Marketing Research MK514

Coursework 1

On the face of it, there would seem to be little to the quantitative/qualitative distinction other than the fact that quantitative researchers employ measurement and qualitative researchers do not.
Bryman & Bell 2007, p.28 a. Prepare a document that discusses this statement. Give examples of when each could be conducted, on which topics and with what audiences to inform the clients decision making. Include a section or table on the limitations as well as the benefits of both (1000 words).

b. Create an argument for the methodology (either quantitative or qualitative) which you believe to be the most relevant for todays business environment. Provide examples to support your argument and use academic references (no less than 15 in total) to support your key points (1500 words).

Abstract Section A of this paper will critically evaluate Bryman and Bells statement (2007, p.28) through a review of literature on the subjects of qualitative and quantitative research. The discussion will highlight a number of fundamental differences between the two approaches, which scholars have termed paradigm wars, thereby refuting the statement made by Bryman and Bell (2007, p.28).

In Section B an argument will be presented in favour of the pragmatic approach to research methodology which incorporates a mix of qualitative and quantitative research. This writer agrees with the proponents of mixed method research that it is the most relevant approach for todays business environment.

Section A

Introduction To critically evaluate Bryman and Bells statement this paper will draw upon literature to conduct a discussion on the subject of quantitative and qualitative research.

Discussion To perform a meaningful discussion of Bryman and Bells statement and the subject of qualitative and quantitative research, it is necessary to explore the theoretical framework or paradigms to which these forms of research are aligned. Khun (1962) refers to paradigms as long periods of normal puzzle solving separated by brief periods of paradigm shift. Offering an account of Khuns historical description, Potter (2000, p.70) states that: Normal science proceeds from a single paradigm, a set of agreed-upon problems and means of solving them. However, scientific revolutions occur when a radically different paradigm is conceived and established. Adherents of different paradigms frequently talk past one another because of how fundamentally different their assumptions are. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004, p.14) agree that alternative paradigms are the subject of quarrel amongst many researchers, For more than a century, the advocates of quantitative and qualitative research paradigms have engaged in ardent dispute. Smith (1983 cited Newman and Benz, 1998, p.112) states: the assumption that the two approaches are little more than alternative methodologies whose varied employment responds simply to what works and not to epistemological considerations, must not be accepted at face value. The references to debate by the authors above would suggest that there are greater distinctions between the two research paradigms than the simple presence or absence of measurement as indicated in the statement by Bryman and Bell (2007, p.28). Indeed, further reading reveals that Bryman and Bell (2007, p.29) do not stand by their earlier statement, and identify that: a number of distinguishing features flow from the commitment of the quantitative research strategy to a positivist epistemology, and from the rejection of that epistemology by the practitioners of the qualitative research strategy. According to Mackenzie and Knipe (2006, p.194) the chosen paradigm, sets down th e intent, motivation and expectations for the research, and without nominating a paradigm as a first step, there is no basis for subsequent choices regarding methodology, methods, literature or research design. These authors use the term paradigm to refer to the philosophical intent or
2

underlying framework and motivation of the researcher with regard to research. Creswell (2003) employs the term knowledge claim in place of paradigm, and discusses four main schools of thought: post-positivism (includes positivism); constructivism (also known as interpretivism); advocacy/ participatory; and pragmatism, explored further in the table below (Creswell, 2003, p.6):
Post-positivism Constructivism/ Interpretivism Determination Understanding Reductionism Multiple participant Empirical meanings observation & Social and historical measurement construction Theory verification Theory Generation Advocacy/ Participatory Political Empowerment issue-orientated Collaborative Change-orientated Pragmatism Consequences of actions Problem-centred Pluralistic Real-world practice orientated

Sale et al. (2002, p.45) go further and suggest that: the underlying assumptions of the quantitative and qualitative paradigms result in differences which extend beyond philosophical and methodological debates. The two paradigms have given rise to different journals, differing sources of funding, different expertise, and different methods. Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) identify three approaches to research: quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. In addition to the stance taken on paradigm, Creswell (2003) characterises each approach by the strategies employed for the design and method of data collection. Therefore particular strategies and methods have a propensity to be associated with a particular approach. The practice of researchers adopting a primarily qualitative or quantitative approach to design and methodology in reflection of a dominant set of associated paradigm beliefs, whether post-positivist or interpretivist is termed by Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) as the mono method era, which spawned a debate known as the paradigm wars. Glesne and Peshkin (1992, p.9) agree that: because the positivist and the interpretivist paradigms rest on different assumptions about the nature of the world, they require different instruments and procedures to find the type of data desired. The literature suggests that research under the positivist or post-positivist paradigm favours the use of quantitative methods which include strategies of inquiry such as (though not necessarily exclusively) experimentation, surveys, and methods of data collection that have pre-determined measures resulting in numeric data (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006; Creswell, 2003). Described also by the term empiricism (Malhotra and Birks, 2007, p.155), quantitative
3

research originated in the natural sciences such as biology, chemistry and physics from which it borrows the penchant for objective observation and measurement which can be repeated by other researchers (Charoenruk, ca. 2010).

The interpretivist/constructivist paradigm sees the application of predominantly qualitative methods (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006). Descended from the social sciences, such as psychology and social anthropology, qualitative research seeks to increase the understanding of our social world, not least why people act the way they do (Marshall and Rossman, 1999) through studies of human behaviour and the social world inhabited by human beings (Morgan, 1983). Qualitative research employs strategies such as case study or narrative and uses methods of data collection such as interviews that yield open ended data (Creswell, 2003).

Newman and Benz (1998) argue that qualitative approaches are used generally when observing and interpreting reality with the aim of developing a theory that will explain what was experienced, whereas a quantitative approach might be used when one begins with a theory (or hypothesis) and tests for confirmation or disconfirmation of that hypothesis. A further explanation of the main assumptions and characteristics associated with each approach is included in Appendix 1.

Constable et al. (2005) highlight the shortcomings of each approach, citing that quantitative research often "forces" responses or people into categories that might not "fit" in order to make meaning, and qualitative research sometimes focuses too closely on individual results and fails to make connections to larger situations or possible causes of the results. Further strengths and weaknesses as identified by Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) are included in Appendix 2.

Conclusions It could be argued that, in general, quantitative researchers have a greater propensity to employ measurement than their qualitative colleagues, however, the literature demonstrates that, in addition to the application of measurement, there are many distinctions between quantitative and qualitative strategies, not least the fundamental assumptions held within the positivist or interpretivist paradigm. In practice this paradigm divergence gives rise to different sources of funding, different journals and of course different methods, which extend beyond
4

the choice of whether or not to use measurement. This writer therefore disagrees with the premise contained within Bryman and Bells statement (2007, p.28), but would agree with the proposition by Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) that a paradigm shift towards the third wave of pragmatism and mixed methods may begin to narrow the divide between quantitative and qualitative researchers.

Section B Introduction This paper will build upon the review of literature conducted within Section A to address the question of whether a qualitative or quantitative methodology is more relevant to todays business environment. In addition to qualitative and quantitative approaches, the preceding discussion introduced the concept of mixed methods. Constable et al. (2005) suggest that instead of discounting individual approaches for their drawbacks, researchers should find the most effective ways to incorporate elements of both to ensure that their studies are as accurate and thorough as possible (2005, approx. 3 screens). This paper will therefore present an argument not for one or other methodology (quantitative or qualitative), but for the combination of both (mixed methods).

Discussion The traditional view of the social sciences saw researchers preoccupied with discovering laws concerning human behaviour for which quantitative date are needed to base generalisations. The more recent view tends to emphasise how people differ from one another, which involves studying individuals in depth using mainly qualitative techniques (Schulze, 2003). An analysis of the strengths and limitations of both methodologies is contained in Appendix 2. The emergence of the mixed methods approach in the 1960s followed by the mixed model era in the 1990s saw researchers first employ a mix of quantitative and qualitative approaches to methods of data collection within one study, and then a mix at multiple stages of research, for example design, collection and analysis (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998; Armitage, 2003). Known philosophically as the third wave, pragmatism moved past the paradigm wars by offering a logical and practical alternative (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). This pragmatic approach provides for "multiple methods, different worldviews, and different assumptions, as well as different forms of data collection and analysis in the mixed methods study" (Creswell, 2003, p.12).
5

Newman and Benz (1998) also reject the dichotomy assumed by the qualitative-quantitative debate offering an alternative proposition of interactive places on a methodological and philosophical continuum based on the philosophy of science (Newman and Benz, 199 8, p.xi). The authors further assert that: The decision about what data to collect, as well as what to do with that data after they are collected, should be dictated by the research question (Newman and Benz, 1998, p.15). Barker et al. (2001, p.2) agree: that while it is typical to present the extreme positions, associated assumptions and practices, it is probably more useful to think of a continuum along which assumptions and features may change depending on the nature of the research problem. An illustration from Niglas (1999, approx. 18 screens) outlines various possibilities for mixing quantitative and qualitative at each level of research:

Gorard and Taylor (2004) describe combined or mixed methods research as a key element in the improvement of social science... requires a greater level of skill... can lead to less waste of potentially useful information... and creates researchers with an increased ability to make appropriate criticisms of all types of research (2004, p.7). Gorard and Taylor assert that research is strengthened by the use of a variety of methods, and findings often have greater impact: because figures can be very persuasive to policy-makers whereas stories are more easily remembered and repeated by them for illustrative purposes (Gorard and Taylor, 2004, p.7).
6

However, O'Leary (2004 cited Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006) warn that what was relatively simple to define thirty or forty years ago has become far more complex in recent times due to a dramatic increase in research methods, "particularly in the social/applied sciences". Reymenyi (2002) agrees that the apparent latitude in the choice of the research strategies, techniques and tools is perhaps one of the greatest challenges which Business and Management Studies faces. The authors use of the word apparent is critical, as he claims that on close examination, often only one of the apparent research alternatives may in fact be appropriate for a particular inquiry. Reymenyi (2002) states that in some instances it would not make sense for a researcher to use quantitative tools to explore certain types of questions: it might be inappropriate for a researcher interested in personal attitudes towards leadership issues to use a blunt instrument such as a questionnaire. In a similar way it might not be sensible to use interpretivist techniques to understand the relationship between corporate debt and profit margins. Thus the initial interesting thought and the subsequent research question is all-important in directing the course of the research process. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003) identify three specific instances where a mixed methods approach is superior to a mono methods approach: mixed methods can answer simultaneously confirmatory and exploratory questions (which other approaches cannot); they provide stronger conclusions through depth and breadth in answer to complex social phenomena; and they provide the opportunity through divergent findings for an expression of differing viewpoints.

In order to demonstrate mixed-methods in practice, Weinreich (1996) provides an example of the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods in social marketing, which: relies upon consumer-focused research to learn as much about the target audience as possible by looking at their lives from many different angles both quantitatively as part of a larger group, and qualitatively to investigate individual attitudes, reactions, behaviours and preferences. According to Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), the strengths of a mixed methods approach also include the ability to employ words, pictures and narrative to add meaning to numbers and vice versa, using numbers to add precision to words, pictures, and narrative. A mixed methods researcher can generate and test a grounded theory, and can answer a broader and more complete range of research questions because the researcher is not confined to a
7

single method or approach. In combining qualitative and quantitative methods in one study, the researcher can use the strengths of one method to overcome the weaknesses in the other, add insights and understanding that might be missed when only a single method is used and mixed methods can be used to increase the generalisability of the results. It is generally agreed amongst the proponents of mixed methods that using qualitative and quantitative research together produces more complete knowledge which is necessary to inform theory and practice. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) also agree with the view of Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003) that mixed research can provide stronger evidence for a conclusion through convergence and corroboration of findings. Schulze (2003) asserts that by combining qualitative and qualitative research methods, researchers can simultaneously conform to and transcend dominant research conventions, making use of the most valuable features of each (2003, p.19).

However, Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) highlight limitations in the mixed methods approach, not least the difficulty faced by a single researcher attempting to carry out both qualitative and quantitative research, especially if two or more approaches are expected to be used concurrently, which may require a research team. The mixed methods researcher also has to learn about multiple methods and approaches and understand how to mix them appropriately, though Gorard and Taylor (2004) identify the possession of such skills as a strength of the mixed methods approach. Other limitations include the expense of mixed methods; it can be more time consuming; and methodological purists contend that one should always work within either a qualitative or a quantitative paradigm. Some of the details of mixed research are also yet to be worked out fully, including problems of paradigm mixing; how to qualitatively analyse quantitative data; and how to interpret conflicting results. In relation to the relevance for todays business environment, Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004, p.15) state that: Todays research world is becoming increasingly interdisciplinary, complex, and dynamic; therefore, many researchers need to complement one method with another, and all researchers need a solid understanding of multiple methods used by other scholars to facilitate communication, to promote collaboration, and to provide superior research. Taking a non-purist or compatibilist or mixed position allows researchers to mix and match design components that offer the best chance of answering their specific research questions.

Malhotra and Birks (2007) concur that qualitative and quantitative research should be viewed as complementary, stating that business and marketing decision-makers use both approaches and will continue to need both (2007, p.175) and therefore seeking a singular and uniform approach to supporting decision-makers by focusing on one approach is futile (2007, p.152).

Conclusions The business environment of today is more dynamic and complex than ever and calls for creative solutions to research questions. Combining the most valuable features of both qualitative and quantitative methodologies in a pragmatic approach facilitates such creativity, providing for "multiple methods, different worldviews, and different assumptions, as well as different forms of data collection and analysis in the mixed methods study" (Creswell, 2003, p.12). The concept of a continuum allows research practitioners to take as little or as much as is relevant from each approach, enabling them to apply a flexible framework of what works to the research problems presented by todays hypercompetitive world. This writer would therefore agree with the proponents of mixed methods that the use of both qualitative and quantitative research is most relevant for todays business environment.

Appendix 1 Assumptions and Characteristics

Post-positivism (Quantitative)
Assumptions: Social facts have an objective reality Primacy of method Variables can be identified and relationships measured Etic (outsider's point of view)

Interpretivism (Qualitative)
Assumptions: Reality is socially constructed Primacy of subject matter Variables are complex, interwoven, and difficult to measure Emic (insider's point of view)

Purpose: Broad Generalisation Prediction Causal explanations

Purpose: Contextualisation Interpretation Understanding actors' perspectives

Approach: Begins with hypotheses and theories Manipulation and control Uses formal instruments eg tests, scales, structured questionnaires Large Samples Pre-coded response categories Low flexibility in data collection Statistical Analysis Experimentation Deductive Component analysis Seeks consensus, the norm Reduces data to numerical indices Abstract language in write-up Report statistical eg percentages, tables, graphs etc

Approach: Ends with hypotheses and grounded theory Emergence and portrayal , rich in-depth insights Researcher as instrument Focus groups or in-depth interviews, observations, document reviews, visual data analysis Small samples High flexibility in data collection Naturalistic Inductive Searches for patterns Content analysis of respondent statements from audio recording (post-coded) Seeks pluralism, complexity Makes minor use of numerical indices Descriptive write-up, underlying themes illustrated by quotes from respondents; summary statements

Audience/Topic: Conducting descriptive research eg consumer or market characteristics. Surveys and quantitative observation.

Audience/Topic: Conducting research on children, the vital informality and child-friendly atmosphere is easily facilitated by qualitative methods. Capturing sensitive information; exploring subconscious feelings, complex phenomena and holistic outlook. Researchers Role: Personal involvement and partiality Empathic understanding

Researchers Role: Detachment and impartiality Objective portrayal

(Adapted from Glesne and Peshkin,1992; Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006; Malhotra and Birks, 2007)

10

Appendix 2 Strengths and Limitations

Post-positivism (Quantitative)
Strengths: Testing and validating already constructed theories about how (and to a lesser degree, why) phenomena occur. Testing hypotheses that are constructed before the data are collected. Can generalise research findings when the data are based on random samples of sufficient size. Can generalise a research finding when it has been replicated on many different populations and subpopulations. Useful for obtaining data that allow quantitative predictions to be made. The researcher may construct a situation that eliminates the confounding influence of many variables, allowing one to more credibly assess cause-and-effect relationships. Data collection using some quantitative methods is relatively quick (e.g., telephone interviews). Provides precise, quantitative, numerical data. Data analysis is relatively less time consuming (using statistical software). The research results are relatively independent of the researcher (e.g., effect size, statistical significance). It may have higher credibility with many people in power (e.g., administrators, politicians, people who fund programs). It is useful for studying large numbers of people. Limitations: The researchers categories that are used may not reflect local constituencies understandings. The researchers theories that are used may not reflect local constituencies understandings. The researcher may miss out on phenomena occurring because of the focus on theory or hypothesis testing rather. than on theory or hypothesis generation (called the confirmation bias). Knowledge produced may be too abstract and general for direct application to specific local situations, contexts, and individuals. (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p.19)

Interpretivism (Qualitative)
Strengths: The data are based on the participants own categories of meaning. It is useful for studying a limited number of cases in depth. It is useful for describing complex phenomena. Provides individual case information. Can conduct cross-case comparisons and analysis. Provides understanding and description of peoples personal experiences of phenomena (i.e., the emic or insiders viewpoint). Can describe, in rich detail, phenomena as they are situated and embedded in local contexts. The researcher identifies contextual and setting factors as they relate to the phenomenon of interest. The researcher can study dynamic processes (i.e., documenting sequential patterns and change). The researcher can use the primarily qualitative method of grounded theory to generate inductively a tentative but explanatory theory about a phenomenon. Can determine how participants interpret constructs (e.g., self-esteem, IQ). Data are usually collected in naturalistic settings in qualitative research. Qualitative approaches are responsive to local situations, conditions, and stakeholders needs. Qualitative researchers are responsive to changes that occur during the conduct of a study (especially during extended fieldwork) and may shift the focus of their studies as a result. Qualitative data in the words and categories of participants lend themselves to exploring how and why phenomena occur. One can use an important case to demonstrate vividly a phenomenon to the readers of a report. Determine idiographic causation (i.e., determination of causes of a particular event). Limitations: Knowledge produced may not generalise to other people or other settings (i.e., findings may be unique to the relatively few people included in the research study). It is difficult to make quantitative predictions. It is more difficult to test hypotheses and theories. It may have lower credibility with some administrators and commissioners of programs. It generally takes more time to collect the data when compared to quantitative research. Data analysis is often time consuming. The results are more easily influenced by the researchers personal biases and idiosyncrasies. (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p.20)
11

References
Armitage, A. 2007. Mutual Research Designs: Redefining Mixed Methods Research Design. In: The British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Institute of Education, September 5-8, 2007, University of London, London. Available from: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aQIWAUmMahwJ:www.ethiopiaed.net/images/1602209283.doc+pragmatic+paradigm&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk [Accessed 23 October 2010]. Barker, B., Nancarrow, C. and Spackman, N., 2001. Informed Eclecticism: A Research Paradigm for the Twenty First Century. International Journal of Market Research, 43 (1),1-11. Available from: http://www.warc.com/ArticleCenter/Default.asp?CType=A&AID=34839&Tab=A [Accessed 17 October 2010]. Bryman, A. and Bell, E., 2007. Business Research Methods. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Charoenruk, D., ca. 2010. Communication Research Methodologies: Qualitative and Quantitative Methodology. Available from: http://utcc2.utcc.ac.th/localuser/amsar/PDF/Documents49/quantitative_and_qualitative_methodologies .pdf [Accessed 17 October 2010]. Constable, R., Cowell, M., Crawford, S., Golden, D., Hartvigsen, J., Morgan, K., Mudgett, A., Parrish, K., Thomas, L., Thompson, E.Y., Turner, R., and Palmquist, M., 2005. Ethnography, Observational Research, and Narrative Inquiry. Colorado State University Department of English. Available from: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/observe/ [Accessed 16 October 2010]. Creswell, J.W., 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Glesne, C. and Peshkin, A., 1992. Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman. Gorard, S. and Taylor, C., 2004. Combining Methods in Educational and Social Research. Berkshire: Open University Press. Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J., 2004. Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14-26. Kuhn, T.S.,1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mackenzie, N. and Knipe, S., 2006. Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16, 193-205. Malhotra, N.K. and Birks, D.F., 2007. Marketing Research. An applied approach. 3rd ed. Harlow: Pearson. Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B., 1999. Designing qualitative research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Newman, I. and Benz, C.R., 1998. Qualitative-Quantitative Research Methodology: Exploring the Interactive Continuum. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Niglas, K. 1999. Quantitative and Qualitative Inquiry in Educational Research: Is There A Paradigmatic Difference Between Them? In: European Conference on Educational Research, September 22-25 1999, Lahti, Finland. Available from: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001487.htm [Accessed 24 October 2010].
12

Reymeni, D., 2002. Research Strategies Beyond the Differences. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 1 (1), 38-41. Sale, J., Lohfield, L. and Brazil, K., 2002. Revisiting the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate: Implications for Mixed-Methods Research. Quality & Quantity, 36, 43-53. Schulze, S., 2003. Views on the Combination of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Approaches. Progressio, 25 (2), 8-20. Available from: http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/10500/195/1/ar_schulze_viewsoncombination.pdf [Accessed 17 October 2010] Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C., 1998. Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London: Sage. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C., 2003. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioural Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Weinreich, N.K., 1996. Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Social Marketing Research. Available from: http://www.social-marketing.com/research.html [Accessed 15 October 2010].

13