attempts to integrate both strategies. These “mixed methods” approaches treat qualitative and quantitative methodologies as complementary, rather than opposing, strategies (Creswell, 2015 ). However, whilst acknowledging that both strategies have their benefits, this “integration” remains purely pragmatic. Hence, mixed methods methodology does not provide a conceptual unification of the two approaches.

Lacking a common methodological background, qualitative and quantitative research methodologies have developed rather distinct standards with regard to the aims and scope of empirical science (Freeman et al., 2007 ). These different standards affect the way researchers handle contradictory empirical findings. For example, many empirical findings in psychology have failed to replicate in recent years (Klein et al., 2014 ; Open Science, Collaboration, 2015 ). This “replication crisis” has been discussed on statistical, theoretical and social grounds and continues to have a wide impact on quantitative research practices like, for example, open science initiatives, pre-registered studies and a re-evaluation of statistical significance testing (Everett and Earp, 2015 ; Maxwell et al., 2015 ; Shrout and Rodgers, 2018 ; Trafimow, 2018 ; Wiggins and Chrisopherson, 2019 ).

However, qualitative research seems to be hardly affected by this discussion. In this paper, we argue that the latter is a direct consequence of how the concept of generalizability is conceived in the two approaches. Whereas most of quantitative psychology is committed to a top-down strategy of generalization based on the idea of random sampling from an abstract population, qualitative studies usually rely on a bottom-up strategy of generalization that is grounded in the successive exploration of the field by means of theoretically sampled cases.

Here, we show that a common methodological framework for qualitative and quantitative research methodologies is possible. We accomplish this by introducing a formal description of quantitative and qualitative models from a representationalist perspective: both approaches can be reconstructed as special kinds of representations for empirical relational structures. We then use this framework to analyze the generalization strategies used in the two approaches. These turn out to be logically independent of the type of model. This has wide implications for psychological research. First, a top-down generalization strategy is compatible with a qualitative modeling approach. This implies that mainstream psychology may benefit from qualitative methods when a numerical representation turns out to be difficult or impossible, without the need to commit to a “qualitative” philosophy of science. Second, quantitative research may exploit the bottom-up generalization strategy that is inherent to many qualitative approaches. This offers a new perspective on unsuccessful replications by treating them not as scientific failures, but as a valuable source of information about the scope of a theory.

The Quantitative Strategy–Numbers and Functions

Quantitative science is about finding valid mathematical representations for empirical phenomena. In most cases, these mathematical representations have the form of functional relations between a set of variables. One major challenge of quantitative modeling consists in constructing valid measures for these variables. Formally, to measure a variable means to construct a numerical representation of the underlying empirical relational structure (Krantz et al., 1971 ). For example, take the behaviors of a group of students in a classroom: “to listen,” “to take notes,” and “to ask critical questions.” One may now ask whether is possible to assign numbers to the students, such that the relations between the assigned numbers are of the same kind as the relations between the values of an underlying variable, like e.g., “engagement.” The observed behaviors in the classroom constitute an empirical relational structure, in the sense that for every student-behavior tuple, one can observe whether it is true or not. These observations can be represented in a person × behavior matrix 1 (compare Figure 1 ). Given this relational structure satisfies certain conditions (i.e., the axioms of a measurement model), one can assign numbers to the students and the behaviors, such that the relations between the numbers resemble the corresponding numerical relations. For example, if there is a unique ordering in the empirical observations with regard to which person shows which behavior, the assigned numbers have to constitute a corresponding unique ordering, as well. Such an ordering coincides with the person × behavior matrix forming a triangle shaped relation and is formally represented by a Guttman scale (Guttman, 1944 ). There are various measurement models available for different empirical structures (Suppes et al., 1971 ). In the case of probabilistic relations, Item-Response models may be considered as a special kind of measurement model (Borsboom, 2005 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-12-605191-g0001.jpg

Constructing a numerical representation from an empirical relational structure; Due to the unique ordering of persons with regard to behaviors (indicated by the triangular shape of the relation), it is possible to construct a Guttman scale by assigning a number to each of the individuals, representing the number of relevant behaviors shown by the individual. The resulting variable (“engagement”) can then be described by means of statistical analyses, like, e.g., plotting the frequency distribution.

Although essential, measurement is only the first step of quantitative modeling. Consider a slightly richer empirical structure, where we observe three additional behaviors: “to doodle,” “to chat,” and “to play.” Like above, one may ask, whether there is a unique ordering of the students with regard to these behaviors that can be represented by an underlying variable (i.e., whether the matrix forms a Guttman scale). If this is the case, we may assign corresponding numbers to the students and call this variable “distraction.” In our example, such a representation is possible. We can thus assign two numbers to each student, one representing his or her “engagement” and one representing his or her “distraction” (compare Figure 2 ). These measurements can now be used to construct a quantitative model by relating the two variables by a mathematical function. In the simplest case, this may be a linear function. This functional relation constitutes a quantitative model of the empirical relational structure under study (like, e.g., linear regression). Given the model equation and the rules for assigning the numbers (i.e., the instrumentations of the two variables), the set of admissible empirical structures is limited from all possible structures to a rather small subset. This constitutes the empirical content of the model 2 (Popper, 1935 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-12-605191-g0002.jpg

Constructing a numerical model from an empirical relational structure; Since there are two distinct classes of behaviors that each form a Guttman scale, it is possible to assign two numbers to each individual, correspondingly. The resulting variables (“engagement” and “distraction”) can then be related by a mathematical function, which is indicated by the scatterplot and red line on the right hand side.

The Qualitative Strategy–Categories and Typologies

The predominant type of analysis in qualitative research consists in category formation. By constructing descriptive systems for empirical phenomena, it is possible to analyze the underlying empirical structure at a higher level of abstraction. The resulting categories (or types) constitute a conceptual frame for the interpretation of the observations. Qualitative researchers differ considerably in the way they collect and analyze data (Miles et al., 2014 ). However, despite the diverse research strategies followed by different qualitative methodologies, from a formal perspective, most approaches build on some kind of categorization of cases that share some common features. The process of category formation is essential in many qualitative methodologies, like, for example, qualitative content analysis, thematic analysis, grounded theory (see Flick, 2014 for an overview). Sometimes these features are directly observable (like in our classroom example), sometimes they are themselves the result of an interpretative process (e.g., Scheunpflug et al., 2016 ).

In contrast to quantitative methodologies, there have been little attempts to formalize qualitative research strategies (compare, however, Rihoux and Ragin, 2009 ). However, there are several statistical approaches to non-numerical data that deal with constructing abstract categories and establishing relations between these categories (Agresti, 2013 ). Some of these methods are very similar to qualitative category formation on a conceptual level. For example, cluster analysis groups cases into homogenous categories (clusters) based on their similarity on a distance metric.

Although category formation can be formalized in a mathematically rigorous way (Ganter and Wille, 1999 ), qualitative research hardly acknowledges these approaches. 3 However, in order to find a common ground with quantitative science, it is certainly helpful to provide a formal interpretation of category systems.

Let us reconsider the above example of students in a classroom. The quantitative strategy was to assign numbers to the students with regard to variables and to relate these variables via a mathematical function. We can analyze the same empirical structure by grouping the behaviors to form abstract categories. If the aim is to construct an empirically valid category system, this grouping is subject to constraints, analogous to those used to specify a measurement model. The first and most important constraint is that the behaviors must form equivalence classes, i.e., within categories, behaviors need to be equivalent, and across categories, they need to be distinct (formally, the relational structure must obey the axioms of an equivalence relation). When objects are grouped into equivalence classes, it is essential to specify the criterion for empirical equivalence. In qualitative methodology, this is sometimes referred to as the tertium comparationis (Flick, 2014 ). One possible criterion is to group behaviors such that they constitute a set of specific common attributes of a group of people. In our example, we might group the behaviors “to listen,” “to take notes,” and “to doodle,” because these behaviors are common to the cases B, C, and D, and they are also specific for these cases, because no other person shows this particular combination of behaviors. The set of common behaviors then forms an abstract concept (e.g., “moderate distraction”), while the set of persons that show this configuration form a type (e.g., “the silent dreamer”). Formally, this means to identify the maximal rectangles in the underlying empirical relational structure (see Figure 3 ). This procedure is very similar to the way we constructed a Guttman scale, the only difference being that we now use different aspects of the empirical relational structure. 4 In fact, the set of maximal rectangles can be determined by an automated algorithm (Ganter, 2010 ), just like the dimensionality of an empirical structure can be explored by psychometric scaling methods. Consequently, we can identify the empirical content of a category system or a typology as the set of empirical structures that conforms to it. 5 Whereas the quantitative strategy was to search for scalable sub-matrices and then relate the constructed variables by a mathematical function, the qualitative strategy is to construct an empirical typology by grouping cases based on their specific similarities. These types can then be related to one another by a conceptual model that describes their semantic and empirical overlap (see Figure 3 , right hand side).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-12-605191-g0003.jpg

Constructing a conceptual model from an empirical relational structure; Individual behaviors are grouped to form abstract types based on them being shared among a specific subset of the cases. Each type constitutes a set of specific commonalities of a class of individuals (this is indicated by the rectangles on the left hand side). The resulting types (“active learner,” “silent dreamer,” “distracted listener,” and “troublemaker”) can then be related to one another to explicate their semantic and empirical overlap, as indicated by the Venn-diagram on the right hand side.

Variable-Based Models and Case-Based Models

In the previous section, we have argued that qualitative category formation and quantitative measurement can both be characterized as methods to construct abstract representations of empirical relational structures. Instead of focusing on different philosophical approaches to empirical science, we tried to stress the formal similarities between both approaches. However, it is worth also exploring the dissimilarities from a formal perspective.

Following the above analysis, the quantitative approach can be characterized by the use of variable-based models, whereas the qualitative approach is characterized by case-based models (Ragin, 1987 ). Formally, we can identify the rows of an empirical person × behavior matrix with a person-space, and the columns with a corresponding behavior-space. A variable-based model abstracts from the single individuals in a person-space to describe the structure of behaviors on a population level. A case-based model, on the contrary, abstracts from the single behaviors in a behavior-space to describe individual case configurations on the level of abstract categories (see Table 1 ).

Variable-based models and case-based models.

From a representational perspective, there is no a priori reason to favor one type of model over the other. Both approaches provide different analytical tools to construct an abstract representation of an empirical relational structure. However, since the two modeling approaches make use of different information (person-space vs. behavior-space), this comes with some important implications for the researcher employing one of the two strategies. These are concerned with the role of deductive and inductive reasoning.

In variable-based models, empirical structures are represented by functional relations between variables. These are usually stated as scientific laws (Carnap, 1928 ). Formally, these laws correspond to logical expressions of the form

In plain text, this means that y is a function of x for all objects i in the relational structure under consideration. For example, in the above example, one may formulate the following law: for all students in the classroom it holds that “distraction” is a monotone decreasing function of “engagement.” Such a law can be used to derive predictions for single individuals by means of logical deduction: if the above law applies to all students in the classroom, it is possible to calculate the expected distraction from a student's engagement. An empirical observation can now be evaluated against this prediction. If the prediction turns out to be false, the law can be refuted based on the principle of falsification (Popper, 1935 ). If a scientific law repeatedly withstands such empirical tests, it may be considered to be valid with regard to the relational structure under consideration.

In case-based models, there are no laws about a population, because the model does not abstract from the cases but from the observed behaviors. A case-based model describes the underlying structure in terms of existential sentences. Formally, this corresponds to a logical expression of the form

In plain text, this means that there is at least one case i for which the condition XYZ holds. For example, the above category system implies that there is at least one active learner. This is a statement about a singular observation. It is impossible to deduce a statement about another person from an existential sentence like this. Therefore, the strategy of falsification cannot be applied to test the model's validity in a specific context. If one wishes to generalize to other cases, this is accomplished by inductive reasoning, instead. If we observed one person that fulfills the criteria of calling him or her an active learner, we can hypothesize that there may be other persons that are identical to the observed case in this respect. However, we do not arrive at this conclusion by logical deduction, but by induction.

Despite this important distinction, it would be wrong to conclude that variable-based models are intrinsically deductive and case-based models are intrinsically inductive. 6 Both types of reasoning apply to both types of models, but on different levels. Based on a person-space, in a variable-based model one can use deduction to derive statements about individual persons from abstract population laws. There is an analogous way of reasoning for case-based models: because they are based on a behavior space, it is possible to deduce statements about singular behaviors. For example, if we know that Peter is an active learner, we can deduce that he takes notes in the classroom. This kind of deductive reasoning can also be applied on a higher level of abstraction to deduce thematic categories from theoretical assumptions (Braun and Clarke, 2006 ). Similarly, there is an analog for inductive generalization from the perspective of variable-based modeling: since the laws are only quantified over the person-space, generalizations to other behaviors rely on inductive reasoning. For example, it is plausible to assume that highly engaged students tend to do their homework properly–however, in our example this behavior has never been observed. Hence, in variable-based models we usually generalize to other behaviors by means of induction. This kind of inductive reasoning is very common when empirical results are generalized from the laboratory to other behavioral domains.

Although inductive and deductive reasoning are used in qualitative and quantitative research, it is important to stress the different roles of induction and deduction when models are applied to cases. A variable-based approach implies to draw conclusions about cases by means of logical deduction; a case-based approach implies to draw conclusions about cases by means of inductive reasoning. In the following, we build on this distinction to differentiate between qualitative (bottom-up) and quantitative (top-down) strategies of generalization.

Generalization and the Problem of Replication

We will now extend the formal analysis of quantitative and qualitative approaches to the question of generalization and replicability of empirical findings. For this sake, we have to introduce some concepts of formal logic. Formal logic is concerned with the validity of arguments. It provides conditions to evaluate whether certain sentences (conclusions) can be derived from other sentences (premises). In this context, a theory is nothing but a set of sentences (also called axioms). Formal logic provides tools to derive new sentences that must be true, given the axioms are true (Smith, 2020 ). These derived sentences are called theorems or, in the context of empirical science, predictions or hypotheses . On the syntactic level, the rules of logic only state how to evaluate the truth of a sentence relative to its premises. Whether or not sentences are actually true, is formally specified by logical semantics.

On the semantic level, formal logic is intrinsically linked to set-theory. For example, a logical statement like “all dogs are mammals,” is true if and only if the set of dogs is a subset of the set of mammals. Similarly, the sentence “all chatting students doodle” is true if and only if the set of chatting students is a subset of the set of doodling students (compare Figure 3 ). Whereas, the first sentence is analytically true due to the way we define the words “dog” and “mammal,” the latter can be either true or false, depending on the relational structure we actually observe. We can thus interpret an empirical relational structure as the truth criterion of a scientific theory. From a logical point of view, this corresponds to the semantics of a theory. As shown above, variable-based and case-based models both give a formal representation of the same kinds of empirical structures. Accordingly, both types of models can be stated as formal theories. In the variable-based approach, this corresponds to a set of scientific laws that are quantified over the members of an abstract population (these are the axioms of the theory). In the case-based approach, this corresponds to a set of abstract existential statements about a specific class of individuals.

In contrast to mathematical axiom systems, empirical theories are usually not considered to be necessarily true. This means that even if we find no evidence against a theory, it is still possible that it is actually wrong. We may know that a theory is valid in some contexts, yet it may fail when applied to a new set of behaviors (e.g., if we use a different instrumentation to measure a variable) or a new population (e.g., if we draw a new sample).

From a logical perspective, the possibility that a theory may turn out to be false stems from the problem of contingency . A statement is contingent, if it is both, possibly true and possibly false. Formally, we introduce two modal operators: □ to designate logical necessity, and ◇ to designate logical possibility. Semantically, these operators are very similar to the existential quantifier, ∃, and the universal quantifier, ∀. Whereas ∃ and ∀ refer to the individual objects within one relational structure, the modal operators □ and ◇ range over so-called possible worlds : a statement is possibly true, if and only if it is true in at least one accessible possible world, and a statement is necessarily true if and only if it is true in every accessible possible world (Hughes and Cresswell, 1996 ). Logically, possible worlds are mathematical abstractions, each consisting of a relational structure. Taken together, the relational structures of all accessible possible worlds constitute the formal semantics of necessity, possibility and contingency. 7

In the context of an empirical theory, each possible world may be identified with an empirical relational structure like the above classroom example. Given the set of intended applications of a theory (the scope of the theory, one may say), we can now construct possible world semantics for an empirical theory: each intended application of the theory corresponds to a possible world. For example, a quantified sentence like “all chatting students doodle” may be true in one classroom and false in another one. In terms of possible worlds, this would correspond to a statement of contingency: “it is possible that all chatting students doodle in one classroom, and it is possible that they don't in another classroom.” Note that in the above expression, “all students” refers to the students in only one possible world, whereas “it is possible” refers to the fact that there is at least one possible world for each of the specified cases.

To apply these possible world semantics to quantitative research, let us reconsider how generalization to other cases works in variable-based models. Due to the syntactic structure of quantitative laws, we can deduce predictions for singular observations from an expression of the form ∀ i : y i = f ( x i ). Formally, the logical quantifier ∀ ranges only over the objects of the corresponding empirical relational structure (in our example this would refer to the students in the observed classroom). But what if we want to generalize beyond the empirical structure we actually observed? The standard procedure is to assume an infinitely large, abstract population from which a random sample is drawn. Given the truth of the theory, we can deduce predictions about what we may observe in the sample. Since usually we deal with probabilistic models, we can evaluate our theory by means of the conditional probability of the observations, given the theory holds. This concept of conditional probability is the foundation of statistical significance tests (Hogg et al., 2013 ), as well as Bayesian estimation (Watanabe, 2018 ). In terms of possible world semantics, the random sampling model implies that all possible worlds (i.e., all intended applications) can be conceived as empirical sub-structures from a greater population structure. For example, the empirical relational structure constituted by the observed behaviors in a classroom would be conceived as a sub-matrix of the population person × behavior matrix. It follows that, if a scientific law is true in the population, it will be true in all possible worlds, i.e., it will be necessarily true. Formally, this corresponds to an expression of the form

The statistical generalization model thus constitutes a top-down strategy for dealing with individual contexts that is analogous to the way variable-based models are applied to individual cases (compare Table 1 ). Consequently, if we apply a variable-based model to a new context and find out that it does not fit the data (i.e., there is a statistically significant deviation from the model predictions), we have reason to doubt the validity of the theory. This is what makes the problem of low replicability so important: we observe that the predictions are wrong in a new study; and because we apply a top-down strategy of generalization to contexts beyond the ones we observed, we see our whole theory at stake.

Qualitative research, on the contrary, follows a different strategy of generalization. Since case-based models are formulated by a set of context-specific existential sentences, there is no need for universal truth or necessity. In contrast to statistical generalization to other cases by means of random sampling from an abstract population, the usual strategy in case-based modeling is to employ a bottom-up strategy of generalization that is analogous to the way case-based models are applied to individual cases. Formally, this may be expressed by stating that the observed qualia exist in at least one possible world, i.e., the theory is possibly true:

This statement is analogous to the way we apply case-based models to individual cases (compare Table 1 ). Consequently, the set of intended applications of the theory does not follow from a sampling model, but from theoretical assumptions about which cases may be similar to the observed cases with respect to certain relevant characteristics. For example, if we observe that certain behaviors occur together in one classroom, following a bottom-up strategy of generalization, we will hypothesize why this might be the case. If we do not replicate this finding in another context, this does not question the model itself, since it was a context-specific theory all along. Instead, we will revise our hypothetical assumptions about why the new context is apparently less similar to the first one than we originally thought. Therefore, if an empirical finding does not replicate, we are more concerned about our understanding of the cases than about the validity of our theory.

Whereas statistical generalization provides us with a formal (and thus somehow more objective) apparatus to evaluate the universal validity of our theories, the bottom-up strategy forces us to think about the class of intended applications on theoretical grounds. This means that we have to ask: what are the boundary conditions of our theory? In the above classroom example, following a bottom-up strategy, we would build on our preliminary understanding of the cases in one context (e.g., a public school) to search for similar and contrasting cases in other contexts (e.g., a private school). We would then re-evaluate our theoretical description of the data and explore what makes cases similar or dissimilar with regard to our theory. This enables us to expand the class of intended applications alongside with the theory.

Of course, none of these strategies is superior per se . Nevertheless, they rely on different assumptions and may thus be more or less adequate in different contexts. The statistical strategy relies on the assumption of a universal population and invariant measurements. This means, we assume that (a) all samples are drawn from the same population and (b) all variables refer to the same behavioral classes. If these assumptions are true, statistical generalization is valid and therefore provides a valuable tool for the testing of empirical theories. The bottom-up strategy of generalization relies on the idea that contexts may be classified as being more or less similar based on characteristics that are not part of the model being evaluated. If such a similarity relation across contexts is feasible, the bottom-up strategy is valid, as well. Depending on the strategy of generalization, replication of empirical research serves two very different purposes. Following the (top-down) principle of generalization by deduction from scientific laws, replications are empirical tests of the theory itself, and failed replications question the theory on a fundamental level. Following the (bottom-up) principle of generalization by induction to similar contexts, replications are a means to explore the boundary conditions of a theory. Consequently, failed replications question the scope of the theory and help to shape the set of intended applications.

We have argued that quantitative and qualitative research are best understood by means of the structure of the employed models. Quantitative science mainly relies on variable-based models and usually employs a top-down strategy of generalization from an abstract population to individual cases. Qualitative science prefers case-based models and usually employs a bottom-up strategy of generalization. We further showed that failed replications have very different implications depending on the underlying strategy of generalization. Whereas in the top-down strategy, replications are used to test the universal validity of a model, in the bottom-up strategy, replications are used to explore the scope of a model. We will now address the implications of this analysis for psychological research with regard to the problem of replicability.

Modern day psychology almost exclusively follows a top-down strategy of generalization. Given the quantitative background of most psychological theories, this is hardly surprising. Following the general structure of variable-based models, the individual case is not the focus of the analysis. Instead, scientific laws are stated on the level of an abstract population. Therefore, when applying the theory to a new context, a statistical sampling model seems to be the natural consequence. However, this is not the only possible strategy. From a logical point of view, there is no reason to assume that a quantitative law like ∀ i : y i = f ( x i ) implies that the law is necessarily true, i.e.,: □(∀ i : y i = f ( x i )). Instead, one might just as well define the scope of the theory following an inductive strategy. 8 Formally, this would correspond to the assumption that the observed law is possibly true, i.e.,: ◇(∀ i : y i = f ( x i )). For example, we may discover a functional relation between “engagement” and “distraction” without referring to an abstract universal population of students. Instead, we may hypothesize under which conditions this functional relation may be valid and use these assumptions to inductively generalize to other cases.

If we take this seriously, this would require us to specify the intended applications of the theory: in which contexts do we expect the theory to hold? Or, equivalently, what are the boundary conditions of the theory? These boundary conditions may be specified either intensionally, i.e., by giving external criteria for contexts being similar enough to the ones already studied to expect a successful application of the theory. Or they may be specified extensionally, by enumerating the contexts where the theory has already been shown to be valid. These boundary conditions need not be restricted to the population we refer to, but include all kinds of contextual factors. Therefore, adopting a bottom-up strategy, we are forced to think about these factors and make them an integral part of our theories.

In fact, there is good reason to believe that bottom-up generalization may be more adequate in many psychological studies. Apart from the pitfalls associated with statistical generalization that have been extensively discussed in recent years (e.g., p-hacking, underpowered studies, publication bias), it is worth reflecting on whether the underlying assumptions are met in a particular context. For example, many samples used in experimental psychology are not randomly drawn from a large population, but are convenience samples. If we use statistical models with non-random samples, we have to assume that the observations vary as if drawn from a random sample. This may indeed be the case for randomized experiments, because all variation between the experimental conditions apart from the independent variable will be random due to the randomization procedure. In this case, a classical significance test may be regarded as an approximation to a randomization test (Edgington and Onghena, 2007 ). However, if we interpret a significance test as an approximate randomization test, we test not for generalization but for internal validity. Hence, even if we use statistical significance tests when assumptions about random sampling are violated, we still have to use a different strategy of generalization. This issue has been discussed in the context of small-N studies, where variable-based models are applied to very small samples, sometimes consisting of only one individual (Dugard et al., 2012 ). The bottom-up strategy of generalization that is employed by qualitative researchers, provides such an alternative.

Another important issue in this context is the question of measurement invariance. If we construct a variable-based model in one context, the variables refer to those behaviors that constitute the underlying empirical relational structure. For example, we may construct an abstract measure of “distraction” using the observed behaviors in a certain context. We will then use the term “distraction” as a theoretical term referring to the variable we have just constructed to represent the underlying empirical relational structure. Let us now imagine we apply this theory to a new context. Even if the individuals in our new context are part of the same population, we may still get into trouble if the observed behaviors differ from those used in the original study. How do we know whether these behaviors constitute the same variable? We have to ensure that in any new context, our measures are valid for the variables in our theory. Without a proper measurement model, this will be hard to achieve (Buntins et al., 2017 ). Again, we are faced with the necessity to think of the boundary conditions of our theories. In which contexts (i.e., for which sets of individuals and behaviors) do we expect our theory to work?

If we follow the rationale of inductive generalization, we can explore the boundary conditions of a theory with every new empirical study. We thus widen the scope of our theory by comparing successful applications in different contexts and unsuccessful applications in similar contexts. This may ultimately lead to a more general theory, maybe even one of universal scope. However, unless we have such a general theory, we might be better off, if we treat unsuccessful replications not as a sign of failure, but as a chance to learn.

Author Contributions

MB conceived the original idea and wrote the first draft of the paper. MS helped to further elaborate and scrutinize the arguments. All authors contributed to the final version of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Annette Scheunpflug for helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

1 A person × behavior matrix constitutes a very simple relational structure that is common in psychological research. This is why it is chosen here as a minimal example. However, more complex structures are possible, e.g., by relating individuals to behaviors over time, with individuals nested within groups etc. For a systematic overview, compare Coombs ( 1964 ).

2 This notion of empirical content applies only to deterministic models. The empirical content of a probabilistic model consists in the probability distribution over all possible empirical structures.

3 For example, neither the SAGE Handbook of qualitative data analysis edited by Flick ( 2014 ) nor the Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research edited by Leavy ( 2014 ) mention formal approaches to category formation.

4 Note also that the described structure is empirically richer than a nominal scale. Therefore, a reduction of qualitative category formation to be a special (and somehow trivial) kind of measurement is not adequate.

5 It is possible to extend this notion of empirical content to the probabilistic case (this would correspond to applying a latent class analysis). But, since qualitative research usually does not rely on formal algorithms (neither deterministic nor probabilistic), there is currently little practical use of such a concept.

6 We do not elaborate on abductive reasoning here, since, given an empirical relational structure, the concept can be applied to both types of models in the same way (Schurz, 2008 ). One could argue that the underlying relational structure is not given a priori but has to be constructed by the researcher and will itself be influenced by theoretical expectations. Therefore, abductive reasoning may be necessary to establish an empirical relational structure in the first place.

7 We shall not elaborate on the metaphysical meaning of possible worlds here, since we are only concerned with empirical theories [but see Tooley ( 1999 ), for an overview].

8 Of course, this also means that it would be equally reasonable to employ a top-down strategy of generalization using a case-based model by postulating that □(∃ i : XYZ i ). The implications for case-based models are certainly worth exploring, but lie beyond the scope of this article.

Agresti A. (2013). Categorical Data Analysis, 3rd Edn. Wiley Series In Probability And Statistics . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
Borsboom D. (2005). Measuring the Mind: Conceptual Issues in Contemporary Psychometrics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 10.1017/CBO9780511490026 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Braun V., Clarke V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology . Qual. Res. Psychol . 3 , 77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Buntins M., Buntins K., Eggert F. (2017). Clarifying the concept of validity: from measurement to everyday language . Theory Psychol. 27 , 703–710. 10.1177/0959354317702256 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Carnap R. (1928). The Logical Structure of the World . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Coombs C. H. (1964). A Theory of Data . New York, NY: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
Creswell J. W. (2015). A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research . Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
Dugard P., File P., Todman J. B. (2012). Single-Case and Small-N Experimental Designs: A Practical Guide to Randomization Tests 2nd Edn . New York, NY: Routledge; 10.4324/9780203180938 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Edgington E., Onghena P. (2007). Randomization Tests, 4th Edn. Statistics. Hoboken, NJ: CRC Press; 10.1201/9781420011814 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Everett J. A. C., Earp B. D. (2015). A tragedy of the (academic) commons: interpreting the replication crisis in psychology as a social dilemma for early-career researchers . Front. Psychol . 6 :1152. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01152 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Flick U. (Ed.). (2014). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis . London: Sage; 10.4135/9781446282243 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Freeman M., Demarrais K., Preissle J., Roulston K., St. Pierre E. A. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: an incitement to discourse . Educ. Res. 36 , 25–32. 10.3102/0013189X06298009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ganter B. (2010). Two basic algorithms in concept analysis , in Lecture Notes In Computer Science. Formal Concept Analysis, Vol. 5986 , eds Hutchison D., Kanade T., Kittler J., Kleinberg J. M., Mattern F., Mitchell J. C., et al. (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; ), 312–340. 10.1007/978-3-642-11928-6_22 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ganter B., Wille R. (1999). Formal Concept Analysis . Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 10.1007/978-3-642-59830-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Guttman L. (1944). A basis for scaling qualitative data . Am. Sociol. Rev . 9 :139 10.2307/2086306 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hogg R. V., Mckean J. W., Craig A. T. (2013). Introduction to Mathematical Statistics, 7th Edn . Boston, MA: Pearson. [ Google Scholar ]
Hughes G. E., Cresswell M. J. (1996). A New Introduction To Modal Logic . London; New York, NY: Routledge; 10.4324/9780203290644 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Klein R. A., Ratliff K. A., Vianello M., Adams R. B., Bahník Š., Bernstein M. J., et al. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability . Soc. Psychol. 45 , 142–152. 10.1027/1864-9335/a000178 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Krantz D. H., Luce D., Suppes P., Tversky A. (1971). Foundations of Measurement Volume I: Additive And Polynomial Representations . New York, NY; London: Academic Press; 10.1016/B978-0-12-425401-5.50011-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Leavy P. (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research . New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199811755.001.0001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Maxwell S. E., Lau M. Y., Howard G. S. (2015). Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? what does “failure to replicate” really mean? Am. Psychol. 70 , 487–498. 10.1037/a0039400 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Miles M. B., Huberman A. M., Saldaña J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook, 3rd Edn . Los Angeles, CA; London; New Delhi; Singapore; Washington, DC: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
Open Science, Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science . Science 349 :Aac4716. 10.1126/science.aac4716 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Popper K. (1935). Logik Der Forschung . Wien: Springer; 10.1007/978-3-7091-4177-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ragin C. (1987). The Comparative Method : Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies . Berkeley, CA: University Of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Rihoux B., Ragin C. (2009). Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (Qca) And Related Techniques . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 10.4135/9781452226569 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Scheunpflug A., Krogull S., Franz J. (2016). Understanding learning in world society: qualitative reconstructive research in global learning and learning for sustainability . Int. Journal Dev. Educ. Glob. Learn. 7 , 6–23. 10.18546/IJDEGL.07.3.02 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schurz G. (2008). Patterns of abduction . Synthese 164 , 201–234. 10.1007/s11229-007-9223-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Shrout P. E., Rodgers J. L. (2018). Psychology, science, and knowledge construction: broadening perspectives from the replication crisis . Annu. Rev. Psychol . 69 , 487–510. 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011845 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Smith P. (2020). An Introduction To Formal Logic . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108328999 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Suppes P., Krantz D. H., Luce D., Tversky A. (1971). Foundations of Measurement Volume II: Geometrical, Threshold, and Probabilistic Representations . New York, NY; London: Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Tooley M. (Ed.). (1999). Necessity and Possibility. The Metaphysics of Modality . New York, NY; London: Garland Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
Trafimow D. (2018). An a priori solution to the replication crisis . Philos. Psychol . 31 , 1188–1214. 10.1080/09515089.2018.1490707 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Watanabe S. (2018). Mathematical Foundations of Bayesian Statistics. CRC Monographs On Statistics And Applied Probability . Boca Raton, FL: Chapman And Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
Wiggins B. J., Chrisopherson C. D. (2019). The replication crisis in psychology: an overview for theoretical and philosophical psychology . J. Theor. Philos. Psychol. 39 , 202–217. 10.1037/teo0000137 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Quantitative vs qualitative research methods

Affiliation.

1 Department of Pediatrics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi.
PMID: 10885211
DOI: 10.1007/BF02820690

Quantitative methods have been widely used because of the fact that things that can be measured or counted gain scientific credibility over the unmeasurable. But the extent of biological abnormality, severity, consequences and the impact of illness cannot be satisfactorily captured and answered by the quantitative research alone. In such situations qualitative methods take a holistic perspective preserving the complexities of human behavior by addressing the "why" and "how" questions. In this paper an attempt has been made to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of both the methods and also that a balanced mix of both qualitative as well as quantitative methods yield the most valid and reliable results.

Publication types

Data Collection / methods
Research / trends
Research Design*
Surveys and Questionnaires

From Qualitative to Quantitative | Online Guide to Combining Q&A with Other Research Methods Article

Anh Vu • 09 Apr 2024 • 5 min read

Are you frustrated with the limitations of your research methods? Many methods have their drawbacks, resulting in incomplete insights. But there’s an innovative approach that combines qualitative and quantitative methods with Q&A sessions. This article will demonstrate how combining these methods can help you access more data and insights.

Understanding qualitative and quantitative research, steps to combine q&a with qualitative research methods, steps to combine q&a with quantitative research methods, common challenges when holding q&a sessions, enriching your research with q&a.

Qualitative vs. quantitative research methods differ in the type of questions they help you answer. Qualitative research, like interviews and observations, offers rich insights into people’s thoughts and behaviors. It’s all about understanding the “why” behind actions.

Conversely, quantitative research focuses on numbers and measurements, giving us clear statistical trends and patterns to answer questions like “what” or “when.” Surveys and experiments fall into this category.

Each method has its limitations, which a Q&A session can help with. Results and conclusions from qualitative methods might only apply to some because of the small sample size. Q&A can help by getting more opinions from a wider group. On the other hand, quantitative methods give you numbers, but they might miss the details.

With Q&A, you can dig deeper into those details and understand them better. Blending qualitative and quantitative methods with Q&A helps you see the whole picture better, providing unique insights you wouldn’t have otherwise.

Steps to Combine Q&A with Qualitative Research Methods

Picture yourself investigating customer satisfaction in a restaurant for your master degree . Alongside interviews and observations, you organize a Q&A session. Merging Q&A insights with qualitative findings can lead to detailed insights for informed decision-making, such as optimizing staffing during busy hours. Here’s an example of how you do it:

Plan your Q&A session: Choose the timing, location, and participants for your session. For instance, consider holding it during quiet times in the restaurant, inviting regular and occasional customers to share feedback. You can also have a virtual session. However, remember that attendees may only be engaged for part of the session, which can impact the quality of their responses.
Conduct the Q&A session: Encourage a welcoming atmosphere to boost participation. Start with a warm introduction, express gratitude for attendance, and explain how their input will improve the restaurant experience.
Document responses: Take detailed notes during the session to capture critical points and noteworthy quotes. Document customer comments about specific menu items or praises for staff friendliness.
Analyze Q&A data: Review your notes and recordings, searching for recurring themes or observations. Compare these insights with your previous research to spot patterns, like common complaints about long wait times during peak hours.
Integrate findings: Combine Q&A insights with other research data to gain a better understanding. Identify connections between data sources, such as Q&A feedback confirming survey responses about service speed dissatisfaction.
Draw conclusions and make recommendations: Summarize your findings and propose actionable steps. For instance, suggest adjusting staffing levels or implementing a reservation system to address the issues.

Steps to Combine Q&A with Quantitative Research Methods

Now, let’s shift to another scenario. Imagine you’re exploring factors influencing online shopping behavior to refine marketing strategies as part of your online executive MBA requirements. Alongside a questionnaire with effective survey questions , you add Q&A sessions to your method for deeper insights. Here’s how to combine Q&A with quantitative methods:

Plan your research design: Determine how Q&A sessions align with your quantitative objectives. Schedule sessions to complement survey data collection, perhaps before or after distributing online surveys.
Structure Q&A sessions: Craft questions to gather qualitative insights alongside quantitative data. Use a mix of open-ended questions to explore motivations and closed-ended queries for statistical analysis.
Administer surveys: To collect numerical data, you must send surveys to a broader audience. A study on response rates found that sending online surveys can generate a 44.1% response rate. To increase this response rate, refine your population. Ensure the survey questions align with research objectives and are related to the qualitative insights from Q&A sessions.
Analyze combined data: Combine Q&A insights with survey data to see shopping trends. Find connections between qualitative feedback on user preferences and quantitative data on purchasing habits. For example, dark roast coffee lovers from your Q&A session might indicate in their surveys that they buy more coffee bags per month than your medium roast lovers.
Interpret and report findings: Present results clearly, highlighting critical insights from qualitative and quantitative perspectives. Use visuals like charts or graphs to show trends effectively.
Draw implications and recommendations: Based on combined qualitative and quantitative data analysis, provide practical suggestions that can be implemented. For example, recommend customized marketer strategies that attract your medium roast coffee lovers and drive profit.

Hosting Q&A sessions can be tricky, but technology offers solutions to make them smoother. For example, the global presentation software market is expected to grow by 13.5% from 2024 to 2031, emphasizing its growing importance. Here are some common hurdles you might face, along with how technology can help:

Limited Participation: Encouraging everyone to join in can take time and effort. Here, virtual Q&A sessions can help, allowing participants to ask questions via their phones and the internet, making involvement easy. You can also offer incentives or rewards, or use an AI presentation maker to create engaging slides.
Managing Time Effectively: Balancing time while covering all topics is a challenge. You can address this issue with tools that allow you to approve or deny questions before they appear. You can also set a time limit for discussions.
Handling Difficult Questions: Tough questions need careful handling. Allowing anonymity is an effective strategy for this challenge. It helps people feel safer asking difficult questions, promoting honest discussions without fear of judgment.
Ensuring Quality Responses: Getting informative responses is vital to a productive Q&A session. Likewise, customizing the Q&A slide with bright backgrounds and fonts keeps participants engaged and ensures effective communication.
Navigating Technical Issues: Technical issues can interrupt sessions. Some tools offer helpful features to help you avoid this issue. Allowing participants to upvote questions, for example, can help you prioritize important questions. You could also prepare backup devices for audio and video recordings so you don’t have to worry about losing your data.

Throughout this article, we’ve seen how combining Q&A with other research methods can unlock a wealth of insights that may not be possible through a single method. Whether you’re using Q&A to supplement qualitative research or combining it with quantitative research, the approach can help you gain a more comprehensive understanding of your topic.

Remember to communicate openly, listen attentively, and stay flexible. Following the steps outlined in this article, you can integrate Q&A sessions into your research design and emerge with better, more detailed insights.

More from AhaSlides

7 Sample Likert Scale Questionnaires for Effective Research

COMMENTS

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research
Quantitative research Quantitative research is expressed in numbers and graphs. It is used to test or confirm theories and assumptions. This type of research can be used to establish generalizable facts. about a topic. Common quantitative methods include experiments, observations recorded as numbers, and surveys with closed-ended questions.
Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research: Comparing the Methods and
One key piece of information to help determine whether to use a qualitative vs. quantitative research method is which phase of development the study is in. For example, if a project is in its early stages and requires more research to find a testable hypothesis, qualitative research methods might prove most helpful.
Qualitative vs Quantitative Research: What's the Difference?
The main difference between quantitative and qualitative research is the type of data they collect and analyze. Quantitative research collects numerical data and analyzes it using statistical methods. The aim is to produce objective, empirical data that can be measured and expressed in numerical terms.
Difference Between Qualitative and Qualitative Research
Qualitative Research vs. Quantitative Research . In order to understand qualitative and quantitative psychology research, it can be helpful to look at the methods that are used and when each type is most appropriate. ... Quantitative Research Methods . Quantitative methods have existed ever since people have been able to count things.
A Practical Guide to Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research
Unlike in quantitative research where hypotheses are usually developed to be tested, qualitative research can lead to both hypothesis-testing and hypothesis-generating outcomes.2 When studies require both quantitative and qualitative research questions, this suggests an integrative process between both research methods wherein a single mixed ...
What is Quantitative Research? Definition, Methods, Types, and Examples
Quantitative research is the process of collecting and analyzing numerical data to describe, predict, or control variables of interest. This type of research helps in testing the causal relationships between variables, making predictions, and generalizing results to wider populations. The purpose of quantitative research is to test a predefined ...
Research Methods--Quantitative, Qualitative, and More: Overview
About Research Methods. This guide provides an overview of research methods, how to choose and use them, and supports and resources at UC Berkeley. As Patten and Newhart note in the book Understanding Research Methods, "Research methods are the building blocks of the scientific enterprise. They are the "how" for building systematic knowledge.
Qualitative vs Quantitative Research
This type of research can be used to establish generalisable facts about a topic. Common quantitative methods include experiments, observations recorded as numbers, and surveys with closed-ended questions. Qualitative research. Qualitative research is expressed in words. It is used to understand concepts, thoughts or experiences.
Qualitative Vs Quantitative Research
Qualitative research is very different in nature when compared to quantitative research. It takes an established path towards the research process, how research questions are set up, how existing theories are built upon, what research methods are employed, and how the findings are unveiled to the readers. You may adopt conventional methods ...
The differences between qualitative and quantitative research methods
Quantitative research approach. On the other hand, quantitative research verifies or tests a hypothesis you've developed, or you can use it to find answers to those questions. Mixed methods approach. Often, researchers use elements of both types of research to provide complex and targeted information.
Qualitative vs Quantitative Research
Qualitative and quantitative research differs in terms of the methods they employ to conduct, collect, and analyze data. For example, qualitative research usually relies on interviews, observations, and textual analysis to explore subjective experiences and diverse perspectives. While quantitative data collection methods include surveys ...
Quantitative Research
Quantitative Research Methods are as follows: Descriptive Research Design. Descriptive research design is used to describe the characteristics of a population or phenomenon being studied. This research method is used to answer the questions of what, where, when, and how. Descriptive research designs use a variety of methods such as observation ...
Qualitative Vs. Quantitative Research
With an awareness of qualitative vs. quantitative research and the different data collection methods, researchers could use one or both types of research approaches depending on their preferred results.Moreover, to implement unbiased research and acquire meaningful insights from the research study, it is advisable to consider both qualitative and quantitative research methods.
What's the Difference: Qualitative vs Quantitative Research?
Limited context: Quantitative research may fail to recognize the significance of context and may neglect the impact of subjective data interpretation. Measurement error: Quantitative research is based on numerical data, which might be prone to measurement errors or inaccuracies. Data Collection Methods: Qualitative vs Quantitative Research
Qualitative vs Quantitative Research: Key Differences & Questions
Qualitative research is about people's thoughts, feelings and perspectives, while quantitative research concentrates on demographic, statistical and numerical data. Quantitative and qualitative data involve asking the right questions in a survey or form. Quantitative questions are simple questions with definite answers, while qualitative ...
Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research: What's the Difference?
Because qualitative and quantitative studies collect different types of data, their data collection methods differ considerably. Quantitative studies rely on numerical or measurable data. In contrast, qualitative studies rely on personal accounts or documents that illustrate in detail how people think or respond within society.
Qualitative vs. Quantitative Data: What's the Difference?
The exact definition of quantitative is "having quantity" or "measurable.". Quantitative data is exact and objective. You can express it as a number or measurement. It relates to things like: Quantities of things. Amounts and volumes. Units of weight and measurements. Percentage, fractions, and ratios.
Distinguishing Between Quantitative and Qualitative Research: A
Maxwell J. A., Chmiel M, Rogers S (2015). Designing integration in mixed method and multi-method research. In Hesse-Biber S., Johnson R. B. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 223-239). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Qualitative Vs Quantitative Research
Definition. Qualitative Research is exploratory research that seeks to understand a phenomenon in its natural setting from the perspective of the people involved. It uses methods like interviews, focus groups, and observation to gather data. Quantitative Research is structured research that focuses on measuring and analyzing numerical data.
Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Generalization and
Qualitative and quantitative research strategies have long been treated as opposing paradigms. In recent years, there have been attempts to integrate both strategies. These "mixed methods" approaches treat qualitative and quantitative methodologies as complementary, rather than opposing, strategies (Creswell, 2015). However, whilst ...
Quantitative vs qualitative research methods
Abstract. Quantitative methods have been widely used because of the fact that things that can be measured or counted gain scientific credibility over the unmeasurable. But the extent of biological abnormality, severity, consequences and the impact of illness cannot be satisfactorily captured and answered by the quantitative research alone.
Qualitative vs. Quantitative: Which Research Method Is Right for You?
One of the key differences between qualitative and quantitative research is the approach to data. In quantitative research, data is typically collected through surveys, experiments, or other structured methods. The focus is on gathering numerical data that can be analyzed statistically. In contrast, qualitative research involves collecting data ...
From Qualitative to Quantitative
Plan your research design: Determine how Q&A sessions align with your quantitative objectives. Schedule sessions to complement survey data collection, perhaps before or after distributing online surveys. Structure Q&A sessions: Craft questions to gather qualitative insights alongside quantitative data. Use a mix of open-ended questions to explore motivations and closed-ended queries for ...
Exploring Stigma: Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research
Quantitative Research: Surveys and Questionnaires: Quantitative methods allow for the collection of large amounts of standardized data through surveys or questionnaires. This can provide statistical information about the prevalence and severity of stigma towards mental health across different populations. Statistical Analysis: Quantitative analysis techniques such as regression analysis or ...

Have a language expert improve your writing

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research | Differences, Examples & Methods

Table of contents

Quantitative data collection methods

Qualitative data collection methods

Quantitative research approach

Qualitative research approach

Mixed methods approach

Analyzing quantitative data

Analyzing qualitative data

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Raimo Streefkerk

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research: Comparing the Methods and Strategies for Education Research

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research in Education: Definitions

Generate Hypotheses with Qualitative Research

Form Strong Conclusions with Quantitative Research

Differences in Data Collection Methods

Qualitative Research Methods

Quantitative Research Methods

Choosing a Research Strategy

Learn How to Put Education Research into Action

Qualitative vs Quantitative Research Methods & Data Analysis

What is the difference between quantitative and qualitative?

What Is Qualitative Research?

Qualitative Methods

Qualitative Data Analysis

Key Features

Limitations of Qualitative Research

Advantages of Qualitative Research

What Is Quantitative Research?

Quantitative Methods

Quantitative Data Analysis

Limitations of Quantitative Research

Advantages of Quantitative Research

Further Information

Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research in Psychology

Quantitative Research Methods

At a Glance

Qualitative Research vs. Quantitative Research

Basic Assumptions

Correlation and Causation

Pitfalls of Quantitative Research

Qualitative Approaches

Interpretation

Relationship Between Qualitative and Quantitative Research

Secondary menu

Search form

About Research Methods

START HERE: SAGE Research Methods

Library Data Services at UC Berkeley

Other Data Services at Berkeley

General Research Methods Resources

Consultants

Related Resourcex

Have a language expert improve your writing

Qualitative vs Quantitative Research | Examples & Methods

Table of contents

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Quantitative data collection methods

Qualitative data collection methods

Quantitative research approach

Qualitative research approach

Mixed methods approach

Analysing quantitative data

Analysing qualitative data

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Raimo Streefkerk

Qualitative Vs Quantitative Research – A Comprehensive Guide

What is Quantitative Research?

Characteristics of Quantitative Research

What is Qualitative Research?

Does your Research Methodology Have the Following?

Characteristics of Qualitative Research

Confused between qualitative and quantitative methods of data analysis? No idea what discourse and content analysis are?

When to Use Qualitative and Quantitative Research Model?

Limitations of Quantitative and Qualitative Research

Qualitative or quantitative, which research type should I use?

You May Also Like