Breaking down the quantitative/qualitative divide

Quantitative methods have often been assumed to be linked to a positivistic model of the natural sciences, but realism is an alternative epistemology that has also informed much quantitative research. The central issue concerns the validity of studying the social world with the same methodologies that have been developed for study of the natural world. A point of view must be taken that there is a “real” social world external to us, which can, therefore, be studied objectively. The positivist epistemology restricts knowledge to that which is directly observable, whereas the realist accepts the existence of forces driving phenomena, even though those forces may not be capable of observation. We must conclude that there is no “hard and fast” philosophy for doing quantitative research in the social sciences.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 622

A lot of the difficulties between quantitative and qualitative researchers stem from the consideration of meaning. It is argued that quantitative studies can reveal statistics but not those factors which produced the statistics. Furthermore, although what things are and what they mean are fundamentally different, it is the meaning of things that shape people’s relationships with the world around them. On the other hand, there can be little doubt that quantitative social researchers really are driven by the need to understand meaning, so the argument is really between the efficiency of methods they each use to uncover it. Questionnaires really do try to find out people’s attitudes and opinions, even if the results are shown as the numbers of people with a particular attitude, rather than their reasons for holding the attitude.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 624

The distinction between quantitative and qualitative research has been made in almost stereotypical ways, with contrasts between behaviour and meaning, numbers and words, artificiality and naturalism, being frequently cited. If we accept the “free-floating” nature of methods, though, we could view those contrasts as battles between researchers rather than as valuable differentiators of the methods’ focus. In the commercial world, quantitative and qualitative research often goes hand-in-hand, with results from one type developing testable hypotheses for the other. The over-riding question would seem to be “which type (if a choice must be made) will yield the richest data in my particular circumstances?”
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 626-629

It is argued that when qualitative researchers analyse data by looking for common themes in the text, they are actually using quantitative techniques of counting, comparing and assessing the relative frequency of particular words, topics or phrases. Chapter 25 examined the way CAQDAS aids analysis of qualitative data, including development of categories (nodes) for assembly of data. It will be difficult for analysts to ignore relative frequencies of occurrence of specific data strings and, as a consequence, assign a higher value to items mentioned more frequently than others. There is no logic in this, since almost certainly the sample was not randomly drawn, yet it is difficult to avoid.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 630

Another of the alleged contrasts between quantitative and qualitative methods is that of artificiality versus naturalness. Although qualitative research is generally assumed to be more naturalistic, in the sense of studying people as social actors rather than as objects of a research survey, this is not necessarily the case. Bryman (p628) discusses the focus group method as a case in point: “…when it is borne in mind that people are sometimes strangers, have to travel to a site where the session takes place, are paid for their trouble…” it is difficult to maintain the fiction of naturalness.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 628,629

The natural science model uses an empiricist approach, meaning that valid knowledge is restricted to that perceived through the senses alone. Since much qualitative research stresses the need for direct observation and direct involvement with people, there is an implicit acceptance of empiricism in their approaches. A definition of grounded theory can read like “a manifesto for empiricism” (Bryman, p622). In this sense, much qualitative research seems to depend on the existence of a social world existing independently of individual actors. The problem of social meaning arises as a reaction to empiricism, leading to the concept of the social world in constant flux, constituting a process rather than phenomena.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 622

Gephart (1988, cited on page 629) coined the term “ethnostatistics” to refer to the study of the way in which statistics are constructed, interpreted and displayed in the context of quantitative research. The point is that a qualitative analysis can be made of quantitative data, by examining the uses of statistics in argument in terms of the language used, for example.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 629

Quasi-quantification is just one of the ways in which the division between characteristics of quantitative and qualitative research can be challenged. This term refers to the way in which qualitative researchers may use terms that imply numbers or quantities in their reports, for example in a sentence that begins “Many of the respondents thought that…”. Since these expressions only make allusions to quantity, they are frustrating. Either they should not be there at all, or an attempt should be made at ‘proper’ quantification to reinforce the qualitative argument.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 630,631

If a researcher chooses a particular research method, does that automatically presuppose a commitment to a particular epistemology or ontology? Bryman argues against this on pragmatic grounds (p624/625), pointing out that both quantitative and qualitative methods can be used within a single overall design and that there may be fashions in the predominant use of one type or another. It would not be unthinkable for a ‘post-modernist’ dissertation supervisor to suggest quantitative research methods for a student’s research, nor for a positivist supervisor to recommend ethnography or focus groups.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 625,626

One of the criticisms qualitative researchers often face when they have published their research is that the data that they cite are just the most extreme, striking examples that are anecdotal rather than representative of the whole dataset. One way of avoiding this criticism is to give some indication of the relative frequency with which these significant responses were given, perhaps through conducting searches with CAQDAS. However, the point of this quantification is to draw distinctions between different groups of participants rather than report the number as something meaningful in itself.
Reference: Bryman: Social Research Methods: 5th Edition Page(s) 631,632