See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272791399

The Basis of Distinction Between Qualitative and Quantitative Research in Social

Science: Reflection on Ontological, Epistemological and Methodological
Perspectives

Article  in  Ethiopian Journal of Education and Sciences · January 2010

DOI: 10.4314/ejesc.v6i1.65384

CITATIONS READS

183 6,602

1 author:

Fekede Tuli Gemeda

Ambo University
3 PUBLICATIONS   184 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Fekede Tuli Gemeda on 27 July 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Basis of Distinction between Qualitative Fekede Tuli

The Basis of Distinction between Qualitative and Quantitative Research

in Social Science: Reflection on Ontological, Epistemological and
Methodological Perspectives

By Fekede Tuli1

Abstract
This article examines methodological issues associated with qualitative and quantitative
research. In doing this, I briefly begin by outlining the philosophical and conceptual framework
that informed the two research methodologies and discusses how ontological and epistemological
issues were translated in to specific methodological strategies and influence researchers
methodological decision. My purpose in writing this article is not to promote one methodology
over the other rather to describe and reflect on the differences between the two research
methodologies from Ontological, Epistemological and Methodological Perspectives and how they
will be selected for research.

1
Lecturer, Department of Pedagogy, Jimma University

97
The Basis of Distinction between Qualitative Fekede Tuli

INTRODUCTION experience and having superficial

This article explores and interprets the understanding of different research

distinction between qualitative and methodologies to become a more

quantitative research from Ontological, informed consumer and producer of

Epistemological and Methodological research.

perspectives. As a starting point, it

draws on my own personal experience
of how teachers and
conceptualize the two
methodologies: qualitative
quantitative in my work place, Jimma
University. My major observations were
evaluating qualitative and quantitative
research report by using positivist
criteria, promoting one
methodology over the other, looking
qualitative research as
compared to the quantitative research,
emphasizing on quantitative research in
dealing with social sciences in general
and educational issues in particular.
These various conceptions and practices
motivate me to reflect on the basis of the
distinction between the two research
methodology by using current literature
and my own experience of how research
is conducted and constructed in social
sciences. The goal of this review is to
enable readers with little or no previous
Social scientists study diverse and
students complex phenomenon: from census data
research derived from hundreds of thousands of
and human beings, to the in-depth analysis
of one individual social life; from
monitoring what is happening on a
street today, to the historical analysis of
what was happening hundreds of years
research ago. In order to describe, explore and
understand these social phenomena,
inferior researchers with in social science use
different research methodologies, which
can generally be subdivided into
quantitative and qualitative research
methodology. However, there are
compelling reasons as to the selection of
each research methodology within the
social science arena, and this was
examined in the latter section of this
paper.

97
The Basis of Distinction between Qualitative Fekede Tuli

Research methodology used in social why people act the ways they do. As a
science for much of the 20th century was result of this intellectual debate purists
largely quantitative methodology, have emerged on both sides i.e. the
which originated in the natural sciences quantitative purist and the qualitative
such as Biology, Chemistry, Physics, purist.
Geology etc. and was concerned with
investigating things which we could The quantitative purists articulate
observe and measure in some way. Such assumptions that are consistent with
observations and measurements can be what is commonly called positivist
made objectively and repeated by other paradigm and believe that social
researchers. Gradually, but certainly observations should be treated as
over the last decades some researchers entities in much the same way that
within the social sciences (Sociology, physical scientists treat physical
Anthropology etc) have expressed phenomena. To the contrary, the
dissatisfaction with the quantitative qualitative purist also called
methodology as a means of both interprativist or constructivist by
conducting research and generating rejecting the positivist assumption
knowledge. These researchers have contended that reality is subjective,
argued that the aim of research practice multiple and socially constructed by its
should be to focus up on understanding participants (Krauss, 2005; Bryman, 1984;
the meaning that events have for the Lincoln & Guba 2000; Guba and Lincoln,
individual being studied. Having this 1994; Amare, 2004). Although these
argument in mind these researchers methodologies are acknowledged as a
begun to explore alternative way of means to conduct research, scholars
conducting research in social science within the social science have argued
and latter developed qualitative that the relative preference of each
methodology, which attempts to research methodology depends on
increase understanding of why things philosophical issues related to the
are the way they are in social world and question of ontology (the nature of

98
The Basis of Distinction between Qualitative
reality) and epistemology (the nature of
knowledge). As research methodology
in social science are related in the sense
that they are all means of soliciting
information about the human nature
from human participants, this article
was aimed at clarifying the basis of
methodological distinction grounded on
a philosophical and theoretical view of
research that guide the work of
researchers in social science.
This article is not an exhaustive attempt
to analyze and synthesize all aspect of
the distinction between qualitative and
quantitative research methodology. My
goal is more modest. It is to make the
reader aware of the two research
methodologies and their basis of
difference from ontological,
epistemological and methodological
perspectives. Furthermore, the goal is to
deal with different research paradigms
that are particularly appropriate for
researchers who want to base their work
on a positivist world view or an
interpretivist-constructivist world view.
The Basis of Methodological
Distinction in Research
99
Fekede Tuli
Generally speaking there are varieties of
research methodologies with no single
accepted research methodology
applicable to all research problems.
Each research methodology has its own
relative weakness and strength. No
single research methodology is
necessarily ideal and that selection
inevitably involves loss as well as gain
(Schulze, 2003). The selection of research
methodology depends on the paradigm
that guides the research activity, more
specifically, beliefs about the nature of
reality and humanity (ontology), the
theory of knowledge that informs the
research (epistemology), and how that
knowledge may be gained
(methodology). A consideration of
epistemology, ontology and
methodology must be a central feature
of any discussion about the nature of
social science research as these elements
give shape and definition to the conduct
of an inquiry (Popkewitz, Tabachnick &
Zeichner, 1979).
Epistemological Issues/Considerations
in Research
The Basis of Distinction between Qualitative Fekede Tuli

The traditional view regards the social confirm a set of probabilistic causal laws
sciences as largely similar to the natural that can be used to predict general
sciences, and the researchers who adopt patterns of human activity. The nature
this approach are thus concerned with of social reality for positivists is that:
discovering laws concerning human empirical facts exist apart from personal
behavior (Schulze, 2003; Krauss, 2005). ideas or thoughts; they are governed by
The critical epistemological debate in laws of cause and effect; patterns of
terms of conducting social science social reality are stable and knowledge
research is whether or not the social of them is additive (Crotty, 1998;
world can be studied according to the Neuman, 2003; Marczyk, DeMatteo and
same principles as the natural sciences Festinger, 2005). A basic assumption of
(Bryman, 2001). There are two broad this paradigm as Ulin, Robinson and
epistemological positions: positivism Tolley (2004) remarked is that the goal
and interpretivism-constructivism. of science is to develop the most
objective methods possible to get the
Epistemology poses the following closest approximation of reality.
questions: What is the relationship Researchers who work from this
between the knower and what is perspective explains in quantitative
known? How do we know what we terms how variables interact, shape
know? What counts as knowledge? For events, and cause outcomes. They often
positivists, which are evolved largely develop and test these explanations in
from a nineteenth-century philosophical experimental studies. Multivariate
approach, the purpose of research is analysis and techniques for statistical
scientific explanation. According to prediction are among the classic
Neuman (2003) positivism sees social contributions of this type of research.
science as an organized method for This framework maintains that reliable
combining deductive logic with precise knowledge is based on direct
empirical observations of individual observation or manipulation of natural
behavior in order to discover and phenomena through empirical, often

100
The Basis of Distinction between Qualitative Fekede Tuli

experimental, means (Lincoln & Guba group being studied. Building a

2000, 2005; Neuman, 2003). partnership with study participants can
lead to deeper insight into the context
On the other hand, an interpretivist- under study, adding richness and depth
constructivist perspective, the to the data. Thus, qualitative
theoretical framework for most methodologies are inductive, that is,
qualitative research, sees the world as oriented toward discovery and process,
constructed, interpreted, and have high validity, are less concerned
experienced by people in their with generalizability, and are more
interactions with each other and with concerned with deeper understanding
wider social systems (Maxwell, 2006; of the research problem in its unique
Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Guba and context (Ulin, Robinson and Tolley,
Lincoln, 1985; Merriam, 1988). 2004).
According to this paradigm the nature
of inquiry is interpretive and the Both positivist and interpretive
purpose of inquiry is to understand a researchers hold that human behaviour
particular phenomenon, not to may be patterned and regular.
generalize to a population (Farzanfar, However, while positivists see this in
2005). Researchers within the terms of the laws of cause and effect,
interpretivist paradigm are naturalistic interpretivists view such patterns as
since they apply to real-world situations being created out of evolving meaning
as they unfold naturally, more systems that people generate as they
specifically, they tend to be non- socially interact (Neuman, 2003). Since
manipulative, unobtrusive, and non- interpretive researchers place strong
controlling. According to Ulin, emphasis on better understanding of the
Robinson and Tolley (2004) Qualitative world through firsthand experience,
research methodology often rely on truthful reporting and quotations of
personal contact over some period of actual conversation form insiders
time between the researcher and the perspectives (Merriam, 1998) than

101
The Basis of Distinction between Qualitative Fekede Tuli

testing the laws of human behavior precision, and generalizability to judge

(Bryman, 2001; Farzanfar, 2005), they the rigor of quantitative studies as they
employ data gathering methods that are intended to describe, predict, and verify
sensitive to context (Neuman, 2003), and empirical relationships in relatively
which enable rich and detailed, or thick controlled settings. On the other hand,
description of social phenomena by qualitative research that aims to explore,
encouraging participants to speak freely discover, and understand cannot use the
and understand the investigator’s quest same criteria to judge research quality
for insight into a phenomenon that the and outcomes. Lincoln and Guba (1985)
participant has experienced. Owing to suggest that the fundamental criterion
this, interview, focus group discussion for qualitative reports is
and naturalistic observation are the trustworthiness. How, they ask, can a
most widely used data gathering researcher be certain that “the findings
methods for researchers using of an inquiry are worth paying attention
qualitative research methodology. To to, worth taking account of. For research
the contrary, the positivist researchers’ to be considered credible and authentic
emphasis on explaining behavior investigations should be based on a
through measurable data by using sound rationale that justifies the use of
highly standardized tools such as chosen methodology and the processes
questionnaire, psychological tests with involved in data collection and analysis.
precisely worded questions.
Ontological Issues/Considerations in
Research
Issues of trustworthiness and credibility,
as opposed to the positivist criteria of Ontological questions in social science

validity, reliability and objectivity, are research are related to the nature of

key considerations in the interpretivist reality. There are two broad and

paradigm. According to Ulin, Robinson contrasting positions: objectivism that

and Tolley (2004) positivists use holds that there is an independent

validity, reliability, objectivity, reality and constructionism that

102
The Basis of Distinction between Qualitative Fekede Tuli

assumes that reality is the product of

social processes (Neuman, 2003). On the other hand, interpretive
researchers cannot accept the idea of
A researcher with a positivist there being a reality ‘out there’, which
orientation regards reality as being ‘out exists irrespective of people. They see
there’ in the world and needing to be reality as a human construct (Mutch,
discovered using conventional scientific 2005). The interpretive research
methodologies (Bassey, 1995). People, paradigm views reality and meaning
through the use of their senses, can making as socially constructed and it
observe this reality and the discoveries holds that people make their own sense
made about the realities of human of social realities. Interpretive
actions are expressed as factual researchers use qualitative research
statements (Bassey, 1995; Mutch, 2005). methodologies to investigate, interpret
Positivist researchers do not regard and describe social realities (Bassey,
themselves as important variables in 1995; Cohen, Manion & Morrison,
their research and believe they remain 2000). The research findings in
detached from what they research. The qualitative methodology are usually
philosophical basis is that the world reported descriptively using words
exists and is knowable and researchers (Mutch, 2005).
can use quantitative methodology to
discover it (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, The qualitative research methodology
2000). Through this orientation, treats people as research participants
knowledge is a given and must be and not as objects as in the positivist
studied using objective ways. Research research approach. This emphasis can
findings are usually represented be an empowering process for
quantitatively in numbers which speak participants in qualitative research, as
for themselves (Bassey, 1995; Cohen, the participants can be seen as the
Manion & Morrison, 2000; Mutch, writers of their own history rather than
2005). objects of research (Casey, 1993). This

103
The Basis of Distinction between Qualitative Fekede Tuli

methodology enables the participants to or detached, where the emphasis is on

make meanings of their own realities measuring variables and testing
and come to appreciate their own hypotheses that are linked to general
construction of knowledge through causal explanations (Sarantakos, 2005;
practice. This process can be seen as Marczyk, DeMatteo and Festinger
enabling or empowering them to freely ,2005). Positivist research uses
express their views, which they may not experimental designs to measure effects,
have a chance to do with someone especially through group changes. The
outside of the school system (Cohen, data collection techniques focus on
Manion & Morrison, 2000). gathering hard data in the form of
numbers to enable evidence to be
Methodological Issues/ Considerations
presented in quantitative form
in Research
(Neuman, 2003; Sarantakos, 2005).
Methodology is a research strategy that In contrast, qualitative methodology is
translates ontological and underpinned by interpretivist
epistemological principles into epistemology and constructionalist
guidelines that show how research is to ontology. This assumes that meaning is
be conducted (Sarantakos, 2005), and embedded in the participants’
principles, procedures, and practices experiences and that this meaning is
that govern research ( Kazdin, 1992, mediated through the researcher’s own
2003a, cited in Marczyk , DeMatteo and perceptions (Merriman, 1998).
Festinger, 2005). Researchers using qualitative
methodology immerse themselves in a
The positivist research paradigm culture or group by observing its people
underpins quantitative methodology. and their interactions, often
The realist/objectivist ontology and participating in activities, interviewing
empiricist epistemology contained in key people, taking life histories,
the positivist paradigm requires a constructing case studies, and analyzing
research methodology that is objective existing documents or other cultural

104
The Basis of Distinction between Qualitative Fekede Tuli

artifacts. The qualitative researcher’s knowledge and reality that helps them
goal is to attain an insider’s view of the clarify their theoretical frameworks.
group under study. Perspectives can vary a great deal
among researchers who see the world

Selecting a Research Paradigm in through different cultural,

social science philosophical, or professional lenses.
One researcher might seek evidence of
Encyclopedia of qualitative research
the regularity of patterned behavior in
(2008) defines a paradigm as a set of
trends, rates, and associations while
assumptions and perceptual
others might focus on how people
orientations shared by members of a
understand or interpret what they
research community. Paradigms
experience. These two predominant
determine how members of research
research worldviews are the positivist
communities view both the phenomena
paradigm and interpretive paradigm
their particular community studies and
which are the focus of the sudy. It has
the research methodology that should
become very common in
be employed to study those phenomena.
methodological literature that a
According to Denzin and Lincoln (2005)
quantitative methodology is described
paradigm is the net that contains the
as belonging to the positivist paradigm
researcher’s epistemological,
and a qualitative methodology as
ontological, and methodological
belonging to the interpretive paradigm.
premises.
An interpretivist or constructivist
paradigm portrays the world as socially
Whether consciously or not, every
constructed, complex, and ever
researcher works from some theoretical
changing in contrast to the positivist
orientation or paradigm. According to
assumption of a fixed, measurable
Cohen, Manion & Morrison (2000)
reality external to people.
Researchers have their own different
worldviews about the nature of

105
The Basis of Distinction between Qualitative Fekede Tuli

Positivism is based on the assumption

that there are universal laws that govern Description of these different paradigms
social events, and uncovering these laws demonstrates that there are competing
enables researchers to describe, predict, Methodologies to social research based
and control social phenomena. on different philosophical assumptions
Interpretive research, in contrast, seeks about the purpose of science and the
to understand values, beliefs, and nature of social reality (Neuman, 2003;
meanings of social phenomena, thereby Ulin, Robinson and Tolley, 2004). The
obtaining a deep and sympathetic research paradigm chosen by individual
understanding of human cultural researchers appears to be dependent on
activities and experiences. Rubin and their perceptions of “what real world
Rubin (1995) and Cohen, Manion & truth is” (ontology) and “how they
Morrison (2000) pointed out that know it to be real truth” (epistemology).
quantitative research methodologies are A researcher’s choice of research
a search for both law-like regularities paradigm can also be determined by the
and principles which are true all the kinds of questions that help them to
time and in all given situations. On the investigate problems or issues they find
other hand, qualitative researchers intriguing. Figure 1 presents how
attempt to understand the complexities philosophical framework influence
of the world through participants’ research practice at all and summarize
experiences. Knowledge through this the relationships between different
lens is constructed through social philosophical schools of thought and
interactions within cultural settings. methodological traditions with focus on
Meanings are “found in the symbols constructivism and interpretivism.
people invent to communicate meanings
or an interpretation for the events of
daily life” (Popkewitz, 1984).

106
The Basis of Distinction between Qualitative Fekede Tuli

Research problem(s)

Interpretivism Positivism
Philosophical school of thought, Realist/objectivist ontology
Constructionist ontology Empiricist epistemology
Interpretivist epistemology world view

Quantitative
Qualitative
Methodology
Methodology
Methodology

Fixed Design
Flexible Design

Design

Questionnaire
-interview
Tests
Focus Group Discussion
Inventories
Observation etc Check list etc
Non-numerical analysis Instruments/methods
Statistical analysis

Figure: Foundation of Research

As depicted in figure 1 above ontology in turn guides the choice of research

and epistemology influence the type of design and instruments. The ontology
research methodology chosen, and this informs the methodology about the

107
The Basis of Distinction between Qualitative Fekede Tuli

nature of reality and what social science unlimited freedom of movement

is supposed to study where as the between the steps of research.
epistemology informs the methodology
On the other hand the positivist
about the nature of knowledge or where
ontology claiming objective, single,
knowledge is to be sought? About how
reality that will be studied without any
we know what we know? Having the
perspective of the researcher and the
instruction from the ontology and
positivist epistemology advocating the
epistemology the methodology prepares
detachment or dualism of the knower
a package of research design that is to
and things to be known/studied guide
be employed by the researcher.
the quantitative methodology which
Methodology is a research strategy that
prescribe fixed design which favors the
translates the ontological and
more restrictive option.
epistemological principles in the process
of research activity. How research is Researcher(s) with in interpretivist

conducted and constructed? paradigm is/are guided to employ

observation, in-depth interview, and
The constructivist ontology claiming
group discussion in the course of data
multiple, individual or socially
collection and non-numerical data
constructed reality (both the researcher
analysis technique, while, researcher(s)
and the participant construct their own
within the positivist paradigm is/are
reality and knowledge) that will be
guided to employ questionnaire, tests,
studied contextually and holistically
inventories, and checklist in the course
and the constructivist epistemology
of data collection and
rejecting the traditional image between
numerical/statistical data analysis
the researcher and things to be studied
technique.
guide the qualitative methodology
which in turn prescribe flexible design
in which the researcher has got

108
The Basis of Distinction between Qualitative Fekede Tuli

Conclusion general frameworks for doing research.

They involve assumptions and beliefs
Social science research is complex,
on several different levels, from
diverse and pluralistic. Owing to this,
philosophical positions about the nature
the way research is conducted, its goals
of the world and how humans can
and its basic assumptions vary
better understand the world they live in
significantly. The two major and most
to assumptions about the proper
popular forms of research are
relationships between social science
qualitative methodology, which is
research and professional practice. The
grounded on interpretivist paradigm
framework for any research includes
and quantitative methodology, which is
beliefs about the nature of reality and
grounded on positivist paradigm. These
humanity (ontology), the theory of
methodologies guide the works of the
knowledge that informs the research
vast majority of researchers in the social
(epistemology), and how that
science. Hence, researchers should have
knowledge may be gained
a clear understanding of the
(methodology) that brought about
philosophical argument guiding their
differences in the type of research
research study.
methodologies used in social science
research.
Researchers have their own different
worldviews about the nature of
Quantitative methodology is concerned
knowledge and reality based on their
with attempts to quantify social
own philosophical orientation (Cohen,
phenomena and collect and analyze
et al. 2000). In any research endeavor,
numerical data, and focus on the links
linking research and philosophical
among a smaller number of attributes
traditions or schools of thought helps
across many cases. Qualitative
clarify a researcher’s theoretical
methodology, on the other hand, is
frameworks (Cohen, et al. 2000). In the
more concerned with understanding the
social sciences there are a number of
meaning of social phenomena and focus

109
The Basis of Distinction between Qualitative Fekede Tuli

on links among a larger number of attributes across relatively few cases.

The main intention of this paper is not It is argued that no one research
to extend the current and long-lasting methodology is better or worse than the
debate regarding qualitative versus other as both are proven to be useful in
quantitative research in social science most research endeavors (Cohen,
research, rather to describe and reflect Manion & Morrison, 2000; Silverman,
on the philosophical stance guiding the 1997) , what is critical is the selection of
two research methodologies from the appropriate research methodology
Ontological, Epistemological and for an inquiry at hand. In the same vein
Methodological Perspective so that the Neuman (2003) argues that there is no
audiences (teachers, students etc) can single, absolutely correct methodology
have a full range of understanding to social science research” but rather the
surrounding the topic of research methodologies represent different ways
methodology and the theory of how of looking at the world – ways to
inquiry should proceed. My sense is to observe, measure and understand social
enable, professionals with little or no reality. Correspondingly, Merriman
previous experience of the various (1998) argues that getting started on a
research methodologies in social science research project begins with examining
arena and falling in to the trap that one your own orientation to basic tenets
research is better than the other, gain a about the nature of reality, the purpose
basic understanding of qualitative and of doing research, and the type of
quantitative research. As has been stated knowledge that can be produced. Given
in the body of this paper neither is these description, it can be summed up
better than the other research that the selection of research
methodology. Rather they are just methodologies depends on fitness for
different and both have their relative purpose. According to Creswell (2003)
strengths and weaknesses. the selection of an appropriate research
methodology requires several

110
The Basis of Distinction between Qualitative Fekede Tuli

considerations - firstly, the research experiences, training, and worldview;

problem will often indicate a specific and thirdly the audience to whom the
research methodology to be used in the research is to be reported.
inquiry; secondly the researcher’s own

Reference _______ (2001). Social Research Methods.

Amare Asgedom. (2004) Debates in Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Research Paradigms: Reflections Casey, K. (1993) I Answer With My Life:

in Qualitative Research in Life Histories of Women Teachers

Higher Education. The Ethiopian Working For Social Change. New

Journal of Higher Education. York: Routledge.

1(1):41- 61. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison,

Bassey, M. (1995) Creating Education (2000). Research Methods in

through Research: A Global Education (5th ed.). London:

Perspective of Educational Routledge Falmer.

Research in the 21st Century. BERA Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design:

England: Moor Press. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed

Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S.K. (1992) method approaches (2nd ed.).

Qualitative Research for Education: California: Sage.

An Introduction to Theory and Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of

Methods. London: Allwyn and Social Research: Meaning and

Bacon. Perspective in the Research

Bryman, A. (1984). The Debate about Process. Australia: Allen and

Qualitative and Quantitative Unwin.

Research. A Question of Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2000).

Methods or Epistemology. The Introduction: The Discipline and

British Journal of Sociology. 35(1): Practice of Qualitative

75-92. Research. In Handbook of

111
The Basis of Distinction between Qualitative Fekede Tuli

Qualitative Research (pp. 1- contradictions, and emerging

29).Thousand Oaks: Sage. influences. In N. Denzin and Y.
Farzanfar, R. (2005). Using Qualitative Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of
Research Methods to Evaluate Qualitative Research (2nd ed.,
Automated Health pp. 163-188). Thousand Oaks,
Promotion/Disease Prevention CA: Sage.
Technologies: A Procedures’ Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (2005).
Manual. Boston University. Paradigms and perspectives in
Robert Wood Johnson contention. In N. Denzin and
Foundation. Y. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of
Guba, E. and Linclon, Y. (1985) Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp.
Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury 183- 190). Thousand Oaks,
Park, CA: Sage. CA: Sage.
Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. (1994). Marczyk, G. , DeMatteo, D. and
Competing paradigms in Festinger, D. (2005). Essentials of
qualitative research. In N. Research Design and Methodology.
Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.), New Jersey. John Wiley and Sons,
Handbook of Qualitative Research Inc.
(pp. 105-117). California: Maxwell, J. A. (2006). Qualitative
Sage. Research Design: An Interactive
Krauss, S. E. (2005). Research paradigms nd
Approach ( 2 ed.). Thousand
and meaning making: A primer. Islands: Sage.
The Qualitative Report. Merriam, S. (1988). Qualitative Research
10(4):758-770. Retrieved October, and Case Study Applications in
2, 2009 from Education. San Francisco:
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR Jossey-Bass.
/QR10-4/krauss.pdf _________. (1998). Qualitative Research
Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (2000). and Case Study Applications in
Paradigmatic controversies,

112
 The Basis of Distinction between Qualitative Fekede Tuli

Education (2nd ed.). San Silverman, D. (1997). Qualitative

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Research: Theory, Method and
Mutch, C. (2005) Doing Educational Practice. London:
Research: A Practitioner’s Guide to Sage.
Getting Started. Wellington: Rubin, H.J. and Rubin, I.S. (1995)
NZCER Press. Qualitative Interviewing: An Art of
Neuman, W., L. (2003). Social Research Hearing Data. Thousand
Methods: Qualitative and Oaks, California: Sage.
Quantitative Approaches (5th Ulin, P. R., Robinson, E. T. and Tolley E.
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. E. (2004). Qualitative Methods in
Popkewitz, T.S. (1984) Paradigms and Public Health: A Field Guide
Ideology in Educational Research: for Applied Research. Sanfransisco:
The Social Functions of the Jossey-Bass.
Intellectual. London: Falmer Press.
Popkewitz, T. S., Tabachnick, B. R. and
Zeichner, K. (1979). Dulling the
Senses: Research in Teacher
Education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 30(5): 52-60.
Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social Research. (3rd
ed.). Melbourne: Macmillan
Education.
Schulze, S. (2003). Views on the
Combination of Quantitative and
Qualitative Research Approaches.
University of South Africa.
Progressio 25(2):8-20

113

View publication stats