Download pdf - Ahmad-quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Communication Research

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH APG 4409

ASSIGNMENT 1 : ESSAY QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE

METHODS IN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH

HAL MAHERA BINTI AHMAD

MONASH ID : 2409 1669

COMMUNICATION RESEARCH APG 4409 2

INTRODUCTION

This paper attempts to discuss quantitative and qualitative research approaches within the

broad field of communications research. In the light of looking for possible similarities and

differences between this two methods, it will briefly look at their historical development of

both methods, the paradigms and interpretative frameworks, discusses major advantages and

limitations and possibly looking at the new trend that combines both quantitative and

qualitative data in a single research project in an effort to reconcile both methods.

THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

Research is a process of asking questions and looking for answers. However, on a deeper

level, leads us to understand that it involves a systematic exploration, well-structured

questions, producing new information and reassessing old information (Bertrand & Hughes

2005: 5-6). Methods are the actual techniques you use to collect evidence, such as surveys

and experiments (Balnaves, Donald & Shoesmith 2009:279). Media research evolves over

time, significantly changes due to changes of media roles and influences in society. The

changes also were influenced by evolution of social science models.

Historically, quantitative research dominated the first part of the 20th century (Balnaves,

Donald & Shoesmith 2009:278). This early form of research originates from the study of

natural sciences such as biology, chemistry, physics and geology. This study was concerned

with investigating things that can be measured and observed and hence measurements were

made objectively so that it could be repeated and replicated by other researchers.

Quantitative approaches use statistical designs or mathematical analysis for gathering and

analyzing data (i.e. survey, experiments). The questions often involve how many, how often,


how much and answers were often found in the relationship that exists between elements in a

topic. It is often used when there is a lot of known about a topic and there is a need to better

predict and specify causes and effects (Kayrooz & Trevitt 2005: 110-1, Alasutaari 1995: 8).

As the time progresses, the researchers have growing interest on the study of social sciences

such as in the area of sociology, anthropology and psychology. This study involves the study

of human behavior and the social world inhabited by human being. They also found that

human behavior is difficult to be measured using numbers. Some things cannot be justified

numerically but rationally. While quantitative research allows us to understand what and how

but it could not really explain why. So this leads to a new methodology called qualitative

approach. It is a text-based or non-mathematical analysis and interpretation of information. It

aims to identify the who, what, when, why and how of certain phenomena. It emerges to

measure human attitudes and behaviors. This type of approach also allows the researcher to

be close to the individual’s perspective because they can be immersed in the details of the

data via interviews, focus groups and observation (Kayrooz & Trevitt 2005: 110-1, Balnaves,

Donald & Shoesmith 2009: 278, Jensen 2002: 255).

Both approaches, often being discussed and debated whether one is more superior to the

other. However, both are used to understand media and communication in modern and

postmodern society within the context of professional, commercial and academic research

context (Bertrand & Hughes 2005:2).

THE DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

The first feature that separates quantitative and qualitative research is the theoretical

perspectives that are related to communication research which is the epistemological


premises. Epistemology concerns with the nature, ways of knowing how knowledge is

created (Gunter 2000: 1-2, Balnaves, Donald & Shoesmith 2009:279). Quantitative research

often connected to a positivist epistemology while qualitative research with critical

epistemology. Neuman defines positivism as an organized method for combining deductive

logic and empirical observations of individual behavior (in Gunter 2000:2). Explanation of

human behavior must be supported by facts and these facts can be measured. The critical

epistemology on the contrary reveals social science is fundamentally different than hard

science that it requires the interpretative approach through the study of texts, meaning and

context. People convey subjective experience through text and this subjectivity is important

to explain human social life (Gunter 2002: 1-5).

The second feature lies on the ontological questions – the nature of phenomena

communication researchers seek to know (Gunter 2002:1). The non-actional theory is related

to quantitative research which means behaviors are determined and influenced by past

pressures. This involves the researcher to study events and factors that affect certain behavior

which is within the context naïve realism and the logic of what has happen is the reality by

itself. Qualitative research concerns with actional-theory that assumes individual creates

meanings; they have intention and make real choices. Subjects can be imperfectly

misunderstood and probabilistically apprehendable (Bertrand & Hughes 2005:12).

Next feature to observe is the data and observation collection. Quantitative methodology

employ large, replicable sample which is representative of the entire population being

researched. The quality of research is affected by the effectiveness of data processing,

analysis and interpretation. The orientation of the research is written from the outsider’s

perspective to ensure it is credible. Qualitative research by contrast an in-depth exploration of

what makes people tick on a particular subject: their feelings and perceptions so it seeks


much smaller samples, not necessarily representative of a population but indicative instead.

The researcher often wears the insider hat, trying to get them intimately involved in focus

group discussions, one-on-one interviews and the main purpose is to understand and explain

from the actor’s own frame of reference (Kayrooz & Trevitt 2005:114, Jensen 2002:254-

256).

The final feature is the analytical and interpretative approach, which has been described in

many ways such as deduction versus induction (Jensen 2002:259) measurement versus

meaning (Jensen 2002:255) production of observations and unriddling versus purification and

unriddling (Alasuutari 1995:13-20); average effects versus individual effects ( Mahoney and

Goertz 2006:229). There articles discuss the difference between these two approaches from

the epistemological, ontological and methodological features. This is primarily important as it

functions as the super-structure in the research and it guides how the researcher thinks.

Ultimately, deciding which approach to be used will determine methods, preferences,

contexts and furthermore mode of analysis to be undertaken and how findings will be

generated.

ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS

Be it quantitative or qualitative approaches both have their own advantages and limitations.

Quantitative approaches offer polish, precision and for academic purposes, a potential to

publish that qualitative approaches cannot. Quantitative component in your research appear to

add status and credibility (Kayrooz & Trevitt 2005: 114-115).


Quantitative research uses traditional statistical and mathematical methods for measuring

results conclusively. It uses standard format so there are chances to be replicated by other

research. It enable people to summarize huge information and while provide good

comparison over time. The positivist approach believes in objective reality and discovery

through valid methods so they will study characteristics or features of individuals in order to

explain a phenomenon. There a potential of small degree of error and high degree of

precision. These features will become components for variable and further explain causal

relationships. Most importantly this technique answers the question of validity and reliability

of a research.

However, the limitation of quantitative research is that some methods for example

experiment may lack meaning, it might not be able to address its social significance but

merely statistical evidence (Alasutaari 1995:10). Apparently it may not explain why a

phenomenon actually happens. There is also a question of external validity, of which to

explain if the phenomenon really happens in real life because some results are based on a

controlled setting (Gunter 2002:225).

Qualitative method assumes that there is a relationship between attitude and behavior in

regards to human science. It complements the quantitative methods in the sense that it

provides explanations of complex phenomena, but is also beneficial in evolving or creating

conceptual bases or theories, and in recommending hypotheses to explain the phenomena

(Jensen 2002: 254-259). Besides, the value of any qualitative research is to provide valid

results which are only possible after extensive research. It allows a researcher to go deeper

into trivial matters which helps to develop greater understanding of media and

communication (Alasutaari 1995: 13-20).


The challenge of qualitative method is the fact that it is highly theoretical and sometimes

individual; the outcomes cannot be representative to a population that quantitative methods

can address. The scope is sometimes to narrow and observations might involve a high degree

of interpretation. There is a possibility of data overload so longer time is needed to interpret

the results. There is a problem in explaining validity and reliability of the information due to

element of subjectivity. Furthermore, as the researcher need to be deeply involved in the

research, there is a strong possibility of biasness to explain a phenomenon. (Mahoney &

Goetrz 2006: 229)

RECONCILIATION OF QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Future media studies research will increasingly become focused on each other’s cultures and

media and how we might better understand and interact with them. Qualitative research

methods are often combined with quantitative methods in modern media research. For

example focus groups may be combined with survey research. It came under different name

but reflect the same concept which is called multi-methods, multi-strategy, mixed methods

(Bryman 2006: 2-3). A combination of methods does have some advantages for example it

provides guidance for other researchers of what they researchers has to do or have done and

gave various perspectives over the same issue.

However Bryman (2006) argues that a combination of approaches is not necessarily better

because it can result in deleterious effects on designs and resources, other academics shared

their own opinions on multi-method approach. A combination of approaches should increase

our confidence in our own and other’s findings. It is also believed that these two methods


although carry competing frameworks can strengthen a study and serves as a continuum of

research (in Kayrooz & Trevitt 2005:113).

It also provides a more complete picture of the phenomenon under study. However, as

different paradigms carry different assumptions about reality and knowledge claims, it is

really important to understand and evaluate each method that is best to approach a particular

communication study.

Hammersley (1996) explained three principal forms pertaining to combination of quantitative

and qualitative methodologies which are facilitation, triangulation and complementarity (in

Jensen 2002:272). Facilitation is treating both methods in sequence. For example, before a

researcher conducts a quantitative survey, they first will conduct a qualitative ‘pilot study’.

Triangulation is among the most popular methods to address aspects of validity and

reliability. It is a strategy used to gain several perspectives on the same phenomenon using

experiments and observations. Complementarity is the least common methodology and most

challenging because it combines different approaches for different aspects of the same

research questions.

It is interesting to find that multi method approach can be very unpredictable. There is a

mismatch between rationale given for combining methods and how they were used. It is quite

possible when the researcher is dealing with the wealth of data that might generate

unexpected findings. This was based on content analysis over two hundred article on social

sciences that employed this methodology. (Bryman 2006:15-16) It also suggests that this

method is still open more for exploration in the future as the media evolves and paradigms

might shift again.


CONCLUSION

Communication researchers use a variety of paradigms to organize how they understand and

inquire into communication. The differences later carry out in their research tasks.

Communication research is fascinating, the fact that it deals with the way human mind works,

the way we convey messages and the process of communication is evolving to become more

sophisticated and complex each day.

This article has looked at the rise of both methodologies in communication research, covering

the historical perspective, the epistemological and ontological premises, discussed the

advantages and limitations of both methods and a possible reconciliation between the two.

There are some questions that cannot be answered using a single method. A mix of methods

can be used to assess different facets of complex outcomes or impacts, yielding more breadth,

depth, and width in the portrait than one method alone can. Perhaps that opens up to

possibilities that methodologies in communication research will continue to develop in search

of holistic answer to the perplexities of mankind.

(2,020 words)


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alasuutari, P. (1995) ―Qualitative and quantitative analysis as a continuum, Researching Culture: Qualitative Method and Cultural Studies. Sage: London: 130-132. Alasuutari, P. (1995) ―What is qualitative research? Researching culture: qualitative method and cultural studies. Sage: London: 6-21. Balnaves, Donald and Shoesmith (2009) Ch.14 in Media theories and approaches: a global perspective. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke: 278-292 Berger, A. (2000) – On quantity and quality in media research, Ch.1 in Media and Communication Research Methods: an introduction to qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage. London: 12-17.

Bertrand, I. & Hughes, P. (2005) - Of elephants, definitions and models: the context of media researchǁ‖, Ch. 1 in Media Research Methods: Audiences, Institutions, Texts. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke: 1-20.

Bryman, Alan (2006) – Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how it is done? Qualitative Research, Vol.6 (1): 97-113.

Gunter, B. (2000) - Evolving theoretical background of media research, Ch.1, Media Research Methods. Sage: London: 1-21.

Gunter, B. (2000) - Overview of media research methodologies: audiencesǁ‖, Ch.2, Media Research methods. Sage: London: 22-54.

Gunter, B. (2002) - The quantitative research process, Klaus Bruhn Jensen (ed.) A Handbook of Media and Communications Research. Routledge: London

Jensen, K.B. (1993) - Introduction: the qualitative turn, in K.B. Jensen (ed.) A handbook of qualitative methodologies for mass communication research. Routledge: London & New York: 1-8.

Jensen, K.B. (2002) - Media Research as a Social Institution‘ in Klaus Bruhn Jensen, A Handbook of Media and Communications Research. Routledge: London: 278-288. Jensen, K.B. (2002) - The complementarity of qualitative and quantitative methodologies in media and communication research, Ch. 15 in Klaus Bruhn Jensen (ed.) A Handbook of Media and Communications Research. Routledge: London: 254-259 & 272.

Kayrooz, C. & Trevitt, C. (2005) - Research purpose and approach Ch. 8, Research in Organizations and Communities: Tales from the Real World. Allen & Unwin: Crows Nest: 103-124.

Mahoney, J. and G. Goertz (2006) - A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Political Analysis 14: 227-249.