AFRICA CENTER OF EXCELLENCE IN COASTAL ZONE

MANAGEMENT

SOCIAL RESEARCH IN COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

(FAS 835)

INDEX NUMBER: BS/CZD/20/0008

ASSIGNMENT

The quantitative-qualitative impasse will continue as long as the research enterprise is

vibrant. Write an essay to justify why you think this debate is not necessary, supporting
your answer with examples.

(Main work- 4 pages, reference- 1 page)

Research is an intensive and purposeful search for knowledge and understanding of social and
physical phenomena. It is a method for the discovery of true values in a scientific way. It
involves the application of the scientific method in the study of problems. Qualitative and
quantitative methods are two varying research methods used by scientist in their search for
knowledge and understanding of social and physical phenomena.

Quantitative research is based on the aspect of quantity or extent. Research of this nature involve
systematic experimental analysis of observable phenomenon via statistical, mathematical or
computational techniques in numerical form such as statistics, percentages, etc. (Mishra & Alok,
2017). It is associated with the first methodological revolution.

The epistemology of quantitative researchers is basically objectivism. Quantitative approaches

are typically associated with positivist perspectives in social research. Their ontology is that
reality is single, similar to that of realism/foundationalism. In terms of axiology, they believe
their research is value-free as they try as much as possible to separate themselves from their
research. However, qualitative researchers argue that even the process of selecting a topic show
that the researcher has some personal interest/value in that topic.

Quantitative research usually tries to determine or predict cause-effect relationships and explain
these relationship. They are therefore said to be deterministic. They also test hypothesis using the
deductive approach. They use data collection tools such as questionnaires and structured
interviews to get data that are numerical or coded. They also use random sampling methods in
order to reduce bias as well get representative samples so that research findings can be
generalized.

Other important characteristics of quantitative research include, using standardized approaches to

collect data, high degree of pre-conceptualization and adopting theory then research approach.
The sample survey and experimental method are the most typical examples of quantitative
research methods.
Qualitative research on the other hand, is concerned with qualitative phenomenon, i.e., relating to
quality or variety. Such type of research is typically descriptive and harder to analyze than
quantitative data. Qualitative research involves looking in-depth at non-numerical data. It is more
naturalistic or anthropological.

Qualitative research is associated with the second methodological revolution. Their epistemology
is mainly constructionism which Creswell (2012) also referred to as interpretivism. Their
axiology is such that they accepts that their research is not independent of themselves. In terms
of ontology, the qualitative researcher believes that reality is multiple. They use methodologies
such as ethnography, phenomenological research, grounded theory, and methods such as
observation, unstructured interviews, visual ethnographic methods etc.

Qualitative research unlike quantitative research seeks to understand. They try to understand how
people’s opinions are formed, why people act the way they do, the reasons for certain cultures,
how such cultures evolved, how people are affected by certain phenomena etc. They are
therefore seeking for deep-meanings of things, not just cause-effect relationship. In most cases,
they are not broad, do not cover large samples but they have the ability to generate narrow but
rich data, provide depth and expose key issues. They are also useful in uncovering variables that
were otherwise not known to be existing as well as in theory generation. They use inductive
approach to generate theories e.g. grounded theories.

Some other strengths of qualitative research include their ability to

 Provide complex textual descriptions of how people experience a given phenomenon.
 Provide information about the “human” side of issues – that is, the often contradictory
behaviors, beliefs, opinions, emotions, and relationships of individuals.
 Identify usually intangible factors, such as social norms, behaviours, socioeconomic
status, gender roles, ethnic and religious factors that influence what happens in society
and in effect allow researchers to collect data sets which otherwise could have been
ignored.
From the foregoing, it can be seen that both quantitative and qualitative research have their
unique strengths and weaknesses. The quantitative-qualitative impasse is therefore not necessary,
as none of these methods is more superior to the other. Both have weakness.

For example, when measuring perception, emotions, etc., one cannot do this with quantitative
methods even though quantitative methods have their advantages. In order to find out the
problem leading to divorce and how it affected the women involved, qualitative research is
necessary and was used in a study (Thomas & Ryan, 2008). Quantitative research would not
have been adequate for this study. Another practical case is trying to understand why fishermen
sing while fishing.

In the same vein, understanding why coastal communities prefer to cut down mangroves for fish-
smoking through qualitative research despite been told its dangers would not be enough to
determine their vulnerability to erosion/flooding. Quantitative research would still be needed to
measure the relationship between mangrove destruction and vulnerability to coastal
erosion/flooding. Another example is that unobserved heterogeneity (endogeneity) cannot be
measured by qualitative research but this can be predicted by instrumental variables or treatment-
effect models which is a quantitative research.

Obviously, the quantitative-qualitative impasse encourages researchers of both paradigms to

accept their weaknesses or provides an excuse for not trying to do something about them (Vogt,
2008) and by so doing, they continue to live with their weaknesses when something can be done
about those weaknesses. This is not the best for the research community which is saddled with
the role of searching for knowledge and solutions to societal problems.

The qualitative-quantitative distinction also diverts attention from the nature of the phenomena
being studied (Vogt, 2008). Whether variables should be treated as names or as numbers should
depend on: the nature of the research question, the purposes of the researcher, or on the
ontological character of the phenomena being studied (Vogt, 2008). Data coding decisions
should result from, not shape, our understanding of the substantive nature of the phenomena we
are studying (Vogt, 2008). The nature of the research problem should determine what method to
use (Sengupta, 2017).
The qualitative-quantitative debate also leads to confusion about the nature of our thoughts
(Vogt, 2008). Our thought processes are not compartmentalized into numbers and words. Our
research should not also be compartmentalized. First, numbers are words. Mathematicians say
the names of numbers when counting or performing mathematical operations at least in their
heads (Vogt, 2008). Likewise, in qualitative research, words relating to quantity such as more or
less, mild or strong or no (reaction), singular or plurals etc. are used (Vogt, 2008).

Furthermore, another reason why this debate is not necessary is the fact that both methods can be
used simultaneously or sequentially as seen in the convergent, and sequential mixed methods.
Some advantages are seen in research work where quantitative and qualitative methods (mixed
methods) are used as well as in triangulation where more than one method, theories or observers
are used to collect data on the same topic. Triangulation help to assure the validity and credibility
of the research (Heale and Forbes, 2013). The mixed method is a form of triangulation (Noble
and Heale, 2019).

Some advantages of the use of both methods are

 It ensures that the fundamental biases/weaknesses arising from the use of one method are
overcomed by the other (Heale and Forbes, 2013).
 It helps enrich a research work by offering a variety of data set (both numerical, words,
pictures, videos, paintings, artefacts etc.) to explain different aspects of the same
phenomena.
 It can help to better explain the result of a study (Joppe, 2006). For example having data
in the form of people’s perception can help explain better the results of a quantitative
study.
 Also, it help in refuting/confirming the results of a research. For example if the results of
a quantitative study contradicts that of a qualitative study, the research can try to further
investigate the reasons for the discrepancy and this can lead to refuting the results of one
of the studies in some cases.
 As is obvious from the above, the use of both methods assure the validity and credibility
of the research. If both methods lead to the same results, people would be more confident
of the research findings.
In conclusion, as seen in the pragmatist view, researchers should be more concerned with ‘what
works’ and with finding practical solutions to problems. Instead of focusing on the methods, they
should focus on the problem been studied and the questions asked about the problem. The
question should therefore be ‘which method works out most effectively in this study?’
Continuously trying to prove that one method is superior to the other would only throw
development backstage (Sengupta, 2017). Researchers should therefore concern themselves
more with getting the truth and should use whatever methods that would help them do this, as
according to Bawden (1904), the test for truth is utility.

REFERENCES

Bawden, H. H. (1904). What is pragmatism? The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and

Scientific Methods, 1(16), 421-427.

Creswell, J. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Paperback, 472 pp. $82. ISBN:
9781412995306.

Heale, R., & Forbes, D. (2013). Understanding triangulation in research. Evidence-based

nursing, 16(4), 98-98.

Joppe, M. (2006). The research process. http://www. ryerson. ca/~ mjoppe/rp. htm.

Mishra, S. B., & Alok, S. (2017). Handbook of research methodology.

Noble, H., & Heale, R. (2019). Triangulation in research, with examples. Evidence-Based
Nursing, 22, 67-68.

Sengupta, S. (2017). The futile war between quantitative and qualitative.

Thomas, C., & Ryan, M. (2008). Women's perception of the divorce experience: A qualitative
study. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 49(3-4), 210-224.

Vogt, W. P. (2008). Quantitative versus qualitative is a distraction: Variations on a theme by

Brewer and Hunter (2006). Methodological Innovations Online, 3(1), 18-24.