Qualitative and quantitative research are the two main schools of research, and although they

are often used in tandem, the benefits and disadvantages of each are hotly debated. Particularly
in the social sciences, the merits of both qualitative and quantitative research are fought over,
with intense views held on both sides of the argument. It is generally agreed upon, however,
that there are some phases of research where one or the other is clearly more useful than the
other, and so few people completely dismiss either.
Quantitative research is probably the least contentious of the two schools, as it is more closely
aligned with what is viewed as the classical scientific paradigm. Quantitative research involves
gathering data that is absolute, such as numerical data, so that it can be examined in as
unbiased a manner as possible. There are many principles that go along with quantitative
research, which help promote its supposed neutrality. Quantitative research generally comes
later in a research project, once the scope of the project is well understood.
The main idea behind quantitative research is to be able to separate things easily so that they
can be counted and modeled statistically, to remove factors that may distract from the intent of
the research. A researcher generally has a very clear idea what is being measured before they
start measuring it, and their study is set up with controls and a very clear blueprint. Tools used
are intended to minimize any bias, so ideally are machines that collect information, and less
ideally would be carefully randomized surveys. The result of quantitative research is a collection
of numbers, which can be subjected to statistical analysis to come to results.
Remaining separate from the research emotionally is a key aspect of quantitative research, as
is removing researcher bias. For things like astronomy or other hard sciences, this means that
quantitative research has a very minimal amount of bias at all. For things like sociological data,
this means that the majority of bias is hopefully limited to that introduced by the people being
studied, which can be somewhat accounted for in models. Quantitative is ideal for testing
hypotheses, and for hard sciences trying to answer specific questions.

Qualitative research, on the other hand, is a much more subjective form of research, in which
the research allows themselves to introduce their own bias to help form a more complete
picture. Qualitative research may be necessary in situations where it is unclear what exactly is
being looked for in a study, so that the researcher needs to be able to determine what data is
important and what isnt. While quantitative research generally knows exactly what its looking
for before the research begins, in qualitative research the focus of the study may become more
apparent as time progresses.
Often the data presented from qualitative research will be much less concrete than pure
numbers as data. Instead, qualitative research may yield stories, or pictures, or descriptions of
feelings and emotions. The interpretations given by research subjects are given weight in
qualitative research, so there is no seeking to limit their bias. At the same time, researchers tend
to become more emotionally attached to qualitative research, and so their own bias may also
play heavily into the results.
Within the social sciences, there are two opposing schools of thought. One holds that fields like
sociology and psychology should attempt to be as rigorous and quantitative as possible, in order
to yield results that can be more easily generalized, and in order to sustain the respect of the
scientific community. Another holds that these fields benefit from qualitative research, as it
allows for a richer study of a subject, and allows for information to be gathered that would
otherwise be entirely missed by a quantitative approach. Although attempts have been made in
recent years to find a stronger synthesis between the two, the debate rages on, with many
social scientists falling sharply on one side or the other.

Quantitative research is an inquiry into an identified problem, based on testing a theory,

measured with numbers, and analyzed using statistical techniques. The goal of quantitative
methods is to determine whether the predictive generalizations of a theory hold true.

By contrast, a study based upon a qualitative process of inquiry has the goal of understanding
a social or human problem from multiple perspectives. Qualitative research is conducted in a
natural setting and involves a process of building a complex and holistic picture of the
phenomenon of interest.
Bincang perbezaan antara penyelidikan kualitatif dan kuantitatif.
Apakah kekuatan dan kelemahan kajian kuantitatif?
Apakah kekuatan dan kelemahan penyelidikan kualitatif?

Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative Research

Strengths
_
Testing and validating already constructed theories about how andwhy phenomena occur
_
Testing hypotheses that are constructed before the data are collected
_
Can generalize research findings when the data are based on randomsamples of sufficient size
_
Can generalize a research finding when it has been replicated on manydifferent populations and
subpopulations
_
Useful for obtaining data that allow quantitative predictions to bemade
_
The researcher may construct a situation that eliminates theconfounding influence of many
variables, allowing one to more crediblyestablish 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 statisticalsoftware)
_
The research results are relatively independent of the researcher (e.g.,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
Weaknesses
_
The researchers categories that are used might not refl
ect local
constituencies
understandings
_
The researchers theories that are used might not reflect localconstituencies
understandings
_
The researcher might miss out on phenomena occurring because of thefocus on theory or
hypothesis testing rather than on theory or hypothesisgeneration (called the
confirmation bias
)
_
Knowledge produced might be too abstract and general for directapplication to specific local
situations, contexts, and individuals