Choosing a long-term research design when developing a research design is a key step in obtaining reliable results and validating the theory. Currently, in science, there are two main approaches to data analysis, which are divided into quantitative and qualitative. While quantitative methods are most commonly used in the natural and exact sciences, qualitative methods are popular in social and political studies. At the same time, European studies is a complex multidisciplinary science that integrates research from various related fields. This aspect makes researchers think about which methodology might be most relevant for testing theories. In particular, there is a discussion that the choice of quantitative or qualitative research methods is purely stylistic in nature and has no fundamental significance. At the same time, this paper argues that European studies should integrate two types of methodology as the basis of research design and apply them to obtain more valid results.
The inference is the main task of any research, for which the use of both quantitative and qualitative data is relevant. However, quantitative approaches use statistical and numerical data to test hypotheses and determine relationships between variables, while qualitative approaches predominantly use descriptive methods in relation to a specific case (King et al., 1994; Babbie, 1999; Epstein & King, 2002). Thus, usually, quantitative analyzes are used to establish correlations, while qualitative ones describe the mechanisms of their occurrence (Nyikos & Pollack, 2003). Choy (2014) emphasizes that in the field of social sciences, the most effective complimentary use of two approaches for the same theory. This assumption is especially relevant for areas of research such as European studies, which are characterized by significant multidisciplinarity and the interaction of different types of data.
In particular, often researchers using one of the approaches may not always correctly perceive the results of studies based on a different methodology. The choice of approach to data analysis depends on the style that each researcher chooses individually, which creates additional difficulties for comprehensive multidisciplinary studies (King et al., 1994; Neuman, 2006). Quantitative analysis is less time-consuming in relation to qualitative analysis, and it is also not influenced by the perception of the researcher in the interpretation and characteristics of the studied individuals (Yauch & Steudel, 2003; Dudwick et al., 2006). This circumstance makes qualitative research the most suitable for European studies but also attracts major criticism. In particular, it can be considered whether sufficiently valid and reliable inference can provide such research methods.
The emergence of qualitative methods as such can be associated with the development of the social and political sciences. However, at the turn of the 20th century, a disagreement arose between qualitative and quantitative approaches as the exact and economic sciences increasingly adopted statistical and numerical research (Platt, 1992). Notably, social and political sciences, being multidisciplinary and complex, remain in the middle. Gerring (2017) notes that “qualitative and quantitative observations can be incorporated into a unified framework in the pursuit of causal inference” (p. 31). However, this integration requires researchers to carefully develop research designs that incorporate quantitative and qualitative methods for testing theories.
This discussion is especially relevant to the field of social and political research. In particular, European studies are multidisciplinary in nature, which implies the collaboration of specialists from different research disciplines (Manners et al., 2015). The need to integrate different areas of research for relevant studies to be conducted gives rise to the problem of choosing a methodology for “measurement and causality” (Exadaktylos & Radaelli, 2009, p. 508). In particular, Exadaktylos and Radaelli (2009) emphasize that, for example, in the field of Europeanization research, there is low awareness of research design. Researchers in the discipline often rely on data with qualitative aspects of time and rarely resort to traditional quantitative methods (Exadaktylos & Radaelli, 2009). At the same time, although certain methodological patterns are observed in the study of Europeanization, there is no preponderance of quantitative and qualitative studies (Exadaktylos & Radaelli, 2009). This means that European studies generally integrate both research methods, but this is considered an option but not a valid path to creating a valid research design.
The book Designing social inquiry initiated a large-scale discussion about research methods in the political and social sciences by King et al. (1994). King et al. (1994) argues that “the difference between the quantitative and qualitative traditions are only stylistic and are methodologically and substantively unimportant” (p. 4). More precisely, the authors argue that correct research design requires the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods. They stress that the application of exclusively qualitative methods “lacks a sufficient number of observations to estimate the effect of the independent variable(s) of interest” (Mahoney, 2010, p. 6). Thus, the logic of quantitative analysis methods can be applied to qualitative ones, increasing their accuracy and validity (Macartan, 2015; King et al., 1994). However, it remains controversial for the field of European studies whether the integration of quantitative methods in qualitative research is necessary.
The provisions presented in the book became the subject of discussion soon after its publication. Rogowski (1995) criticizes the position of King et al. (1994) on the need to abandon single observations in favor of hypothesis testing. The author emphasizes that such an approach provides a “pure, but needlessly inefficient, path of social-scientific inquiry” (Rogowski, 1995, p. 467). Caporaso (1995) also emphasizes that the similarities between quantitative and qualitative methods in political science presented by King et al. (1994) refer to a variable-centered world abstracted from reality. In this regard, it seems difficult to correctly represent qualitative data in the form of variables in the first place, which is an obstacle to the application of quantitative principles.
The main proposed method for integrating qualitative principles into quantitative research is to increase the number of observations. However, this claim finds widespread criticism among more recent authors who acknowledge the importance of the discussion but question the validity of this conclusion. Brady and Collier (2010) articulate concerns that an increase in the number of observations may result in “spatial and temporal autocorrelation” (p. 82). At the same time, Mahoney (2010) emphasizes that a large number of variables do not lead to an expansion of the degree of freedom, which does not improve the quality of research. In this regard, George and Bennett (2005) also argue that quantitative researchers seek to minimize the number of variables to increase the degree of freedom, while quantitative research is related to the diversity and complexity of variable attributes. Thus, critics often stress that the idea of integrating the two types of research is based on a misconception of their goals.
Additionally, researchers underline the fundamental characteristics that distinguish qualitative and quantitative data and determine what outcomes are expected from them. Mahoney and Goertz (2006) emphasize that qualitative methods have a fundamental difference from quantitative methods in how the imaging is made and what data it should consider. Additionally, quantitative methods are used to explain why certain cases lead to a certain result. Thus, expanding the number of variables may not enhance causal inference, as opposed to selecting cases for analysis that might contribute to the research (Mahoney, 2010). George and Bennett (2005) argue that single-case studies are no less valuable, and an increase in the number of cases leads to possible unintentional comparisons and conceptual stretching. Thus, there is a possibility that the idea of integrating qualitative and quantitative methods is unfounded since it ignores the logic of approaches.
The authors of the book themselves put forward the assertion that the integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches is more related to research design than to data analysis. King et al. (1995), in a review of their book, note that they “suggest procedures that qualitative researchers can use to increase the amount of information they bring to bear on evaluating a theory” (p. 479). The authors emphasize that they do not urge researchers to use a large number of variables and make large-scale observations. Instead, King et al. (1995) argue that qualitative research should adopt quantitative traits in relation to a more structured research design that minimizes errors and uncertainties. Thus, the authors propose tools for assessing the importance of theory for studying and also describe methodological tools that can be used for better analysis. Additionally, they note that although they offer criteria for evaluating theories, their approach can be utilized for any type of research (King et al., 1995). Thus, Designing social inquiry rather offers a way to test the quality of theory and the validity of the research design proposed for its testing.
The choice of research methodology depends on the structure of theories that are specific to a particular field of study. In particular, most of the theories tested within European studies are formal. In this regard, it is often difficult to use quantitative methods, and qualitative ones, such as case studies, on the contrary, can be the most effective. Pahre (2005) argues that for testing formal theories, qualitative methods may be preferable since they allow “easily deal with the variety of functional forms that hypotheses take in many formal theories” (p. 138). Additionally, while the idea of integrating qualitative and quantitative methods emphasizes the ability to adopt the traits of quantitative methods, researchers rarely discuss the possibilities of using qualitative tools in quantitative research.
Quantitative and qualitative methods are associated with specific areas of research. However, the discussion about the need to integrate the two approaches in the conduct of European studies is well-founded and has led to the development of a wide discussion in academic circles. While the proposal to use quantitative tools in qualitative research has met with widespread criticism, it is not without reason. The need to integrate methods is explained by the multidisciplinary nature of European studies, which requires a more comprehensive methodology. Research needs to develop research designs that apply both quantitative and qualitative methods to investigate correlations and their causes. In particular, this approach allows European Studies to interact with a wide range of variables that characterize the different social, political, legal, and economic aspects.
References
Babbie, E. (1999). The basics of social research 258. Nelson Thomas Learning.
Brady, H. E., & Collier, D. (2010). Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Caporaso, J. A. (1995). Research design, falsification, and the qualitative-quantitative divide. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 457-460.
Choy, L. T. (2014). The strengths and weaknesses of research methodology: Comparison and complimentary between qualitative and quantitative approaches. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(4), 99-104.
Dudwick, N., Kuehnast, K., Jones, V. N., & Woolcock, M. (2006). Analyzing social capital in context: A guide to using qualitative methods and data. World Bank Institute.
Epstein, L., & King, G. (2002). Exchange: Empirical research and the goals of legal scholarship. The University of Chicago Law Review, 69, 1-133.
Exadaktylos, T., & Radaelli, C. M. (2009). Research design in European studies: The case of Europeanization. Journal of Common Market Studies, 47(3), 507-530.
George, A. L., & Benett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
Gerring, J. (2017). Qualitative methods. Annual Review of Political Science, 20(15), 15-36.
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). The importance of research design in political science. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 457-481.
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1995). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press.
Macartan, H. (2015). Mixing methods: A Bayesian approach. American Political Science Review, 109(4), 653-673.
Mahoney, J. (2010). After KKV: The new methodology of qualitative research. World Politics, 62(1), 120-147.
Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis, 14(3), 1-23.
Manners, I., Lynggaard, K., & Löfgren, K. (eds). (2015). Research methods in European Union studies. Palgrave Macmillan.
Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (6th ed). Pearson.
Nyikos, S. A., & Pollack, M. A. (2003). Researching the European Union: Qualitative and Quantitative approaches. In T. A. Börzel & R. A. Cichowski (eds), The state of the European Union, 6: Law, politics, and society (pp. 313-333). Oxford University Press.
Pahre, R. (2005). Formal theory and case-study methods in EU studies. European Union Politics, 6(1), 113-145.
Platt, J. (1992). ‘Case study’ in American methodological thought. Current Sociology, 40(1), 17–48.
Rogowski, R. (1995). The role of theory and anomaly in social-scientific inference. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 467-470.
Yauch, C., & Steudel, H. J. (2003). Complimentary use of qualitative and quantitative cultural assessment methods. Organizational Research Methods, 6(4), 465-481.