The application of qualitative and quantitative methodologies provides significantly different outcomes and might not be suitable for certain disciplines. It is challenging to measure social interactions through numerical values. However, how does one then gather and analyze such knowledge? For these cases, a qualitative method might be more fitting, as it enables scientists to interpret people’s insights, experiences, conversations, and other highly individualistic sources of data. At their very core, quantitative studies attempt to extract objective information from their subject of examination. The presence of social context, unique circumstances, and other uncontrolled (while it might be necessary to eliminate uncontrolled variables in a study, their impact on one’s experience of an event is inevitable) variables require scientists to seek an alternative. The paper aims to contrast these methods by analyzing peer-reviewed literature on the subject to reveal their differences in purpose. Quantitative methodologies do not provide the tools necessary for researchers to understand the interpretive foundations of social aspects of human lives.
The methods of sampling and analysis are among the most evident attributes of quantitative methodologies that make them unable to understand the interpretive foundations of social life. Statistical methods, random sampling, and controlled trials may not reflect a specific issue that concerns a small population size. These notions do not align with interpretative methods, which often use a theoretical approach to sampling that serves a particular purpose (Hameed, 2020:10).
Study sites, respondents, or cases are chosen based on theoretical considerations such as how well they fit the phenomenon and whether they have any special characteristics that make them particularly well-suited to social contexts. Consequently, interpretive research tolerates convenience and small samples if they are appropriate to the nature and goal of the study but are disapproved of in quantitative methodologies. Moreover, this mode of examination can provide meaningful results where only subjective information may be present. Depending on the scope of a qualitative study, it is possible to apply it to individual cases without putting the validity of the research into question.
Quantitative methodologies fail to understand interpretive foundations of social life since they heavily employ statistical techniques which do not allow multiple interpretations. Instead of being reductionist and focusing on one subject at a time, interpretive analysis takes a holistic and contextual approach (Mathiesen & Gunnarsdottir, 2022:559). The focus of interpretations, as opposed to statistical techniques, is on the meanings experienced by the people participating in the social processes being studied. Instead of emphasizing significance testing and construct validity, interpretive researchers define rigor as using consistent, reproducible methods throughout the study process (validity of a qualitative study may be measured by its usefulness in a particular situation). Since individuals have different experiences of the same objective reality and have their own, often highly distinct, motivations for acting in a certain manner, interpretivists argue that quantitative processes that rely heavily on scientific methodologies are unsuitable.
Quantitative methodologies provide limited flexibility in modifying or changing data without starting over after data collecting has begun. Therefore, such an approach leaves no space for adjustments in both methods and theories being tested. However, social life is a dynamic process that can not be measured with static data, making quantitative hypotheses remain valid only for a short period. In turn, in interpretative research, data gathering and analysis may occur concurrently and iteratively (Johnson et al., 2020:139).
For instance, the researcher may complete one interview and then change its formulation to ensure that the following surveys will provide more precise answers without sabotaging the work entirely. Information collection and analysis may occur simultaneously, allowing people to fix any problems or make adjustments to the interview procedure that will enable them to capture the phenomena of interest with greater efficiency. If an interviewer realizes that the questions she set out to answer are not likely to provide novel or useful insights, they may change their original study questions without abandoning the initial topic. Nonetheless, this advantage of interpretative research may be overlooked by scientists that prioritize quantitative studies despite its significance.
In comparison with qualitative research, quantitative methodologies do not provide the understanding of interpretive foundations that necessitate a naturalistic inquiry, which is essential for social studies. According to the principles of this type of assessment, social phenomena need to be investigated within the context of their natural surroundings (Hameed, 2020:12). Interpretations of social phenomena have to be firmly rooted in the socio-historical framework in which they occur. Research using this mode of analysis assumes that social phenomena are embedded in and inseparable from their particular social settings. This factor demonstrates that it is crucial to be sensitive to context while looking for explanations of a phenomenon of interest, even if doing so limits the results’ generalizability (while generalizability is preferred, it may be lacking in qualitative studies).
In turn, a qualitative study presents a preconceived design and a singular path (Hameed, 2020:12). Interpretative research requires a constant back-and-forth between isolated observations and the larger social phenomenon to construct a theory that accounts for the many perspectives of those immersed within it.
Additionally, quantitative methodologies attempt to portray a situation instead of taking an existing one and using expressive language and techniques to reveal its temporal nature. An essential aspect of interpretative analysis is the documentation and discussion of the meaning of the verbal and nonverbal language used by participants in a study.
The test must guarantee that the story is told from the perspective of a human rather than a machine. Such an approach must detail the character’s inner thoughts and emotions so that a reader can empathize with and relate to them. Images, metaphors, and sarcasm are all common in the vocabulary of a qualitative study, which often incorporates graphical and narrative explanations. Similarly, interpretive research aims not to provide definitive answers but to make sense of a changing social process across time in search of greater insight (Johnson et al., 2020:143). As a result, performing a qualitative test necessitates the researcher to be present at the study’s location and observe the whole progression of the event in question and comprehend what experience it entails.
In conclusion, quantitative methodologies can not describe social aspects of life adequately since the approaches they utilize only examine a scientific part with little attention given to social context. In contrast, interpretative research seeks to understand social reality through the eyes of embedded actors within the context in which the fact is placed. Scientists must apply qualitative methods to evaluate such multidimensional processes in order to assess the data relevant to their research questions to its fullest. In cases when hard numbers are lacking or inconsistent, the choice of a framework for research becomes paramount in making proper conclusions. However, quantitative methods can only go so far when trying to shed light on events and processes that are unique to a certain environment that is being measured. Simultaneously, an interpretive approach to understanding society would denote the social context to which it is applicable, thus, using qualitative methodologies leads to a deeper understanding of humanity as a whole.
References
Hameed, H. (2020). Quantitative and qualitative research methods: Considerations and issues in qualitative research. The Maldives National Journal of Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 8-17. Web.
Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 84(1). Web.
Mathiesen, I. H., & Gunnarsdottir, H. M. (2022). Separate counseling services in Norwegian upper secondary schools. A possibility for a collective holistic approach?. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 22(3), 557-576. Web.