Throughout the centuries, debates surrounding research designs have explored

various aspects, including purposes, approaches, methodologies, independence, and

samples. Researchers and authors have delineated distinctions between qualitative and
quantitative research. Qualitative research, as described by Creswell (2009) is an
inductive method that explores human experiences regarding social phenomena to
uncover the essence of these occurrences. On the other hand, quantitative research,
according to Bryman (2012), is a deductive, objectivist, and positivist approach that
involves the use of numbers and quantification in data collection and analysis. However,
with the emergence of new paradigms (Bryman, 2012) and ongoing evaluations of the
strengths and weaknesses of both designs, Choy (2014) contends that there is no
perfect distinction between qualitative and quantitative research methodologies.
Consequently, comparing the results of both research approaches becomes a means of
elucidating their "limitations and biases" (Choy, 2014).

Quantitative research is a systematic, structured, and rigid type of research that

uses Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for data collection (Grosshueme, 2020). It
is also known as a "benchop science" because according to Shields and Alison (2005),
it uses experiments to explain its hypothesis showing the relationship between an
independent (cause) and a dependent (effect) variable. Additionally, the method known
as a "top-bottom" approach is used in quantitative research to generate new theories
through the use of divergent/inductive reasoning. This approach starts with an
observation, develops a pattern, formulates a hypothesis to support its theory, and then
draws a conclusion based on a variety of ideas (Neuman, 2014). However, it can also
develop its theory from the researchers' predictions. Quantitative research methods
focus on structured and statistical data, breaking down scientific phenomena into parts
and understanding their connections. They aim to predict and control objective
information. On the other hand, qualitative research focuses on interpreting
understanding, and describing social phenomena, including subjective surroundings,
beliefs, feelings, and opinions. It involves collecting data as felt by the research target
and never attempts to predict or control the phenomenon (Allan, 1991). Qualitative
research aims to answer complex questions by explaining and describing the
phenomenon under study, aiming to better understand the "how" and "what" of a
research question. Furthermore, study questions in quantitative research are addressed
by counting instances and applying statistical analysis, but in qualitative research, they
may be addressed by providing an explanation of an event, elucidating its details, and
evaluating the beliefs and experiences of participants (Matthew and Ross, 2010).

Epistemology and ontology are two important aspects of a research paradigm:

positivism and interpretivsm. Quantitative research is objective in nature, generating
knowledge and truth from single ideas and predictions from the researcher, empirical
confirmation, and experimentation (Williams, 2007). On the other hand, qualitative
research is subjective, drawing its knowledge from interpreting multiple views of
people's experiences, behaviour, and understanding of their natural environment with
little or no prediction from the researcher (Williams, 2007). Literature review is a crucial
component of a research process, providing a thorough understanding of a research
problem and is significant in nursing practice (Cronin, Ryan, and Coughlan, 2008). It
helps in validating, comparing, and enhancing patient care. Different approaches to
evaluating the literature are used in quantitative and qualitative research methodologies;
quantitative researchers examine the literature in-depth before to starting a study,
whereas qualitative researchers do so in brief at first (Holloway, 2008).

Experimental bias is a concern in both quantitative and qualitative research

methods, as researchers may be influenced by their own thoughts (Florczak, 2022).
Research literature consists of complex words, and both validate the importance of
operational definitions to promote understanding of the readers. Quantitative research is
conducted in an experimental/controlled environment, ensuring accuracy of results.
However, it is also possible for quantitative research to be biased due to not being
performed in a realistic environment (Jones, 2015). Qualitative research, also called a
naturalistic science, is conducted in the natural setting of the subjects, equipping
researchers with the understanding of factors that could influence the research study,
such as socio-economic factors like poor education and illiteracy, and as such might not
be able to understand the process of the said research (Dahlgren and Whitehead,
1991). Sampling methods are essential in both quantitative and qualitative research.
Quantitative research is large, ranging from 100-1000 and above (Hopkins, 2008), while
qualitative research is relatively small, ranging from 20-30 (Mason, 2010).

Ethical consideration is crucial in both quantitative and qualitative research

methods. Informed consent from participants is necessary, considering the four ethical
principles: autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. Both methods aim to
treat participants with fairness and involve them in decision-making processes. Data
collected during the research process should be kept confidential, as supported by the
Helsinki Declaration, Data Protection Act, and data protection tips (Blaxter, Hughes, and
Tight, 2010). Data collection methods in quantitative research include surveys,
structured interviews, and non-participant observation, while qualitative research uses
participant observation, unstructured interviews, and focus group discussions.
Quantitative research uses a definite or close-ended question, while qualitative research
uses an open-ended question for detailed discussion (Bamberger, 2000). Open-ended
questionnaires are considered more effective for providing rich data, while closed-ended
questionnaires are preferred for control, time savings, and fewer skills.

Raw data in quantitative research is represented in non-textual or numerical

form, analysed statistically, and presented using graphs, plot boxes, charts, figures, and
tables (Cooksay and McDonald, 2019). Qualitative research uses text and coding to
group data into themes and subthemes, while quantitative research uses scores and
numbers to code. Generalizability is the degree to which a research result can be
extended to the general population (Maria and Heather, 2020). Quantitative research
can be generalized due to objectivity and large sample sizes, while qualitative research
lacks subjectivity and small sample sizes (Maria and Heather, 2020). Dissemination of
findings is the conclusion of the research process, and both methods disseminate
findings through technology such as the internet, books, journals, and social media.
Qualitative research provides nurses with in-depth knowledge of their patient's
experiences, behaviour, and attitude, while quantitative research quantifies these
experiences (Pyo et al, 2023). For example, qualitative research helps identify patients'
self-care needs, while quantitative research reveals the causes, effect, and extent of
self-care deficits, which can be linked with Dorothy Orem's self-care theory (Khademian,
Kazemi, & Gholamzadeh, 2020).

Looking at the benefits and drawbacks of the two forms, Choy (2014) opined that
quantitative survey methods offer two main advantages: quick administration and
evaluation, and the ability to compare responses between organizations or groups.
These methods also provide reliable data, which can be analysed critically. However,
they also have weaknesses, as they often require a large sample size, often several
thousand households, which can be difficult due to lack of resources (Choy, 2014). In
developing countries, governments, nongovernmental organizations, and public service
providers may lack the skills and resources needed for thorough quantitative evaluation
(Dudwick et al, 2006). Additionally, quantitative data does not provide an in-depth
description of the experience of a disaster on the affected population, as it does not
provide sufficient information to guide agencies and sectors on how to plan for response
(Choy, 2014). Therefore, while quantitative research has its strengths, it also has
weaknesses, such as the inability to fully understand the local context of people and
communities, particularly in disaster surveys. Coming to qualitative methods are useful
for examining the perspectives of diverse groups within a community, as they allow for a
deeper understanding of underlying values, beliefs, and assumptions. This approach is
particularly beneficial in cultural assessment, as it allows for a broad and open-ended
inquiry, allowing participants to raise their most important issues (Dudwick et al, 2006).
However, there are several drawbacks to qualitative research methodology, including
time-consuming processes, potential overlooking of important issues, and limited
interpretations. Personal experience and knowledge can influence observations and
conclusions, and the open-ended nature of qualitative inquiry allows participants more
control over the content of the collected data (Choy, 2014). ACAPS's (2012) supporting
document also notes that qualitative data is not objectively verifiable, requires a labour-
intensive analysis process, and requires skilled interviewers for successful data
collection. Despite these challenges, qualitative research remains a valuable tool for
understanding and analysing diverse perspectives within a community.
 In summary, research methodologies that are both quantitative and qualitative
are essential to the fields of nursing and health sciences. Qualitative approaches offer
in-depth understanding and insights into human experiences, whereas quantitative
methods offer numerical data and statistical analysis. In the nursing profession,
combining the two approaches can result in a more thorough comprehension of
healthcare issues. Based on the goals and research topic, researchers should carefully
weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each strategy before choosing the best one
or a mix of approaches. Researchers can use the advantages of both quantitative and
qualitative approaches by using a mixed-methods approach, which will ultimately result
in a more comprehensive and strong body of data to guide nursing practise and
healthcare policy.

References

 ACAPS. (2012). Qualitative and Quantitative Research Techniques for

Humanitarian Needs Assessment. ACAPS.
 Allan, G. (1991). “Qualitative Research” in Allan, G. and Skinner, C. (ed.)
Handbook for Research students in the social sciences. Routledge.
 Bamberger, M. (2000). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research in
development projects. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
 Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. and Tight, M. (2010). How to Research. Fourth Edition.
England: Open University Press.
 Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. Fourth Edition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
 Choy, L.T. (2014). The Strengths and Weaknesses of Research Methodology:
Comparison and Complimentary between Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 19(4), 99-104.
 Cooksey, R., McDonald, G. (2019). “How Should I Approach Data Analysis and
Display of Results?” In Cooksay, R. and McDonald, G. Surviving and Thriving in
Postgraduate Research. Singapore: Springer, Singapore.
 Cresswell, J.W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed
methods approaches. California: Sage Publications.
 Cronin, P., Ryan, F. and Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: a
step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing, 17(1), 38-43.
 Dahlgren, G. and Whitehead, M. (1991). Policies and strategies to promote
social equity in health. Stockholm: Stockholm institute of future studies.
 Dudwick, N., Kuehnast, K., Jones, V. N., and Woolcock, M. (2006). Analyzing
Social Capital in Context: A Guide to Using Qualitative Methods and Data.
Qashington: World Bank Institute.
 Florczak, K.L. (2022). Best Available Evidence or Truth for the Moment: Bias in
Research. Nursing Science Quarterly, 35(1), 20-24.
 Grossoehme, D.H. (2014). Overview of Qualitative Research. Journal of Health
Care Chaplaincy, 20(3), 109-122, DOI: 10.1080/08854726.2014.925660.
 Holloway, I. (2008). Qualitative research in healthcare. Oxford: Blackwell.
 Hopkins, G.W. (2008). Characteristics of quantitative research. Available at:
www.sportsg.org (Assessed on 28/3/2015).
 Jones, C. (2015). Advantages and disadvantages of qualitative and quantitative
research. Available at: www.monash.edu (Assessed: 8 December, 2023).
 Khademian, Z., Kazemi Ara, F., & Gholamzadeh, S. (2020). The Effect of Self
Care Education Based on Orem's Nursing Theory on Quality of Life and Self-
Efficacy in Patients with Hypertension: A Quasi-Experimental Study. International
journal of community based nursing and midwifery, 8(2), 140–149. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.30476/IJCBNM.2020.81690.
 Maria, Y.R. and Heather, S. (2020). A computational social science perspective
on qualitative data exploration: Using topic models for the descriptive analysis of
social media data. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 38(1), 54-
86, Available at: DOI: 10.1080/15228835.2019.1616350.
 Mason, M. (2010). Sample Size and Saturation in PhD Studies Using Qualitative
Interviews. Qualitative Social Research, 11(3). Available at:
https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-11.3.1428.
 Matthews, B. and Ross, L. (2010). Research methods. Harlow: Longman.
 Neuman, W.L. (2014). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
 Pyo, J., Lee, W., Choi, E. Y., Jang, S. G., and Ock, M. (2023). Qualitative
Research in Healthcare: Necessity and Characteristics. Journal of preventive
medicine and public health, 56(1), 12–20.
 Shields, L. and Alison, T. (2005). The differences between quantitative and
qualitative research. Journal of Paediatric Nursing. 15(9), 24-24.
 Williams, C. (2007). Research Methods. Journal of Business and Economic
Research, 5(3), 65-72.