Reference no: EM13953186

Respond by postings in one or more of the following ways:
 
• Ask a probing question.
• Share an insight from having read your colleague's posting.
• Offer and support an opinion.
• Validate an idea with your own experience.
• Make a suggestion.
• Expand on your colleague's posting.

According to Creswell (2009), there are three research designs: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method approaches (p. 3). Bulsara (n.d.) explained that mixed-method approaches involve "integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches to generating new qualitative approaches to generating new knowledge and can involve either concurrent or sequential use of these two classes of methods to follow a line of inquiry" (slide 5). In other words, the main strategies, if not combined by the mixed-method design, are either of qualitative or quantitative nature. Researchers at the University of Missouri in St. Louis (n.d.) defined qualitative and quantitative designs and concluded that qualitative designs use "a systematic subjective approach used to describe life experiences and give them meaning", while quantitative designs include a "formal, objective, systematic process for obtaining information about the world, and a method used to describe, test relationships, and examine cause and effect of relationships" (sec. 1, para. 1). Nielsen (2004) made it simple for his reader and explained "there are two main types of user research: quantitative, with a focus on statistics, and qualitative, with a focus on insights" (sec. 1, para 1).

Even though both designs are useful for certain research approaches, it must be added that both designs have hidden barriers when a researcher tries to use one of them for inquiries. For example, in this week's transcript of the video sequence (2009i), Dr. Sarkar outlined how hard it was to conduct qualitative research in a social science field in Sri Lanka, because the nation has only 19 psychiatrists available for a population of 20 million (para. 5). With such little resources available, the qualitative approach is most useful because there is little statistics to compare, but it also relies mostly on new ideas and approaches. The limited data of 19 specialists is not reflective of the entire population. Further, it also shows there is little to no specific literature. On the other hand, Nielsen (2004) argued that the quantitative design can include obstacles and that "quantitative studies must be done exactly right in every detail or the numbers will be deceptive" (sec. 3, para. 1). Nielsen further writes to his reader that "qualitative studies are less brittle [...] and even if your study isn't perfect in every last detail, you'll still get mostly good results from a qualitative method that relies on understanding users and their observed behavior" (sec. 3, para. 2). A good example of a researcher's struggle with the quantitative design was the attempt to compare the size of formal learning spaces with learning outcomes. Lin (2011) showed that data was not randomly selected and could not be used in a survey to project the results to a general population (para. 3). Lin summarized this lack of randomness led to manipulation and meaningless research results (para. 6).

The question now remains: when should a researcher use what research design? I think the goal of the research must be considered as a general approach to answer this most important question. Creswell (2009) quoted Locke et al. (2007) and explained the purpose statement indicates "why you want to do the study and what you intend to accomplish" (p. 125). The purpose statement includes the goals of the research. Depending on the anticipated goal, the researcher should consider which design fits into his/her purpose. In qualitative designs, the goal is to "gain insight; explore the depth, richness, and complexity inherent in the phenomenon", while in quantitative designs, the goal is to "test relationships, describe, and examine cause-and- effect-relations" (University of Missouri in St. Louis, n.d., para. 2). I believe I will combine both, the qualitative and the quantitative approach and will attempt to use a mixed-method approach, because I believe DeLisle (2011) was correct when he stated the mixed method approach "presents an opportunity to explore both worlds by allowing in depth discovery [...], while at the same time benefitting from the advantages of high generalization through large-scale empirical research" (pp. 111 - 112).

References-

Bulsara, C. (n.d.). Using mixed methods approaches [PowerPoint slides], Notre Dame University.

Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications .

DeLisle, J. (2011). Mixed methods and methodologies: the benefits and challenges of mixing methods and methodologies.Caribbean Curriculum, 18(1), 87-120.

Lin, J. (2011). When technology dances with teaching and learning. Retrieved fromhttps://jinglt.blogspot.com/2011/09/bad-example-that-quantitative-research.html

Nielsen, J. (2004). Risks of quantitative studies. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nngroup.com

University of Missouri in St. Louis. (n.d.). Qualitative research designs: Comparison of qualitative and quantitative research designs. Retrieved from /articles/risks-of-quantitative-studies/

Video: Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009i). Qualitative methods: Two examples. Baltimore, MD: Author.