ResearchMethods for Professional InquiryAbstractThe purpose of this study is to compare qualitative and quantitative approaches to research investigation in social science. After further examination of the relevant literature, a brief exploration of a mixed methods approach has also been taken into consideration within this paper. I discuss in detail about human perception and assumption and the impact that this can have on research investigation. I critically discuss and compare the differences of quantitative and qualitative research approaches, their underlying epistemological and theoretical different with an additional small focus on a mixed method approach. I consider the strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches, the differences in the research design and methodologies and present a logical academic argument to detail my understanding. The findings presented show human perception can have a huge impact on many aspects within research. IntroductionHumanbeings are naturally curious and inherently possess an inquisitive mind abouthow the world works and about what truth really is. Scientists have spent manyyears discovering new things about the world and filling in knowledge gapswhich once existed. The process of research inevitably brings about change. Theoverarching idea of research investigation is based on an idea about how ourworld is perceived, and is used by social scientists to find out more about it;to deepen our understanding of our world.  Everyonehas a different opinion of what reality is to them and this is therefore whyresearch investigation is a widely debated and complex process. Boethius(quoted in Patel, no date, p3) believed that ‘knowledge is not based on thething known but on the nature of the knower’. This highlights to us the significance of human assumptions in theresearch process and that each person can differ quite significantly in theirbelief system.  Kuhn (1970) believed thatthose whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed to the samerules and standards. Kuhn (1970) further states that a paradigm dictates,initially, not a subject matter but a group of practitioners. Researchparadigms are all relative to someone’s epistemological and ontologicalassumptions and when a shared philosophical tradition is adopted to theresearch, a common paradigm can penetrate this research and influence theapproaches and methodologies that they use.Aconsideration of ontology and epistemology helps to build a holistic picture ofhow researchers perceive knowledge and how this knowledge relates to societywith the methodologies used to discover the knowledge. Being aware of aresearcher’s philosophical assumptions is important in influencing the entireresearch process. Research ParadigmFirstly,let’s consider the concept ‘paradigm’. According to Crotty (1998) a paradigmconsists of four key components; ontology, epistemology, methodology andmethods. A paradigm, according to Creswell and Poth (2017) is a basic set of beliefsthat guides enquiries which he refers to as ‘worldviews’. Lincoln and Guba (1985)claim paradigms represent a refinement of what we think about the world, butcannot yet prove. Creswell and Poth (2017, citing Huff, 2009) discusses theimportance of philosophy in research stating that the direction of our researchand the outcomes is driven by our assumptions which consequently influence ourchosen methodologies. Throughmy reading, I have had difficulty in consistently defining a set of paradigmsdue to the range of almost conflicting and, at times, slightly confusing theories.Creswell (2003) refers to paradigms as ‘worldviews’ which he believes to havefour elements; post-positivism, constructivism, transformative and pragmatic. Guba(1990) refers to positivism as a separate entity from other paradigms such aspost-positivism and constructivism. Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) talk aboutthose paradigms discussed by Guba with an addition of pragmatism and (Shadish,1995) talks about the concept of ‘logical positivism’. Bryman (2004) refers topositivism and interpretivism and differentiates these from its variations;phenomenology and symbolic interactionism. To clarify – and make myself feelslightly better – Morgan (2007) explains that social scientists can talk about‘paradigms’ and each easily mean something entirely different. Morgan talksabout four versions – each version treating paradigms as shared belief system –influencing the knowledge that researchers seek. He uses this concept of aparadigm as his main basis for discussion within his document. (Scotland, 2012)explains that different paradigms consist of differing ontological andepistemological views and therefore present differing assumptions of realityand knowledge which is embedded within their research approach. Kuhn (1970)details paradigms as epistemological stances which influences how researchquestions are devised and answered, concentrating on a practitioner’s viewsabout the world within this philosophy of knowledge; affecting the researchdesign and approaches (Morgan, 2007). The philosophical foundations of eachparadigm can never be proven or disproven as everyone’s assumptions arespeculation; opening up room for debate and inaccuracies. The ontological andepistemological differences within the paradigms, as stated previously, shapeand scaffold their approach to the research which directly affects themethodologies and methods used within. Approaches to ResearchTheresearch approach adopted, depends on the philosophical stance underpinning theresearch. Research approaches are plans and processes to build a deeperunderstanding about the research; moving a researcher from their initialassumptions into developing comprehensive methodologies, research design, datacollection and analysis. The main point to deliberate when considering a topicof study, is which research approach would be best suited to where aresearcher’s philosophical stance lies. It must also be taken intoconsideration that your audience may have different philosophical assumptions(Creswell and Poth, 2017) as they review and critique your research. Accordingto Creswell (2003) doing your research is about more than philosophical ideas.These must be combined with broad strategies to research and key methodsconsidered. More information will be shared about the inductive and deductiveapproaches to research. Reflectingon the discussion on paradigms previously, it can be noted that each researchapproach discussed in the next section will possess differing and conflictingphilosophical stances. Johnson and Christensen (2008) talk about three mainapproaches to research which include a quantitative approach, a qualitativeapproach and a mixed approach.  I will nowgo on to discuss and analyse quantitative and qualitative approaches, each inisolation and following this, I shall compare the approaches critically. I willfinish by talking briefly about the concept of mixed methods approach toresearch.Quantitative Research  Formany years, a positivist paradigm was the norm, and quantitative research wasgenerally the dominant approach to research until around the 1980s. Apositivist paradigm is a philosophical theory which believes that knowledge islearned through real events that can be observed, measured and explained withlogical analysis (Positivist Paradigm, 2018). The nature of reality inquantitative research epistemology is objectivist – meaning that situations can be observed independent of personalexperience. There is only onereality according to Lincoln& Guba (1985) from thepositivists’ point of view; the knower and the known are independent and theemphasis is on the theory. A deductive scientific method is taken within thisapproach and the ‘top-down method’ is used, where the researcher testshypotheses and theory with data (Johnson and Christensen, 2008) – moving from ageneral perspective to a more refined and specific one. The positivist paradigmis directed at explaining connections and relationships. Researchers aim to generatelaws, to help them predict and generalise; this however, depends on the size ofthe groups of which data is being gathered. This enables researchers tounderstand the world enough, so we might be able to predict and even control aspectsof it. The data gathered isusually collected through direct experience/observation and by collectingand analysing data researchers are able to convert it into measurable andnumerical statistics; enabling the analysis of trends, patterns, relationshipsand conclusions to be drawn from this information. A philosophical perspective, based on realist ontology; positivistsattempt to identify causes which affect outcomes in their research (Creswelland Poth, 2017). Creswell further explains that the process of quantitativeresearch usually begins with an area of interest from the researcher. This isusually based on their ontological and epistemological ideas of the world. Theresearcher aims to test a theory about their idea by creating narrow hypothesesor questions and begins to plan and collect data which will support or disprovethe hypothesis. Bryman (2004, quoting Blaikie, 2000, p58) states that‘establishing research questions or hypotheses makes it possible to selectresearch strategies and methods with confidence. In other words, a researchproject is built on the foundation of research questions’. Gorard (2003) places emphasis on theimportance of a literature review within the quantitative research approach. Findinga good balance of theory and data is key to a good research project he explains.Quantitativeresearch begins with a question or hypothesis where a literature review, whichis an important step in formulating the research question or problem (Cooper,1998) will help begin to fill the knowledge gap from the initial stages of theresearch. The knowledge gained from the literature review is not enough todefine the problem adequately (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003). Using the backgroundknowledge on the research topic, gained from the formation of a literaturereview, not only enables the quantitative researcher to carefully focus theirhypotheses and questions for research, but also allows the researcher to drawrelevant conclusions from the analysed data gathered from the methodology andmethods chosen. The design of theresearch is important. The design providesspecific direction for the actions taken in the research process (Creswell,2003). There are many variables to consider during the experimentaldesign phase. The researcher should plan his methodology carefully toenable him to discover the information he needs in a strategic manner; gatheringthe data to help validate the researcher’s hypotheses or questions. Themethodology is influenced by the specific paradigm underpinning the research.This then affects the data collection methods which are carefully consideredduring this phase (Silverman, 1993). A positivist will generally find they makeuse of quantitative data gathering tools – celebrating qualitative methods bestsuited to the project (Saldana, 2011). Quantitative methods for gathering datacan range from field notes to surveys. Usually samples are gathered in largenumbers; the researcher to be objective and unbiased where they try to findcausal connections and relationships through objective measurement andquantitative analysis (Firestone, 1987). Each result will be interpreteddifferently by each practitioner as each of them thinks in a different way. Quantitative data can help link relationships between anyvariables and the outcomes of the research. This data can allow others toconfirm the outcomes by replicating the analysis independently elsewhere (Dudwick, Kuehnast, Jones and Woolcock, 2006: p3). Thefinal step is to write a report to show a researcher’s findings. Qualitative ResearchMovingon from the early 1980s, there appeared to be a paradigm shift as manyresearchers began to challenge and question a quantitative approach to research(Morgan, 2007). This change in attitude came from the rising awareness thatstatistics and numbers would not meet the requirement to capture the depth of complexhuman interactions within the world. As the questions about quantitativeresearch approaches increased, the development of a constructivist ontologicalstance was moving forward. The development of constructivist knowledge claimsbecame more apparent in which qualitative research became more prominent.Qualitativeresearch is concerned with the nature of phenomena (Dieronitou, 2014). Thenature of reality in qualitative research epistemology is subjective – meaningthat the study can be viewed by aperson, through their own perspective and personal experiences. It can takeinto account their emotional stance as well as their own bias.  Qualitative research is apersonal process which is socially constructed, there is a focus on analysingthe processes and what they mean – the focus, unlike quantitative research, isnot to measure with numbers and statistics. Qualitative researchers want tolearn from the group of participants’ experiences as they happen and throughtheir own natural reactions, so the methods chosen by the researcher shouldallow for spontaneous discovery to support the intricate human interactionsthat occur. The data tends to be gathered through interviews, observations,focus groups and action research (Marshall and Rossman, 2006). The datagathered during the qualitative approach is data which is more comprehensive, focusingon a much smaller number of people compared with quantitative inquiry. Conclusionsare reached through the validation of an outcome in one sample study beingapplied to another setting to see how results compare. Qualitativeanalysis aims to capture the depth, breadth and complexity of people’sexperience in their own terms (Labuschagne, 2003). Consequently, the process ofqualitative research differs somewhat from a quantitative research approach.Because qualitative research is believed by many theorists to be sociallyconstructed, the importance of spontaneous human interaction and involvement issignificant. Where quantitative research aims to find evidence to prove ordisprove a hypothesis, built on the gaps in their knowledge with which aliterature review demonstrated; qualitative research usually begins with aproblem observed in a setting. Similarly to a quantitative researcher, the problem is usually basedon their ontological and epistemological ideas of the world. The researcherwill use this problem to develop the core aims and objectives of the research.The research design and methodology are planned thereafter. Thedesign of the qualitative research is also important. Next I will go on to discusssome qualitative designs, however it is important to note that this list isnon-exhaustive as I have only chosen only a few to define. Accordingto Saldana (2011) qualitative research can possess a range of differingelements and styles within the design. Saldana talks about the element ofethnography where he explains it as observing and recording people in their ownsocial surroundings to build an awareness of their culture over a prolongedperiod of time. Creswell (2003) explains that the process of ethnography can bequite flexible. Saldana (2011) goes on to discuss differing approaches to thedesign process of qualitative research through the element of grounded theory,which he defines as an analytic process of comparing small pieces ofinformation to build a bigger picture and develop a greater understanding (Saldana,2011). Grounded theory is a research design process where reliablecharacterising and cumulative coding cycles are involved to observe anycategories that might begin to accumulate within the research – to build abigger picture of the research data. Furthermore, Crewell (2003) explains that aresearcher using grounded theory attempts to develop a general theory of aprocess, action or interaction within in the views of the participants of thestudy, which will enable the researcher to find out what the heart of theresearch is about (Morrow, 2005; Saldana, 2011; Wutich and Bernard, 2016). Thismethodology helps to generate a theory about the processes observed by aqualitative researcher (Saldana, 2011). Phenomenology is further discussed asunderstanding lived experiences from the participants, which can be seen asboth a method and also a philosophy according to Creswell (2003). Qualitativemethods for gathering data include personalinterviews, participant observations, focus groups, personal accounts ofindividuals and personal constructs (Dash, 2005) and how a researcher considersthe data from these methods, depends on the method used. Each result will also beinterpreted differently by each practitioner as each of them thinks in adifferent way. Good qualitative researchrequires skill and a clear purpose. Unlikequantitative research, the problem identified at the beginning of the research isnot one that needs an extensive literature review to develop a hypothesis.  Quantitative Approach Vs Qualitative ApproachIwill now look at both approaches discussed earlier and begin to build acomparative analysis of the strengths and potential weaknesses of each. Quantitativeand qualitative research have been viewed for many years as two separateentities. Quantitative and qualitative approaches to research vary in theirprinciples and their processes. Both approaches vary in the logical structureof the process – the research design, the methods used and how conclusions aredrawn from each. Qualitative and quantitative researchers also have differingparadigmatic ideas – which initiallyseems problematic in terms of a pragmatic approach to research, which will bediscussed later in this paper. Let us begin by first considering theparadigmatic contrasts that appear between the two approaches. Paradigm ComparisonManyqualitative researchers have different epistemological assumptions comparedwith quantitative researchers. These provide the basis for the entire research.Quantitative researchers believe in the positivist paradigm.Quantitative research is associated with objectivity – where a range ofobservers agree on what is being observed (Johnson and Christensen, 2008).Quantitative research tends to be deductive – where a conclusion follows from questionsor hypotheses agreed at the beginning of the process. Qualitative researchtends to be inductive –understanding the meaning of individuals or groups(Creswell and Poth, 2017). However, according to Patel (n.d) some quantitativeresearch can be more inductive just like some qualitative research, althoughusually inductive – allowing for social exploring – can also be used to supporta rigid, deductive hypothesis too. Interestingly however, Kuhn (1970) statesthat there can be a ‘sort of’ scientific research without paradigms completely.Morgan (2007) disregards the notion of the earlier claim by Kuhn that apositivist paradigm in the social sciences existed at all, and believes that itdid not dominate social science research. He believes it to be an interpretationof history rather than a statement about real information and facts. Is it thereforepossible to question whether these different paradigms even exist? Could therebe potential for them to be amalgamated? Or like Kuhn begins to explain in anaspect of his discussion, which is backed up by Morgan’s drastic claim, canthese paradigms be omitted altogether? Further discussion can be found later inthis assignment. The Research Design Quantitativeand qualitative approaches to research differ in the way that the research isplanned, controlled and conducted. Prior to the mixed methods approach – whichwill be discussed later, the two approaches to research depend on aresearcher’s philosophical stance as a practitioner. Positivists believe that quantitative methodology iscarefully designed to remove subjective elements from their inquiry –highlighting the value of neutrality (Dieronitou, 2014). On the other hand, Marshalland Rossman (2006) argue that in qualitative research, because the researcher tendsto be more personally involved in the research, certain qualitative approachescan run the risk of being biased or too reflective of the researcher’s ownprejudgements or assumptions. Does this then impact on the validity of theresearch? Creswell and Poth (2017) state that remaining objective is an importantpart of any skilled inquiry. Is it possible for a qualitative researcher toplan and design a research inquiry which remains neutral? Itcould be possible that both quantitative and qualitative approaches may findthis difficult because a researcher is only human. It could therefore be arguedthat all researchers naturally possesses predetermined individual perceptionsand assumptions that automatically make all research methodology bias. Could itbe further argued then, that qualitative research methodology may perhaps have more of an advantage in controllingthis? Since qualitative research allows for some flexibility within themethodology (Saldana, 2011) could it be possible that qualitative researchers,because of their higher involvement within the research, can repair any‘damage’ as it evolves? Or can a better way of designing the research be found?Quantitativeresearch methodology is planned to test the initial hypotheses or questions atthe start of the research, using carefully planned data gathering tools.Creswell and Poth (2017) believes that an advantage to quantitative design isthe gathering of data which makes it easy to generalise and replicate thefindings for future inquiries. It can be argued that because qualitative designis a more socially complex process, where the researcher uses their assumptionsare their own unique interpretations of the data collected (Creswell and Poth,2017) and create their own individual meaning during the analysis phase,implying that this process is a much more complex one. It would thereforeappear from this discussion that qualitative design is much more difficult toreplicate compared to quantitative methodology. In the defence of qualitativemethodology, Tsai, et al., (2016) discuss an advantage to quantitative researchis that the data gathered can be anonymised and the statistical codes usedduring this process which can be easily shared and replicated (Gandrud, 2013;Peng 2009). So it appears that the question now is more about the datacollection tools used and the way that the data is considered and analysed. Methods for Collecting and Analysing DataTheresearch approaches differ in the preferred ways of gathering data and the waythat the data is analysed, presented and validated. The design principles andstructure need to be carefully planned and considered to ensure that the right informationis gathered and analysed in a strategic manner to support the validation processof the researcher’s problem, question or hypothesis. According to Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) there are sixdifferent methods for collecting data. These include, interviews, observations,questionnaires, focus groups, tests and secondary data. Researchers choose themethods to collect the data which they believe will get the best results fromthe participants of the research. The tools used to collect this data should becarefully considered. Quantitativeresearch is deductive, structured and controlled. Quantitative data is usuallygathered to measure the impact, amount or frequency (Saldana, 2011; Firestone,1987). Labuschagne (2003)explainsthat theadvantage of the quantitative approach is that it measures a large amount ofpeople and their reactions/ideas/opinions within a limited set of questions.This therefore provides the researcher with a large set of results which allowsfor a simple and reliable collection and comparison of numerical data. Itallows for variables to be examined, measured and transferred into numericaldata to help analysis. Horkheimer (1972)criticises quantitative research and the positivist paradigm, suggesting that failingto take into consideration human values, cultural beliefs and morals is wrong.Humans are people with emotions and beliefs and if we disregard this when theyare at the heart of our research then are we missing a vital component of theresearch process? Qualitativeresearch, on the other hand, is inductive, exploratory and open-ended whichrelies on spontaneous human interactions. Qualitative data is usually gatheredto deepen a researcher’s understanding of something; to build in a researcher’sown inference, empathy and perception which helps to enrich the research(Saldana, 2011). As we know, it is impossible for a researcher to completelyremove themselves from the research because they are only human. However, ifpositivists would accept the notion of their research approach not being whollyobjective, does this mean that positivists could argue against Horkheimer’scriticism? Or can it be argued that researchers’ own emotions influence and impactnegatively towards the validity of the data? Adiscussion surrounding the implications of validity and bias arises later inthis section.Qualitativedata can be analysed in a more holistic manner compared to quantitativeresearch. Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) believethat qualitative coding of data can be sorted by scores on a quantitativemeasure. In doing so can allow the researcher to notice trends, patterns in anumerical fashion which can help provide a better insight into the initialresearch problem, hypothesis or question. The added bonus of quantifying someof the qualitative data is that the researcher can represent the bigger picture– a more holistic picture of the data and reasons for the patterns and trends.This is an advantage to the qualitative research approach, however thepotential question is, would the intersection of the two methods still allowthe qualitative researcher to remain within their own philosophical views andbeliefs? If the researcher is still allowed to explore human interactions and thesocial constructivist concept, then I do believe that this remains within theirparadigmatic beliefs. Further to this discussion, Morrow (2005) noted thatdealing with people is a challenge. People are complex beings with a range ofemotions, opinions and cultural beliefs. This means that the knowledge thatqualitative researchers can develop from the approach that they take, arecomplex, can be ‘large’ sample sizes (for the depth of data being gathered andanalysed these samples would be considered ’large’) and responses to the datacollection instruments can be varied quite significantly. Creswell (2003) wouldargue that this complex volume of information can potentially blur theresearcher’s focus on what they are truly looking for in their research.  Validity, Reliability and BiasItis paramount that as a researcher, your philosophical stance, the methodology,methods and analysis are trustworthy and valid. Your paradigmatic underpinningsthroughout the entire research are embedded throughout. Gorard (2003) believesthat currently in time, a solely quantitative approach to research can often bequite a weak approach to research. He also believes there to be many socialscience journals which are full of basic arithmetic errors due to thestatistics and numerical values being largely unchecked. This begins to make mewonder how trustworthy this is as an approach to research and question thereliability of the data presented from the use of these methods. Labuschagne(2003) explains that many scientists who regularly participate in quantitativeresearch believe qualitative research to be unclear and almost ‘not real’. Qualitativeresearch situations tend tobe viewed by one person – relying on their sole personal experience, emotion,and bias. Positivists believe that it is their job asresearchers to put aside their opinions and biases in order to remainobjective. As discussed earlier, it is unclear exactly how this objectivity canbe monitored and measured – whether the approach can be fully, authenticallyobjective. Morrow (2005, citing Scriven, 1972) explains that it is not right toassociate objectivity with quantitative and subjectivity with qualitative as,Morrow continues to explain, all research is subject to bias. Constructivistsbelieve that this just is not possible to escape bias. If both approaches holddifferent philosophical beliefs which lie in the foundations of the researchapproaches, then the concept of objectivity is already invalid. The qualitativeresearcher needs to demonstrate that their personal interest will not affectthe study in terms of bias (Marshall and Rossman, 2006) as well as attempt todevelop a method of triangulation. However, Morrow (2005) explains that someresearchers will try hard to control or manage elements of subjectivityhowever, depending on the paradigmatic underpinnings, they may embracesubjectivity and use it as data. Triangulationis split into two separate terms according to Johnson and Christensen (2008).They discuss methods triangulation and data triangulation. A qualitativeresearcher looking to enhance the validity of their research could use methodstriangulation where they use more than one method (grounded theory,phenomenology etc). Or they could use a range of data gathering tools,discussed earlier in this section. Ethical ImplicationsPriorto conducting any research, ethical and moral considerations must be carefully plannedand explored in depth. Ethical attitudes can be difficult to measure. Maccoby(1976, cited in Kidwell and Kidwell, 2007) identified different head/heartcharacteristics to which Kidwell and Kidwell talk about the danger of animbalance between heart and head. They suggest that this would demonstrate alack of concern about ethics if the imbalance was in the ‘head’ region. A qualitativeresearcher has an ethical obligation to discuss ethical issues and how she willapproach them (Marshall and Rossman, 2016). This is because qualitativeresearch produces words. Special care should be taken, ethically and morally,to check that the words spoken by the participant are correct from the personwho spoke them and not based on the researcher’s interpretation of the words. Tsaiet al. (2016) discuss the difficulty with qualitative research and anonymity asit is less efficiently anonymised to prevent any breaches of confidentiality. Aquantitative researcher generally deals with numbers and statistics which posesless of a threat to a breach of ethical rules. It is easier for a quantitativeresearcher to keep data anonymous. It does not mean however that quantitativeresearch is a more ethical process than qualitative. It just means that ethicalawareness should be carefully considered in both approaches. Mixed Methods and ConclusionItappears that through the comparison of both these approaches that there seemsto be a number of common themes. According to Newman and Benz (1998, cited inCreswell and Poth, 2017) the situation now, in this moment in our lives aspractitioners, is less qualitative versus quantitative and more about howresearch approaches lie somewhere on a continuum between the two. Creswell andPoth (2017) see a distinct form of qualitative inquiry where quantitative andqualitative research can be linked in what they define as ‘mixed methods’. Somekey differences between qualitative and quantitative research paradigms mostlylie in the epistemological and ontological assumptions. If this is true thenhow can merging these two approaches work? Morgan (2007, citing Smith andHeshusius, 1986) explains their strong beliefs about constructivism andpositivism and how the two are considered by them to be completely separateentities which should not be combined. Other researchers like Lincoln & Guba (1985) believe thatqualitative and quantitative approaches to research are not able to be combined.(Creswell, 2003) believes that if the researcher is careful and skilled in whatthey do, then there should be no problem in combining the two approaches. Asdiscussed in depth previously, it is known that quantitative and qualitativeresearch methods address different research designs. Dieronitou (2014) believesthat there are aspects within these approaches which complement each other andcould be combined. Morgan (2007)discusses the importance of first considering whether or not these researchapproaches are possible, in paradigmatic term before tackling the question ofwhether a combination of them is desirable. However, C