guest editorial

Quantitative Versus Qualitative Research? As a doctoral student a few years ago, my graduate

school research preparation was quantitatively ori- ented. I was required to demonstrate statistical and computer proficiency. At that time, experimental re- search designs were regarded as superior to explor- atory studies. Nonexperimental studies only de- scribe some occurrence (phenomenon), but experi- ments explain why something happens. If we know why something happens, we can predict what will happen, and in similar circumstances, we may be able to control what happens. How great it is! What power we possess when we can manipulate variables and control natural phenomena. When we know what to expect, we can plan such activities as preventive prenatal care to decrease the number of low birth weight newborns or patient teaching methods that are most effective in changing health behaviors. Such is the beneficent use of knowledge.

In experimental or quasi experimental research, the researcher decides what factors or variables might cause certain results (cause and effect) and carries out tests to either support or reject null hy- potheses at some level of statistical probability. Sta- tistical testing and measurement (counting, num- bers) are basic to quantitative methodology. The population sample is as large as possible and prefera- bly selected randomly so that the total population being studied is represented as accurately as possi- ble. Every attempt is made to identify and control for possible sources of bias.

Confidence in the findings of a study relate to whether the subjects are representative or similar to the total population being considered (e.g., pregnant adolescents) and the data collection tools are statis- tically or logically valid and reliable (e.g., stable over time or internally consistent). When the research methods have limitations in the design, sampling, data gathering, or analysis of results, one cannot know whether results would be the same for the rest of the population (generalizability).

After I graduated, I taught nursing research. While reviewing various research textbooks in the early

1980s, my quantitative values were reinforced by the quantitative research approach in the textbooks. The reports I read in research journals were quantitative, and I accepted the findings (as much as limitations allowed) as more valuable than qualitative reports (which seemed more personal and enjoyable). After all, were not the hard sciences (mathematics, phys- ics) more exact, more scientific? Shouldn’t nursing be as scientific as possible? Also, if I wanted any grant funding for research, would not quantitative methodology be more acceptable?

I began to observe an increase in qualitative re- ports in research journals, more qualitative papers at research conferences, and more textbook content on qualitative methods or phenomenological ap- proaches (grounded theory, ethnography, herme- neutics). Philosophically, I knew I believed in scien- tific and humanistic nursing care of holistic individ- uals who were capable of self-direction. Words like control and manipulate did not fit interpersonal, therapeutic relationships. How could I manage the different philosophical orientations of quantitative and qualitative research methods? I decided to learn more about phenomenology.

A holistic view of persons does not allow analysis by breaking the person/environment into parts for study and then recreating the whole.’ A phenomeno- logical approach in research includes qualities of hu- manness, such as individualism, self-determination, wholeness, uniqueness, and an open system. The real life or lived experience of a person, versus a research subject, provides the meaningful information.’ This frame of reference includes each person’s values, meanings, beliefs, thoughts, and feelings. The re- searcher is directly and intuitively (versus empiri- cally) involved in facilitating the research process. In contrast to quantitative control and manipulation the changing and dynamic nature of reality is accepted. The study of phenomena looks at how things appear to each person rather than at things as they are. In- formation is shared in language rather than in num- bers and individual uniqueness is studied instead of

January/February 1989 JOCNN 7

the standard package of statistical coverage and probability. Control and manipulation are not used. Large numbers of interviews or observations may not be necessary to identify recurrent themes or con- cepts that are shared by persons experiencing some phenomena (e.g., loss, attachment, and body image). Different criteria are used to evaluate qualitative re- search. Rather than saying “generalizability,” “valid- ity,” or “reliability,” a term used in qualitative re- search is “trustworthiness” (credibility, transfer- ability, dependability, and confirmability).

What is the solution? Mary Duf@ suggests triangu- l a t i ~ n . ~ Research findings can be enriched by includ- ing information from both quantitative and qualita- tive methods. Such an approach takes willingness to learn the strengths and limitations of both ap- proaches and valuing of the different kinds of infor- mation each approach provides.

Debbie Fraser Askin, RNC, BN

Susan Scheuring Barleben, RN, MSN,

Claudia Anderson Beckmann, RN, PhD

Charles R. B. Beckmann, MD, FACOG

Marie Annette Brown, RN, PhD,

FNCC

WHCNP

Jimmie Cash, RN, MSN

Gwen E. Chute, RN, MS, IBCLC

Ann Estes Edgil, RN, DSN

Janice Gay, RN, DSN

Larry Griffin, MD, FACOG

I

LEAH RAMER, RN, PHD Indiana State University Tewe Haute, Indiana

REFERENCES

Munhall, P. 1982. Nursing philosophy and nursing re- search: In apposition or opposition. Nurs Res. 31:176- 77. Oiler, C. 1982. The phenomenological approach in nursing research. Nurs Res. 31:178-81. Duffy, M. 1987. Methodological triangulation: A vehicle for merging quantitative and qualitative research methods. Image. 19:130-33.

REFEREE REVIEWERS Judith Harris, RNC, MN

Roberta Karlman, MD

Michelle S. Knolla, MD, FACOG

Marcia Killien, RN, PhD

Debra L. Luegenbiehl, RN, PhD

Susan Mattson, RNC, PhD

Katharyn Antle May, RN, DNSc

Nancy J. McKee, RN, DNS

Anne E. McCormick, RN, MS

Mary L. Neumann, RNC, BSN

Ellen Olshansky, RNC, DNSc

Patricia Pollert, RNC

Alicia Poslosky, RN, MSN

Sharon B. Schnare, RN, MSN

Linda Staurovsky, RN, MN, CNM

Claire W. Surr, RNC, MEd, CDE

Sharon Thee, RN, MSN, MA

Nan H. Troiano, RN, MSN

Joyce Marilyn Vickers, CNM, NPC

Susan Weekly, RN, BSN

Mary Ann Wilson, RNC, MS

8 JanuaryJFebruary 1989 JOGNN