Exam (elaborations)

MIXING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN PURSUIT OF RICHER ANSWERS TO REAL-WORLD QUESTIONS

0 purchase

Course
MIXING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE

Institution
MIXING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE

CONCEPUTALIZING QUALITATIVE, QUANTITATIVE AND MIXED METHODS Qualitative and quantitative research methods both involve an array of data types and techniques of analysis. Qualitative methods are associated with case studies, which may be historically and geographically bound events, organizati...

[Show more]

Preview 4 out of 37 pages

View example

Uploaded on August 24, 2024
Number of pages 37
Written in 2024/2025
Type Exam (elaborations)
Contains Questions & answers

mixing qualitative and quantitative methods in pur
conceputalizing qualitative quantitative and mixe

Institution MIXING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE
Course MIXING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE

StudyCenter1 Member since 1 year 193 documents sold

$18.99

Add to cart

Add to wishlist

100% satisfaction guarantee
Immediately available after payment
Both online and in PDF
No strings attached

MIXING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN PURSUIT OF

RICHER ANSWERS TO REAL-WORLD QUESTIONS

Sharon Gilad

ABSTRACT

Qualitative methods are relatively scarce in public administration research. This imbalance

between qualitative and quantitative methods poses three significant concerns. First, there is a

risk that measurement hurdles, coupled with the distance that quantitative methodology fosters

between academics and administrative practice and practitioners, undermines our inclination and

capacity to study policy-meaningful research questions that matter in the real world. Second, and

related, the causality underlying the real problems that policymakers and public organizations

face is often much too complex to be captured by one type of methodology, whether quantitative

or qualitative. Third, quantitative methodology is most conducive to testing already available

theories and hypotheses, as opposed to theory building. I propose that the answer to these

concerns lays in denouncing commitment to abstract philosophical divisions and advancing

collaboration between qualitative and quantitative researchers and versions of mixed methods

that transcend mere triangulation. These arguments are illustrated in relation to the study of

bureaucratic discrimination of minorities.

-0-

,INTRODUCTION

Social-science methodology textbooks, and research-methods courses, commonly mirror the

taken-for-granted division between qualitative and quantitative research. This division is said to

embody not only different technical tools for data collection and analysis, but incommensurable,

that is logically incompatible, philosophical traditions, pertaining to divergent beliefs about

ontology and epistemology. Crudely stated, these textbook distinctions associate quantitative

research with a positivist paradigm that conceives of reality as consisting of generalizable

patterns of cause and effect, which can be objectively known through deductive hypotheses

generation and their empirical verification. A related philosophical approach, post-positivism,

which is amenable to both qualitative and quantitative methods, is associated with a commitment

to objectivity, alongside recognition of the difficulties to fully access and explain the objective

reality, and thereby with a preference for hypotheses falsification over verification. Still,

qualitative research is most often associated with a constructivist paradigm, which stresses the

multiplicity in social constructions of reality, and the limitations and subjectivity of coming to

know them. Constructivists aim to inductively unpack participants’ actions based on their

situated, shared, interpretations of their social environment, which the researcher investigates and

construes, employing her distinct, non-replicable, vantage point.1

Reiterating and espousing the rationale of the above institutionalized distinctions, a recent

systematic review of the state of qualitative methodology in public administration (PA),

published in Public Administration Review, cautions qualitative researchers to pay closer and

careful attention to where they stand on the postpositivist-interpretivist divide (Ospina et al.,

1
See Riccuci (2008, 2010) for a nuanced depiction of alternative paradigms and their implications for the study
public administration.

-1-

,2018: 2). The authors go on to criticize qualitative researchers, in public administration, for their

failure to explicitly self-define their orientation and commitment to the interpretivist versus post-

positivist traditions (ibid, 6). Their analysis of 129 qualitative papers, published between 2010

and 2014, in six key public administration journals, indicated that most authors did not signal

their fundamental ontological and epistemological convictions, and that only 24% adopted what

the authors coded as an interpretivist approach. The authors acknowledge both issues with

lament, offering that this omission may be a function of ignorance or carelessness among the

community of qualitative public administration researchers.

The above paper, by Ospina et al’s (2018) provides us with important systematic

mapping of the state of qualitative methodology in our field, as elaborated below. However,

some of their guidance regarding future research requires further consideration. Contrary to the

above criticism and lament, I offer that in today’s public administration research, which is

dominated by quantitative studies, it would be artificial and unwarranted for qualitative

researchers to avow decisive allegiance to abstract notions of ontology and epistemology and to

distinct methodological camps. Instead, drawing on Morgan (2007), I propose that the choice of

research methods, in PA, should be led by the epistemological challenges that are posed by

concrete policy-relevant research questions, as opposed to general philosophical assumptions

about the nature of reality and how to know it. This approach, which questions the very

usefulness of the linkage between methodological choices and overarching philosophical

paradigms, differs from that of Yang et al. (2008) who offer that research methods, in public

administration, may draw upon alternative paradigms, so long as researchers appreciate the

distinct ontological and epistemological underpinnings of different methods.

-2-

, I further contend that the problem to be addressed, in current PA, is not qualitative

researchers’ failure to signals their ontological and epistemological convictions, but the near

exclusivity of quantitative research in our leading journals. This scarcity of qualitative research

likely undermines our collective endeavor to address real-world problems that governments face

(Milward et al, 2016; Moynihan, 2017; 2018; Roberts, 2018), and may lead to our provision of

overly reductionist explanations for what are often complex, wicked, problems. Moreover, it

hinders theoretical innovation in our field, leading us to focus on more of the same, relying on

existing indices and datasets. Drawing on the developments in adjacent fields and promising

changes in ours (Hendren et al. 2018; Honig, 2018; Mele and Belardinelli, 2018) this paper

offers versions of mixed-methods that transcend mere triangulation as having the greatest

potential to ameliorate these concerns. I start, however, with some building blocks,

conceptualizing what I mean by qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods.

CONCEPUTALIZING QUALITATIVE, QUANTITATIVE AND MIXED METHODS

Qualitative and quantitative research methods both involve an array of data types and techniques

of analysis. Qualitative methods are associated with case studies, which may be historically and

geographically bound events, organizational units or individuals, among others. Data regarding

these cases may be drawn from participant or non-participant observations, from semi-structured

interviews, focus groups or from narrative analysis of text. Quantitative data collection and

analysis comprises observational data, indexing human behavior or non-human factors, survey

data reflecting human perceptions, and experiments, with the latter involving a variety of

laboratory, survey-based, field-based and natural designs.

-3-

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller StudyCenter1. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $18.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

68175 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 15 years now

Start selling

Exam (elaborations)

MIXING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN PURSUIT OF RICHER ANSWERS TO REAL-WORLD QUESTIONS

Document information

Subjects

Written for

Seller

Reviews received

Content preview