Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet
icon backReturn to Entries

Quantitative Research

The term quantitative research refers to approaches to empirical inquiry that collect, analyze, and display data in numerical rather than narrative form. Not surprisingly, quantitative research is often viewed as the antithesis of—and, at times, even a foil for—the qualitative type of research that is the focal point of this encyclopedia. The qualitative–quantitative distinction, however, can be a bit misleading. This entry first reviews issues related to this distinction and then examines these differences.

Caveats about the Qualitative–Quantitative Distinction

The qualitative–quantitative distinction is a bit misleading in part because many quantitative researchers are interested in and study the qualitative aspects of phenomena. To study qualities quantitatively, of course, quantitative researchers translate gradations of quality into numerical scales that are amenable to statistical analysis.

The quantitative and qualitative labels also are misleading because qualitative researchers can never totally avoid quantification. Whenever they use terms such as sometimes, often, seldom, or never, for example, they are employing a form—albeit an exceedingly imprecise form—of quantification.

Furthermore, some qualitative researchers actually move beyond primitive forms of quantification by administering questionnaires and reporting results in the form of descriptive statistics. This sort of numerical data is employed in some qualitative studies to triangulate qualitative findings and/or to determine whether or not the insights gleaned from a limited number of in-depth interviews are reasonably consistent with the views of those who were not able to participate in what is often a time-consuming and labor-intensive interview process.

Thus, the qualitative–quantitative distinction is not a completely clean one. Still, quantitative and qualitative approaches to research do normally exhibit some rather pronounced—and quite significant—differences. These differences become apparent when quantitative and qualitative researchers' differing views of reliability and validity are examined.

The Qualitative–Quantitative Distinction: Reliability and Validity

Reliability and Validity in Quantitative Research

Quantitative researchers invariably embrace the concepts of reliability and validity. Reliability is viewed as a property of the instruments (e.g., tests and observation schedules) that quantitative researchers use to measure the phenomena they are studying. An instrument is considered reliable if it consistently produces the same results when administered to the same or comparable individuals. Quantitative researchers normally employ measures of consistency to determine the reliability of a particular instrument.

Quantitative researchers also are concerned with validity and they normally employ measurement to assess the extent to which a study and the study's key components are valid. Both internal and external validity are assessed.

Internal validity refers to whether an instrument used in a study actually measures what it purports to measure. An instrument's internal validity can be assessed in a number of ways: by correlating the instrument's results with the results produced by another better established instrument that presumably measures the same phenomena (concurrent validity), by determining whether the results accurately predict something that the instrument's results would be expected to predict (predictive validity), or by determining whether empirical studies support—or fail to support—reasonable hypotheses about the theoretical construct that an instrument makes operational and measures (construct validity).

Quantitative researchers also, at times, rely on more qualitative procedures to assess an instrument's validity. They might, for instance, ask a panel of experts to review the contents of an instrument and make a judgment about the instrument's content validity. Quantitative researchers also, at times, claim that the validity of an instrument is self-evident; in these situations, the instrument is said to have face validity.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Read next

More like this

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

close

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

close
close
close Signed In to profile You are signed in as:
close
Logged in Institution Institution