Many professions have embraced the use of quantitative research methodologies and seem to have dismissed qualitative research strategies altogether. In particular, Johnson & Waterfield (2004:121) highlight that only four physiotherapy journals published between 1996 and 2001 employed qualitative research techniques. Is it fair to suppose that quantitative work provide more trustworthy work than qualitative research?
Despite the perceived weaknesses of qualitative methodologies, they still bear strengths in their revelation of qualitative aspects of the subject of research that researchers cannot quantify (Grbich, 1999:11). For instance, there has been a paradigm shift in the contemporary healthcare towards evidence-based practice. In order to comprehend the complex issues that surround this practice, qualitative research provides an important platform where human interaction analysis is possible and accurate (Goodwin & Horowitz, 2002:40). This includes professions dominated by interpersonal communication.
Besides, qualitative research perceives reality as socially constructed. As such, it is difficult to measure reality using quantitative research. Waterfield & Johnson (2004:122) explicate that social construction requires interpretation rather than measurement. Qualitative therefore interprets reality ‘as is’ without attempting to quantifying it into numerical data. This attribute of qualitative research facilitates therapists to be effective by prescribing the accurate therapeutic treatment for patient without necessarily having to depend on quantitative data (Waterfield & Johnson, 2004:127). Besides, they are able to establish positive therapeutic relationships with the patients that results to improved treatment.
Purposive sampling is typical of qualitative research and it assists the researcher to understand the diversity of the sample rather than focusing on the representativeness of the same (Kelly & Long, 2000: 59). Marshall & Rossman (1999:39) assert that representativeness is a characteristic of quantitative research that focuses on probability sampling and fails to consider cultural diversity of the sample.
Essentially, it is unfair to regard quantitative research as more trustworthy than qualitative research. The latter methodology of research is important in highlighting qualitative aspects such as interpersonal communication, therapeutic treatment as well as comprehending the diversity of the research while the former has its strengths and weaknesses.
References
Goodwin, J & Horowitz, R. 2002. Introduction: the methodological strengths and dilemmas of qualitative sociology. Qualitative Sociology, 25:33–47. Print.
Grbich, C. 1999. Qualitative Research in Health: An Introduction. London: Sage Publications. Print.
Johnson, R & Waterfield, J. 2004. Making words count: the value of qualitative research. Physiotherapy Research International, 9(3) 121–131. Print.
Kelly, B & Long, A. 2000. Quantity or quality? Nurse Researcher; 7: 53–67. Print.
Marshall, C & Rossman, B. 1999. Designing Qualitative Research. 3rd Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Print.