quantitative research is best suited for

Quantitative and Qualitative Research

I NEED TO . . .

What is Quantitative Research?

What is Qualitative Research?
Quantitative vs Qualitative
Step 1: Accessing CINAHL
Step 2: Create a Keyword Search
Step 3: Create a Subject Heading Search
Step 4: Repeat Steps 1-3 for Second Concept
Step 5: Repeat Steps 1-3 for Quantitative Terms
Step 6: Combining All Searches
Step 7: Adding Limiters
Step 8: Save Your Search!
What Kind of Article is This?
More Research Help This link opens in a new window

Quantitative methodology is the dominant research framework in the social sciences. It refers to a set of strategies, techniques and assumptions used to study psychological, social and economic processes through the exploration of numeric patterns . Quantitative research gathers a range of numeric data. Some of the numeric data is intrinsically quantitative (e.g. personal income), while in other cases the numeric structure is imposed (e.g. ‘On a scale from 1 to 10, how depressed did you feel last week?’). The collection of quantitative information allows researchers to conduct simple to extremely sophisticated statistical analyses that aggregate the data (e.g. averages, percentages), show relationships among the data (e.g. ‘Students with lower grade point averages tend to score lower on a depression scale’) or compare across aggregated data (e.g. the USA has a higher gross domestic product than Spain). Quantitative research includes methodologies such as questionnaires, structured observations or experiments and stands in contrast to qualitative research. Qualitative research involves the collection and analysis of narratives and/or open-ended observations through methodologies such as interviews, focus groups or ethnographies.

Coghlan, D., Brydon-Miller, M. (2014). The SAGE encyclopedia of action research (Vols. 1-2). London, : SAGE Publications Ltd doi: 10.4135/9781446294406

What is the purpose of quantitative research?

The purpose of quantitative research is to generate knowledge and create understanding about the social world. Quantitative research is used by social scientists, including communication researchers, to observe phenomena or occurrences affecting individuals. Social scientists are concerned with the study of people. Quantitative research is a way to learn about a particular group of people, known as a sample population. Using scientific inquiry, quantitative research relies on data that are observed or measured to examine questions about the sample population.

Allen, M. (2017). The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vols. 1-4). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc doi: 10.4135/9781483381411

How do I know if the study is a quantitative design? What type of quantitative study is it?

Quantitative Research Designs: Descriptive non-experimental, Quasi-experimental or Experimental?

Studies do not always explicitly state what kind of research design is being used. You will need to know how to decipher which design type is used. The following video will help you determine the quantitative design type.

<< Previous: I NEED TO . . .
Next: What is Qualitative Research? >>
Last Updated: Aug 19, 2024 2:09 PM
URL: https://libguides.uta.edu/quantitative_and_qualitative_research

University of Texas Arlington Libraries 702 Planetarium Place · Arlington, TX 76019 · 817-272-3000

Internet Privacy
Accessibility
Problems with a guide? Contact Us.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base

Methodology

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research | Differences, Examples & Methods

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research | Differences, Examples & Methods

Published on April 12, 2019 by Raimo Streefkerk . Revised on June 22, 2023.

When collecting and analyzing data, quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings. Both are important for gaining different kinds of knowledge.

Common quantitative methods include experiments, observations recorded as numbers, and surveys with closed-ended questions.

Quantitative research is at risk for research biases including information bias , omitted variable bias , sampling bias , or selection bias . Qualitative research Qualitative research is expressed in words . It is used to understand concepts, thoughts or experiences. This type of research enables you to gather in-depth insights on topics that are not well understood.

Common qualitative methods include interviews with open-ended questions, observations described in words, and literature reviews that explore concepts and theories.

The differences between quantitative and qualitative research, data collection methods, when to use qualitative vs. quantitative research, how to analyze qualitative and quantitative data, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about qualitative and quantitative research.

Quantitative and qualitative research use different research methods to collect and analyze data, and they allow you to answer different kinds of research questions.

Quantitative and qualitative data can be collected using various methods. It is important to use a data collection method that will help answer your research question(s).

Many data collection methods can be either qualitative or quantitative. For example, in surveys, observational studies or case studies , your data can be represented as numbers (e.g., using rating scales or counting frequencies) or as words (e.g., with open-ended questions or descriptions of what you observe).

However, some methods are more commonly used in one type or the other.

Quantitative data collection methods

Surveys : List of closed or multiple choice questions that is distributed to a sample (online, in person, or over the phone).
Experiments : Situation in which different types of variables are controlled and manipulated to establish cause-and-effect relationships.
Observations : Observing subjects in a natural environment where variables can’t be controlled.

Qualitative data collection methods

Interviews : Asking open-ended questions verbally to respondents.
Focus groups : Discussion among a group of people about a topic to gather opinions that can be used for further research.
Ethnography : Participating in a community or organization for an extended period of time to closely observe culture and behavior.
Literature review : Survey of published works by other authors.

A rule of thumb for deciding whether to use qualitative or quantitative data is:

Use quantitative research if you want to confirm or test something (a theory or hypothesis )
Use qualitative research if you want to understand something (concepts, thoughts, experiences)

For most research topics you can choose a qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods approach . Which type you choose depends on, among other things, whether you’re taking an inductive vs. deductive research approach ; your research question(s) ; whether you’re doing experimental , correlational , or descriptive research ; and practical considerations such as time, money, availability of data, and access to respondents.

Quantitative research approach

You survey 300 students at your university and ask them questions such as: “on a scale from 1-5, how satisfied are your with your professors?”

You can perform statistical analysis on the data and draw conclusions such as: “on average students rated their professors 4.4”.

Qualitative research approach

You conduct in-depth interviews with 15 students and ask them open-ended questions such as: “How satisfied are you with your studies?”, “What is the most positive aspect of your study program?” and “What can be done to improve the study program?”

Based on the answers you get you can ask follow-up questions to clarify things. You transcribe all interviews using transcription software and try to find commonalities and patterns.

Mixed methods approach

You conduct interviews to find out how satisfied students are with their studies. Through open-ended questions you learn things you never thought about before and gain new insights. Later, you use a survey to test these insights on a larger scale.

It’s also possible to start with a survey to find out the overall trends, followed by interviews to better understand the reasons behind the trends.

Qualitative or quantitative data by itself can’t prove or demonstrate anything, but has to be analyzed to show its meaning in relation to the research questions. The method of analysis differs for each type of data.

Analyzing quantitative data

Quantitative data is based on numbers. Simple math or more advanced statistical analysis is used to discover commonalities or patterns in the data. The results are often reported in graphs and tables.

Applications such as Excel, SPSS, or R can be used to calculate things like:

Average scores ( means )
The number of times a particular answer was given
The correlation or causation between two or more variables
The reliability and validity of the results

Analyzing qualitative data

Qualitative data is more difficult to analyze than quantitative data. It consists of text, images or videos instead of numbers.

Some common approaches to analyzing qualitative data include:

Qualitative content analysis : Tracking the occurrence, position and meaning of words or phrases
Thematic analysis : Closely examining the data to identify the main themes and patterns
Discourse analysis : Studying how communication works in social contexts

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Chi square goodness of fit test
Degrees of freedom
Null hypothesis
Discourse analysis
Control groups
Mixed methods research
Non-probability sampling
Quantitative research
Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Research bias

Rosenthal effect
Implicit bias
Cognitive bias
Selection bias
Negativity bias
Status quo bias

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

In mixed methods research , you use both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods to answer your research question .

The research methods you use depend on the type of data you need to answer your research question .

If you want to measure something or test a hypothesis , use quantitative methods . If you want to explore ideas, thoughts and meanings, use qualitative methods .
If you want to analyze a large amount of readily-available data, use secondary data. If you want data specific to your purposes with control over how it is generated, collect primary data.
If you want to establish cause-and-effect relationships between variables , use experimental methods. If you want to understand the characteristics of a research subject, use descriptive methods.

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organizations.

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

Prepare and organize your data.
Review and explore your data.
Develop a data coding system.
Assign codes to the data.
Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

A research project is an academic, scientific, or professional undertaking to answer a research question . Research projects can take many forms, such as qualitative or quantitative , descriptive , longitudinal , experimental , or correlational . What kind of research approach you choose will depend on your topic.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Streefkerk, R. (2023, June 22). Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research | Differences, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved September 18, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/qualitative-quantitative-research/

Is this article helpful?

Raimo Streefkerk

Other students also liked, what is quantitative research | definition, uses & methods, what is qualitative research | methods & examples, mixed methods research | definition, guide & examples, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

How To Choose Your Research Methodology

Qualitative vs quantitative vs mixed methods.

By: Derek Jansen (MBA). Expert Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2021

Without a doubt, one of the most common questions we receive at Grad Coach is “ How do I choose the right methodology for my research? ”. It’s easy to see why – with so many options on the research design table, it’s easy to get intimidated, especially with all the complex lingo!

In this post, we’ll explain the three overarching types of research – qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods – and how you can go about choosing the best methodological approach for your research.

Overview: Choosing Your Methodology

Understanding the options – Qualitative research – Quantitative research – Mixed methods-based research

Choosing a research methodology – Nature of the research – Research area norms – Practicalities

1. Understanding the options

Before we jump into the question of how to choose a research methodology, it’s useful to take a step back to understand the three overarching types of research – qualitative , quantitative and mixed methods -based research. Each of these options takes a different methodological approach.

Qualitative research utilises data that is not numbers-based. In other words, qualitative research focuses on words , descriptions , concepts or ideas – while quantitative research makes use of numbers and statistics. Qualitative research investigates the “softer side” of things to explore and describe, while quantitative research focuses on the “hard numbers”, to measure differences between variables and the relationships between them.

Importantly, qualitative research methods are typically used to explore and gain a deeper understanding of the complexity of a situation – to draw a rich picture . In contrast to this, quantitative methods are usually used to confirm or test hypotheses . In other words, they have distinctly different purposes. The table below highlights a few of the key differences between qualitative and quantitative research – you can learn more about the differences here.

Uses an inductive approach
Is used to build theories
Takes a subjective approach
Adopts an open and flexible approach
The researcher is close to the respondents
Interviews and focus groups are oftentimes used to collect word-based data.
Generally, draws on small sample sizes
Uses qualitative data analysis techniques (e.g. content analysis , thematic analysis , etc)
Uses a deductive approach
Is used to test theories
Takes an objective approach
Adopts a closed, highly planned approach
The research is disconnected from respondents
Surveys or laboratory equipment are often used to collect number-based data.
Generally, requires large sample sizes
Uses statistical analysis techniques to make sense of the data

Mixed methods -based research, as you’d expect, attempts to bring these two types of research together, drawing on both qualitative and quantitative data. Quite often, mixed methods-based studies will use qualitative research to explore a situation and develop a potential model of understanding (this is called a conceptual framework), and then go on to use quantitative methods to test that model empirically.

In other words, while qualitative and quantitative methods (and the philosophies that underpin them) are completely different, they are not at odds with each other. It’s not a competition of qualitative vs quantitative. On the contrary, they can be used together to develop a high-quality piece of research. Of course, this is easier said than done, so we usually recommend that first-time researchers stick to a single approach , unless the nature of their study truly warrants a mixed-methods approach.

The key takeaway here, and the reason we started by looking at the three options, is that it’s important to understand that each methodological approach has a different purpose – for example, to explore and understand situations (qualitative), to test and measure (quantitative) or to do both. They’re not simply alternative tools for the same job.

Right – now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s look at how you can go about choosing the right methodology for your research.

2. How to choose a research methodology

To choose the right research methodology for your dissertation or thesis, you need to consider three important factors . Based on these three factors, you can decide on your overarching approach – qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. Once you’ve made that decision, you can flesh out the finer details of your methodology, such as the sampling , data collection methods and analysis techniques (we discuss these separately in other posts ).

The three factors you need to consider are:

The nature of your research aims, objectives and research questions
The methodological approaches taken in the existing literature
Practicalities and constraints

Let’s take a look at each of these.

Factor #1: The nature of your research

As I mentioned earlier, each type of research (and therefore, research methodology), whether qualitative, quantitative or mixed, has a different purpose and helps solve a different type of question. So, it’s logical that the key deciding factor in terms of which research methodology you adopt is the nature of your research aims, objectives and research questions .

But, what types of research exist?

Broadly speaking, research can fall into one of three categories:

Exploratory – getting a better understanding of an issue and potentially developing a theory regarding it
Confirmatory – confirming a potential theory or hypothesis by testing it empirically
A mix of both – building a potential theory or hypothesis and then testing it

As a rule of thumb, exploratory research tends to adopt a qualitative approach , whereas confirmatory research tends to use quantitative methods . This isn’t set in stone, but it’s a very useful heuristic. Naturally then, research that combines a mix of both, or is seeking to develop a theory from the ground up and then test that theory, would utilize a mixed-methods approach.

Let’s look at an example in action.

If your research aims were to understand the perspectives of war veterans regarding certain political matters, you’d likely adopt a qualitative methodology, making use of interviews to collect data and one or more qualitative data analysis methods to make sense of the data.

If, on the other hand, your research aims involved testing a set of hypotheses regarding the link between political leaning and income levels, you’d likely adopt a quantitative methodology, using numbers-based data from a survey to measure the links between variables and/or constructs .

So, the first (and most important thing) thing you need to consider when deciding which methodological approach to use for your research project is the nature of your research aims , objectives and research questions. Specifically, you need to assess whether your research leans in an exploratory or confirmatory direction or involves a mix of both.

The importance of achieving solid alignment between these three factors and your methodology can’t be overstated. If they’re misaligned, you’re going to be forcing a square peg into a round hole. In other words, you’ll be using the wrong tool for the job, and your research will become a disjointed mess.

If your research is a mix of both exploratory and confirmatory, but you have a tight word count limit, you may need to consider trimming down the scope a little and focusing on one or the other. One methodology executed well has a far better chance of earning marks than a poorly executed mixed methods approach. So, don’t try to be a hero, unless there is a very strong underpinning logic.

Need a helping hand?

quantitative research is best suited for

Factor #2: The disciplinary norms

Choosing the right methodology for your research also involves looking at the approaches used by other researchers in the field, and studies with similar research aims and objectives to yours. Oftentimes, within a discipline, there is a common methodological approach (or set of approaches) used in studies. While this doesn’t mean you should follow the herd “just because”, you should at least consider these approaches and evaluate their merit within your context.

A major benefit of reviewing the research methodologies used by similar studies in your field is that you can often piggyback on the data collection techniques that other (more experienced) researchers have developed. For example, if you’re undertaking a quantitative study, you can often find tried and tested survey scales with high Cronbach’s alphas. These are usually included in the appendices of journal articles, so you don’t even have to contact the original authors. By using these, you’ll save a lot of time and ensure that your study stands on the proverbial “shoulders of giants” by using high-quality measurement instruments .

Of course, when reviewing existing literature, keep point #1 front of mind. In other words, your methodology needs to align with your research aims, objectives and questions. Don’t fall into the trap of adopting the methodological “norm” of other studies just because it’s popular. Only adopt that which is relevant to your research.

Factor #3: Practicalities

When choosing a research methodology, there will always be a tension between doing what’s theoretically best (i.e., the most scientifically rigorous research design ) and doing what’s practical , given your constraints . This is the nature of doing research and there are always trade-offs, as with anything else.

But what constraints, you ask?

When you’re evaluating your methodological options, you need to consider the following constraints:

Data access
Equipment and software
Your knowledge and skills

Let’s look at each of these.

Constraint #1: Data access

The first practical constraint you need to consider is your access to data . If you’re going to be undertaking primary research , you need to think critically about the sample of respondents you realistically have access to. For example, if you plan to use in-person interviews , you need to ask yourself how many people you’ll need to interview, whether they’ll be agreeable to being interviewed, where they’re located, and so on.

If you’re wanting to undertake a quantitative approach using surveys to collect data, you’ll need to consider how many responses you’ll require to achieve statistically significant results. For many statistical tests, a sample of a few hundred respondents is typically needed to develop convincing conclusions.

So, think carefully about what data you’ll need access to, how much data you’ll need and how you’ll collect it. The last thing you want is to spend a huge amount of time on your research only to find that you can’t get access to the required data.

Constraint #2: Time

The next constraint is time. If you’re undertaking research as part of a PhD, you may have a fairly open-ended time limit, but this is unlikely to be the case for undergrad and Masters-level projects. So, pay attention to your timeline, as the data collection and analysis components of different methodologies have a major impact on time requirements . Also, keep in mind that these stages of the research often take a lot longer than originally anticipated.

Another practical implication of time limits is that it will directly impact which time horizon you can use – i.e. longitudinal vs cross-sectional . For example, if you’ve got a 6-month limit for your entire research project, it’s quite unlikely that you’ll be able to adopt a longitudinal time horizon.

Constraint #3: Money

As with so many things, money is another important constraint you’ll need to consider when deciding on your research methodology. While some research designs will cost near zero to execute, others may require a substantial budget .

Some of the costs that may arise include:

Software costs – e.g. survey hosting services, analysis software, etc.
Promotion costs – e.g. advertising a survey to attract respondents
Incentive costs – e.g. providing a prize or cash payment incentive to attract respondents
Equipment rental costs – e.g. recording equipment, lab equipment, etc.
Travel costs
Food & beverages

These are just a handful of costs that can creep into your research budget. Like most projects, the actual costs tend to be higher than the estimates, so be sure to err on the conservative side and expect the unexpected. It’s critically important that you’re honest with yourself about these costs, or you could end up getting stuck midway through your project because you’ve run out of money.

Constraint #4: Equipment & software

Another practical consideration is the hardware and/or software you’ll need in order to undertake your research. Of course, this variable will depend on the type of data you’re collecting and analysing. For example, you may need lab equipment to analyse substances, or you may need specific analysis software to analyse statistical data. So, be sure to think about what hardware and/or software you’ll need for each potential methodological approach, and whether you have access to these.

Constraint #5: Your knowledge and skillset

The final practical constraint is a big one. Naturally, the research process involves a lot of learning and development along the way, so you will accrue knowledge and skills as you progress. However, when considering your methodological options, you should still consider your current position on the ladder.

Some of the questions you should ask yourself are:

Am I more of a “numbers person” or a “words person”?
How much do I know about the analysis methods I’ll potentially use (e.g. statistical analysis)?
How much do I know about the software and/or hardware that I’ll potentially use?
How excited am I to learn new research skills and gain new knowledge?
How much time do I have to learn the things I need to learn?

Answering these questions honestly will provide you with another set of criteria against which you can evaluate the research methodology options you’ve shortlisted.

So, as you can see, there is a wide range of practicalities and constraints that you need to take into account when you’re deciding on a research methodology. These practicalities create a tension between the “ideal” methodology and the methodology that you can realistically pull off. This is perfectly normal, and it’s your job to find the option that presents the best set of trade-offs.

Recap: Choosing a methodology

In this post, we’ve discussed how to go about choosing a research methodology. The three major deciding factors we looked at were:

Exploratory
Confirmatory
Combination
Research area norms
Hardware and software
Your knowledge and skillset

If you have any questions, feel free to leave a comment below. If you’d like a helping hand with your research methodology, check out our 1-on-1 research coaching service , or book a free consultation with a friendly Grad Coach.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

Very useful and informative especially for beginners

Nice article! I’m a beginner in the field of cybersecurity research. I am a Telecom and Network Engineer and Also aiming for PhD scholarship.

I find the article very informative especially for my decitation it has been helpful and an eye opener.

Hi I am Anna ,

I am a PHD candidate in the area of cyber security, maybe we can link up

The Examples shows by you, for sure they are really direct me and others to knows and practices the Research Design and prepration.

I found the post very informative and practical.

I struggle so much with designs of the research for sure!

I’m the process of constructing my research design and I want to know if the data analysis I plan to present in my thesis defense proposal possibly change especially after I gathered the data already.

Thank you so much this site is such a life saver. How I wish 1-1 coaching is available in our country but sadly it’s not.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Print Friendly

Research Methodologies

Quantitative research methodologies.

Qualitative Research Methodologies
Systematic Reviews
Finding Articles by Methodology
Design Your Research Project

Library Help

What is quantitative research.

Quantitative methodologies use statistics to analyze numerical data gathered by researchers to answer their research questions. Quantitative methods can be used to answer questions such as:

What are the relationships between two or more variables?
What factors are at play in an environment that might affect the behavior or development of the organisms in that environment?

Quantitative methods can also be used to test hypotheses by conducting quasi-experimental studies or designing experiments.

Independent and Dependent Variables

In quantitative research, a variable is something (an intervention technique, a pharmaceutical, a temperature, etc.) that changes. There are two kinds of variables: independent variables and dependent variables . In the simplest terms, the independent variable is whatever the researchers are using to attempt to make a change in their dependent variable.

Table listing independent and dependent variables.
Independent Variable(s)	Dependent Variable
A new cancer-treating drug being tested in different dosage strengths	The number of detectable cancer cells in a patient or cell sample
Different genres of music*	Plant growth within a specific time frame

* This is a real, repeatable experiment you can try on your plants.

Correlational

Researchers will compare two sets of numbers to try and identify a relationship (if any) between two things.

Köse S., & Murat, M. (2021). Examination of the relationship between smartphone addiction and cyberchondria in adolescents. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 35(6): 563-570.
Pilger et al. (2021). Spiritual well-being, religious/spiritual coping and quality of life among the elderly undergoing hemodialysis: a correlational study. Journal of Religion, Spirituality & Aging, 33(1): 2-15.

Descriptive

Researchers will attempt to quantify a variety of factors at play as they study a particular type of phenomenon or action. For example, researchers might use a descriptive methodology to understand the effects of climate change on the life cycle of a plant or animal.

Lakshmi, E. (2021). Food consumption pattern and body mass index of adolescents: A descriptive study. International Journal of Nutrition, Pharmacology, Neurological Diseases, 11(4), 293–297.
Lin, J., Singh, S., Sha, L., Tan, W., Lang, D., Gašević, D., & Chen, G. (2022). Is it a good move? Mining effective tutoring strategies from human–human tutorial dialogues. Future Generation Computer Systems, 127, 194–207.

Experimental

To understand the effects of a variable, researchers will design an experiment where they can control as many factors as possible. This can involve creating control and experimental groups. The experimental group will be exposed to the variable to study its effects. The control group provides data about what happens when the variable is absent. For example, in a study about online teaching, the control group might receive traditional face-to-face instruction while the experimental group would receive their instruction virtually.

Jinzhang Jia, Yinuo Chen, Guangbo Che, Jinchao Zhu, Fengxiao Wang, & Peng Jia. (2021). Experimental study on the explosion characteristics of hydrogen-methane premixed gas in complex pipe networks. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1–11.
Sasaki, R. et al. (2021). Effects of cryotherapy applied at different temperatures on inflammatory pain during the acute phase of arthritis in rats. Physical Therapy, 101(2), 1–9.

Quasi-Experimental/Quasi-Comparative

Researchers will attempt to determine what (if any) effect a variable can have. These studies may have multiple independent variables (causes) and multiple dependent variables (effects), but this can complicate researchers' efforts to find out if A can cause B or if X, Y, and Z are also playing a role.

Jafari, A., Alami, A., Charoghchian, E., Delshad Noghabi, A., & Nejatian, M. (2021). The impact of effective communication skills training on the status of marital burnout among married women. BMC Women’s Health, 21(1), 1-10.
Phillips, S. W., Kim, D.-Y., Sobol, J. J., & Gayadeen, S. M. (2021). Total recall?: A quasi-experimental study of officer’s recollection in shoot - don’t shoot simulators. Police Practice and Research, 22(3), 1229–1240.

Surveys can be considered a quantitative methodology if the researchers require their respondents to choose from pre-determined responses.

Harries et al. (2021). Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical students: A multicenter quantitative study. BMC Medical Education, 21(14), 1-8.
Call : 801.863.8840
Text : 801.290.8123
In-Person Help
Email a Librarian
Make an Appointment
<< Previous: Home
Next: Qualitative Research Methodologies >>
Last Updated: Jun 20, 2024 3:16 PM
URL: https://uvu.libguides.com/methods

Skip to main content
Skip to primary sidebar
Skip to footer
QuestionPro

Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case AskWhy Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

Quantitative Research: What It Is, Practices & Methods

Quantitative research involves analyzing and gathering numerical data to uncover trends, calculate averages, evaluate relationships, and derive overarching insights. It’s used in various fields, including the natural and social sciences. Quantitative data analysis employs statistical techniques for processing and interpreting numeric data.

Research designs in the quantitative realm outline how data will be collected and analyzed with methods like experiments and surveys. Qualitative methods complement quantitative research by focusing on non-numerical data, adding depth to understanding. Data collection methods can be qualitative or quantitative, depending on research goals. Researchers often use a combination of both approaches to gain a comprehensive understanding of phenomena.

What is Quantitative Research?

Quantitative research is a systematic investigation of phenomena by gathering quantifiable data and performing statistical, mathematical, or computational techniques. Quantitative research collects statistically significant information from existing and potential customers. It uses sampling methods and sending out online surveys , online polls , and questionnaires , for example.

One of the main characteristics of this type of research is that the results can be depicted in numerical form. After carefully collecting structured observations and understanding these numbers, it’s possible to predict the future of a product or service, establish causal relationships or Causal Research , and make changes accordingly. Quantitative research primarily centers on the analysis of numerical data and utilizes inferential statistics to derive conclusions that can be extrapolated to the broader population.

An example of a quantitative research study is the survey conducted to understand how long a doctor takes to tend to a patient when the patient walks into the hospital. A patient satisfaction survey can be administered to ask questions like how long a doctor takes to see a patient, how often a patient walks into a hospital, and other such questions, which are dependent variables in the research. This kind of research method is often employed in the social sciences, and it involves using mathematical frameworks and theories to effectively present data, ensuring that the results are logical, statistically sound, and unbiased.

Data collection in quantitative research uses a structured method and is typically conducted on larger samples representing the entire population. Researchers use quantitative methods to collect numerical data, which is then subjected to statistical analysis to determine statistically significant findings. This approach is valuable in both experimental research and social research. It helps in making informed decisions and drawing reliable conclusions based on quantitative data.

Quantitative Research Characteristics

Quantitative research has several unique characteristics that make it well-suited for specific projects. Let’s explore the most crucial of these characteristics so that you can consider them when planning your next research project:

Structured tools: Quantitative research relies on structured tools such as surveys, polls, or questionnaires to gather quantitative data . Using such structured methods helps collect in-depth and actionable numerical data from the survey respondents, making it easier to perform data analysis.
Sample size: Quantitative research is conducted on a significant sample size representing the target market . Appropriate Survey Sampling methods, a fundamental aspect of quantitative research methods, must be employed when deriving the sample to fortify the research objective and ensure the reliability of the results.
Close-ended questions: Closed-ended questions , specifically designed to align with the research objectives, are a cornerstone of quantitative research. These questions facilitate the collection of quantitative data and are extensively used in data collection processes.
Prior studies: Before collecting feedback from respondents, researchers often delve into previous studies related to the research topic. This preliminary research helps frame the study effectively and ensures the data collection process is well-informed.
Quantitative data: Typically, quantitative data is represented using tables, charts, graphs, or other numerical forms. This visual representation aids in understanding the collected data and is essential for rigorous data analysis, a key component of quantitative research methods.
Generalization of results: One of the strengths of quantitative research is its ability to generalize results to the entire population. It means that the findings derived from a sample can be extrapolated to make informed decisions and take appropriate actions for improvement based on numerical data analysis.

Quantitative Research Methods

Quantitative research methods are systematic approaches used to gather and analyze numerical data to understand and draw conclusions about a phenomenon or population. Here are the quantitative research methods:

Primary quantitative research methods
Secondary quantitative research methods

Primary Quantitative Research Methods

Primary quantitative research is the most widely used method of conducting market research. The distinct feature of primary research is that the researcher focuses on collecting data directly rather than depending on data collected from previously done research. Primary quantitative research design can be broken down into three further distinctive tracks and the process flow. They are:

A. Techniques and Types of Studies

There are multiple types of primary quantitative research. They can be distinguished into the four following distinctive methods, which are:

01. Survey Research

Survey Research is fundamental for all quantitative outcome research methodologies and studies. Surveys are used to ask questions to a sample of respondents, using various types such as online polls, online surveys, paper questionnaires, web-intercept surveys , etc. Every small and big organization intends to understand what their customers think about their products and services, how well new features are faring in the market, and other such details.

By conducting survey research, an organization can ask multiple survey questions , collect data from a pool of customers, and analyze this collected data to produce numerical results. It is the first step towards collecting data for any research. You can use single ease questions . A single-ease question is a straightforward query that elicits a concise and uncomplicated response.

This type of research can be conducted with a specific target audience group and also can be conducted across multiple groups along with comparative analysis . A prerequisite for this type of research is that the sample of respondents must have randomly selected members. This way, a researcher can easily maintain the accuracy of the obtained results as a huge variety of respondents will be addressed using random selection.

Traditionally, survey research was conducted face-to-face or via phone calls. Still, with the progress made by online mediums such as email or social media, survey research has also spread to online mediums.There are two types of surveys , either of which can be chosen based on the time in hand and the kind of data required:

Cross-sectional surveys: Cross-sectional surveys are observational surveys conducted in situations where the researcher intends to collect data from a sample of the target population at a given point in time. Researchers can evaluate various variables at a particular time. Data gathered using this type of survey is from people who depict similarity in all variables except the variables which are considered for research . Throughout the survey, this one variable will stay constant.

Cross-sectional surveys are popular with retail, SMEs, and healthcare industries. Information is garnered without modifying any parameters in the variable ecosystem.
Multiple samples can be analyzed and compared using a cross-sectional survey research method.
Multiple variables can be evaluated using this type of survey research.
The only disadvantage of cross-sectional surveys is that the cause-effect relationship of variables cannot be established as it usually evaluates variables at a particular time and not across a continuous time frame.

Longitudinal surveys: Longitudinal surveys are also observational surveys , but unlike cross-sectional surveys, longitudinal surveys are conducted across various time durations to observe a change in respondent behavior and thought processes. This time can be days, months, years, or even decades. For instance, a researcher planning to analyze the change in buying habits of teenagers over 5 years will conduct longitudinal surveys.

In cross-sectional surveys, the same variables were evaluated at a given time, and in longitudinal surveys, different variables can be analyzed at different intervals.
Longitudinal surveys are extensively used in the field of medicine and applied sciences. Apart from these two fields, they are also used to observe a change in the market trend analysis , analyze customer satisfaction, or gain feedback on products/services.
In situations where the sequence of events is highly essential, longitudinal surveys are used.
Researchers say that when research subjects need to be thoroughly inspected before concluding, they rely on longitudinal surveys.

02. Correlational Research

A comparison between two entities is invariable. Correlation research is conducted to establish a relationship between two closely-knit entities and how one impacts the other, and what changes are eventually observed. This research method is carried out to give value to naturally occurring relationships, and a minimum of two different groups are required to conduct this quantitative research method successfully. Without assuming various aspects, a relationship between two groups or entities must be established.

Researchers use this quantitative research design to correlate two or more variables using mathematical analysis methods. Patterns, relationships, and trends between variables are concluded as they exist in their original setup. The impact of one of these variables on the other is observed, along with how it changes the relationship between the two variables. Researchers tend to manipulate one of the variables to attain the desired results.

Ideally, it is advised not to make conclusions merely based on correlational research. This is because it is not mandatory that if two variables are in sync that they are interrelated.

Example of Correlational Research Questions :

The relationship between stress and depression.
The equation between fame and money.
The relation between activities in a third-grade class and its students.

03. Causal-comparative Research

This research method mainly depends on the factor of comparison. Also called quasi-experimental research , this quantitative research method is used by researchers to conclude the cause-effect equation between two or more variables, where one variable is dependent on the other independent variable. The independent variable is established but not manipulated, and its impact on the dependent variable is observed. These variables or groups must be formed as they exist in the natural setup. As the dependent and independent variables will always exist in a group, it is advised that the conclusions are carefully established by keeping all the factors in mind.

Causal-comparative research is not restricted to the statistical analysis of two variables but extends to analyzing how various variables or groups change under the influence of the same changes. This research is conducted irrespective of the type of relationship that exists between two or more variables. Statistical analysis plan is used to present the outcome using this quantitative research method.

Example of Causal-Comparative Research Questions:

The impact of drugs on a teenager. The effect of good education on a freshman. The effect of substantial food provision in the villages of Africa.

04. Experimental Research

Also known as true experimentation, this research method relies on a theory. As the name suggests, experimental research is usually based on one or more theories. This theory has yet to be proven before and is merely a supposition. In experimental research, an analysis is done around proving or disproving the statement. This research method is used in natural sciences. Traditional research methods are more effective than modern techniques.

There can be multiple theories in experimental research. A theory is a statement that can be verified or refuted.

After establishing the statement, efforts are made to understand whether it is valid or invalid. This quantitative research method is mainly used in natural or social sciences as various statements must be proved right or wrong.

Traditional research methods are more effective than modern techniques.
Systematic teaching schedules help children who struggle to cope with the course.
It is a boon to have responsible nursing staff for ailing parents.

B. Data Collection Methodologies

The second major step in primary quantitative research is data collection. Data collection can be divided into sampling methods and data collection using surveys and polls.

01. Data Collection Methodologies: Sampling Methods

There are two main sampling methods for quantitative research: Probability and Non-probability sampling .

Probability sampling: A theory of probability is used to filter individuals from a population and create samples in probability sampling . Participants of a sample are chosen by random selection processes. Each target audience member has an equal opportunity to be selected in the sample.

There are four main types of probability sampling:

Simple random sampling: As the name indicates, simple random sampling is nothing but a random selection of elements for a sample. This sampling technique is implemented where the target population is considerably large.
Stratified random sampling: In the stratified random sampling method , a large population is divided into groups (strata), and members of a sample are chosen randomly from these strata. The various segregated strata should ideally not overlap one another.
Cluster sampling: Cluster sampling is a probability sampling method using which the main segment is divided into clusters, usually using geographic segmentation and demographic segmentation parameters.
Systematic sampling: Systematic sampling is a technique where the starting point of the sample is chosen randomly, and all the other elements are chosen using a fixed interval. This interval is calculated by dividing the population size by the target sample size.

Non-probability sampling: Non-probability sampling is where the researcher’s knowledge and experience are used to create samples. Because of the researcher’s involvement, not all the target population members have an equal probability of being selected to be a part of a sample.

There are five non-probability sampling models:

Convenience sampling: In convenience sampling , elements of a sample are chosen only due to one prime reason: their proximity to the researcher. These samples are quick and easy to implement as there is no other parameter of selection involved.
Consecutive sampling: Consecutive sampling is quite similar to convenience sampling, except for the fact that researchers can choose a single element or a group of samples and conduct research consecutively over a significant period and then perform the same process with other samples.
Quota sampling: Using quota sampling , researchers can select elements using their knowledge of target traits and personalities to form strata. Members of various strata can then be chosen to be a part of the sample as per the researcher’s understanding.
Snowball sampling: Snowball sampling is conducted with target audiences who are difficult to contact and get information. It is popular in cases where the target audience for analysis research is rare to put together.
Judgmental sampling: Judgmental sampling is a non-probability sampling method where samples are created only based on the researcher’s experience and research skill .

02. Data collection methodologies: Using surveys & polls

Once the sample is determined, then either surveys or polls can be distributed to collect the data for quantitative research.

Using surveys for primary quantitative research

A survey is defined as a research method used for collecting data from a pre-defined group of respondents to gain information and insights on various topics of interest. The ease of survey distribution and the wide number of people it can reach depending on the research time and objective makes it one of the most important aspects of conducting quantitative research.

Fundamental levels of measurement – nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio scales

Four measurement scales are fundamental to creating a multiple-choice question in a survey. They are nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio measurement scales without the fundamentals of which no multiple-choice questions can be created. Hence, it is crucial to understand these measurement levels to develop a robust survey.

Use of different question types

To conduct quantitative research, close-ended questions must be used in a survey. They can be a mix of multiple question types, including multiple-choice questions like semantic differential scale questions , rating scale questions , etc.

Survey Distribution and Survey Data Collection

In the above, we have seen the process of building a survey along with the research design to conduct primary quantitative research. Survey distribution to collect data is the other important aspect of the survey process. There are different ways of survey distribution. Some of the most commonly used methods are:

Email: Sending a survey via email is the most widely used and effective survey distribution method. This method’s response rate is high because the respondents know your brand. You can use the QuestionPro email management feature to send out and collect survey responses.
Buy respondents: Another effective way to distribute a survey and conduct primary quantitative research is to use a sample. Since the respondents are knowledgeable and are on the panel by their own will, responses are much higher.
Embed survey on a website: Embedding a survey on a website increases a high number of responses as the respondent is already in close proximity to the brand when the survey pops up.
Social distribution: Using social media to distribute the survey aids in collecting a higher number of responses from the people that are aware of the brand.
QR code: QuestionPro QR codes store the URL for the survey. You can print/publish this code in magazines, signs, business cards, or on just about any object/medium.
SMS survey: The SMS survey is a quick and time-effective way to collect a high number of responses.
Offline Survey App: The QuestionPro App allows users to circulate surveys quickly, and the responses can be collected both online and offline.

Survey example

An example of a survey is a short customer satisfaction (CSAT) survey that can quickly be built and deployed to collect feedback about what the customer thinks about a brand and how satisfied and referenceable the brand is.

Using polls for primary quantitative research

Polls are a method to collect feedback using close-ended questions from a sample. The most commonly used types of polls are election polls and exit polls . Both of these are used to collect data from a large sample size but using basic question types like multiple-choice questions.

C. Data Analysis Techniques

The third aspect of primary quantitative research design is data analysis . After collecting raw data, there must be an analysis of this data to derive statistical inferences from this research. It is important to relate the results to the research objective and establish the statistical relevance of the results.

Remember to consider aspects of research that were not considered for the data collection process and report the difference between what was planned vs. what was actually executed.

It is then required to select precise Statistical Analysis Methods , such as SWOT, Conjoint, Cross-tabulation, etc., to analyze the quantitative data.

SWOT analysis: SWOT Analysis stands for the acronym of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threat analysis. Organizations use this statistical analysis technique to evaluate their performance internally and externally to develop effective strategies for improvement.
Conjoint Analysis: Conjoint Analysis is a market analysis method to learn how individuals make complicated purchasing decisions. Trade-offs are involved in an individual’s daily activities, and these reflect their ability to decide from a complex list of product/service options.
Cross-tabulation: Cross-tabulation is one of the preliminary statistical market analysis methods which establishes relationships, patterns, and trends within the various parameters of the research study.
TURF Analysis: TURF Analysis , an acronym for Totally Unduplicated Reach and Frequency Analysis, is executed in situations where the reach of a favorable communication source is to be analyzed along with the frequency of this communication. It is used for understanding the potential of a target market.

Inferential statistics methods such as confidence interval, the margin of error, etc., can then be used to provide results.

Secondary Quantitative Research Methods

Secondary quantitative research or desk research is a research method that involves using already existing data or secondary data. Existing data is summarized and collated to increase the overall effectiveness of the research.

This research method involves collecting quantitative data from existing data sources like the internet, government resources, libraries, research reports, etc. Secondary quantitative research helps to validate the data collected from primary quantitative research and aid in strengthening or proving, or disproving previously collected data.

The following are five popularly used secondary quantitative research methods:

Data available on the internet: With the high penetration of the internet and mobile devices, it has become increasingly easy to conduct quantitative research using the internet. Information about most research topics is available online, and this aids in boosting the validity of primary quantitative data.
Government and non-government sources: Secondary quantitative research can also be conducted with the help of government and non-government sources that deal with market research reports. This data is highly reliable and in-depth and hence, can be used to increase the validity of quantitative research design.
Public libraries: Now a sparingly used method of conducting quantitative research, it is still a reliable source of information, though. Public libraries have copies of important research that was conducted earlier. They are a storehouse of valuable information and documents from which information can be extracted.
Educational institutions: Educational institutions conduct in-depth research on multiple topics. And hence, the reports that they publish are an important source of validation in quantitative research.
Commercial information sources: Local newspapers, journals, magazines, radio, and TV stations are great sources to obtain data for secondary quantitative research. These commercial information sources have in-depth, first-hand information on market research, demographic segmentation, and similar subjects.

Quantitative Research Examples

Some examples of quantitative research are:

A customer satisfaction template can be used if any organization would like to conduct a customer satisfaction (CSAT) survey . Through this kind of survey, an organization can collect quantitative data and metrics on the goodwill of the brand or organization in the customer’s mind based on multiple parameters such as product quality, pricing, customer experience, etc. This data can be collected by asking a net promoter score (NPS) question , matrix table questions, etc. that provide data in the form of numbers that can be analyzed and worked upon.
Another example of quantitative research is an organization that conducts an event, collecting feedback from attendees about the value they see from the event. By using an event survey , the organization can collect actionable feedback about the satisfaction levels of customers during various phases of the event such as the sales, pre and post-event, the likelihood of recommending the organization to their friends and colleagues, hotel preferences for the future events and other such questions.

What are the Advantages of Quantitative Research?

There are many advantages to quantitative research. Some of the major advantages of why researchers use this method in market research are:

Collect Reliable and Accurate Data:

Quantitative research is a powerful method for collecting reliable and accurate quantitative data. Since data is collected, analyzed, and presented in numbers, the results obtained are incredibly reliable and objective. Numbers do not lie and offer an honest and precise picture of the conducted research without discrepancies. In situations where a researcher aims to eliminate bias and predict potential conflicts, quantitative research is the method of choice.

Quick Data Collection:

Quantitative research involves studying a group of people representing a larger population. Researchers use a survey or another quantitative research method to efficiently gather information from these participants. It makes the process of analyzing the data and identifying patterns faster and more manageable through the use of statistical analysis. This advantage makes quantitative research an attractive option for projects with time constraints.

Wider Scope of Data Analysis:

Quantitative research, thanks to its utilization of statistical methods, offers an extensive range of data collection and analysis. Researchers can explore a broader spectrum of variables and relationships within the data. It can enable a more thorough comprehension of the subject under investigation. This expanded scope is precious when dealing with complex research questions that require in-depth numerical analysis.

Eliminate Bias:

One of the significant advantages of quantitative research is its ability to eliminate bias. This research method leaves no room for personal comments or the biasing of results, as the findings are presented in numerical form. This objectivity makes the results fair and reliable in most cases, reducing the potential for researcher bias or subjectivity.

In summary, quantitative research involves collecting, analyzing, and presenting quantitative data using statistical analysis. It offers numerous advantages, including:

The collection of reliable and accurate data
Quick data collection
A broader scope of data analysis
The elimination of bias

These advantages makes it a valuable approach in the field of research. When considering the benefits of quantitative research, it’s essential to recognize its strengths in contrast to qualitative methods and its role in collecting and analyzing numerical data for a more comprehensive understanding of research topics.

Best Practices to Conduct Quantitative Research

Here are some best practices for conducting quantitative research:

Differentiate between quantitative and qualitative: Understand the difference between the two methodologies and apply the one that suits your needs best.
Choose a suitable sample size: Ensure that you have a sample representative of your population and large enough to be statistically weighty.
Keep your research goals clear and concise: Know your research goals before you begin data collection to ensure you collect the right amount and the right quantity of data.
Keep the questions simple: Remember that you will be reaching out to a demographically wide audience. Pose simple questions for your respondents to understand easily.

Quantitative Research vs Qualitative Research

Quantitative research and qualitative research are two distinct approaches to conducting research, each with its own set of methods and objectives. Here’s a comparison of the two:

Quantitative Research

Objective: The primary goal of quantitative research is to quantify and measure phenomena by collecting numerical data. It aims to test hypotheses, establish patterns, and generalize findings to a larger population.
Data Collection: Quantitative research employs systematic and standardized approaches for data collection, including techniques like surveys, experiments, and observations that involve predefined variables. It is often collected from a large and representative sample.
Data Analysis: Data is analyzed using statistical techniques, such as descriptive statistics, inferential statistics, and mathematical modeling. Researchers use statistical tests to draw conclusions and make generalizations based on numerical data.
Sample Size: Quantitative research often involves larger sample sizes to ensure statistical significance and generalizability.
Results: The results are typically presented in tables, charts, and statistical summaries, making them highly structured and objective.
Generalizability: Researchers intentionally structure quantitative research to generate outcomes that can be helpful to a larger population, and they frequently seek to establish causative connections.
Emphasis on Objectivity: Researchers aim to minimize bias and subjectivity, focusing on replicable and objective findings.

Qualitative Research

Objective: Qualitative research seeks to gain a deeper understanding of the underlying motivations, behaviors, and experiences of individuals or groups. It explores the context and meaning of phenomena.
Data Collection: Qualitative research employs adaptable and open-ended techniques for data collection, including methods like interviews, focus groups, observations, and content analysis. It allows participants to express their perspectives in their own words.
Data Analysis: Data is analyzed through thematic analysis, content analysis, or grounded theory. Researchers focus on identifying patterns, themes, and insights in the data.
Sample Size: Qualitative research typically involves smaller sample sizes due to the in-depth nature of data collection and analysis.
Results: Findings are presented in narrative form, often in the participants’ own words. Results are subjective, context-dependent, and provide rich, detailed descriptions.
Generalizability: Qualitative research does not aim for broad generalizability but focuses on in-depth exploration within a specific context. It provides a detailed understanding of a particular group or situation.
Emphasis on Subjectivity: Researchers acknowledge the role of subjectivity and the researcher’s influence on the Research Process . Participant perspectives and experiences are central to the findings.

Researchers choose between quantitative and qualitative research methods based on their research objectives and the nature of the research question. Each approach has its advantages and drawbacks, and the decision between them hinges on the particular research objectives and the data needed to address research inquiries effectively.

Quantitative research is a structured way of collecting and analyzing data from various sources. Its purpose is to quantify the problem and understand its extent, seeking results that someone can project to a larger population.

Companies that use quantitative rather than qualitative research typically aim to measure magnitudes and seek objectively interpreted statistical results. So if you want to obtain quantitative data that helps you define the structured cause-and-effect relationship between the research problem and the factors, you should opt for this type of research.

At QuestionPro , we have various Best Data Collection Tools and features to conduct investigations of this type. You can create questionnaires and distribute them through our various methods. We also have sample services or various questions to guarantee the success of your study and the quality of the collected data.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Quantitative research is a systematic and structured approach to studying phenomena that involves the collection of measurable data and the application of statistical, mathematical, or computational techniques for analysis.

Quantitative research is characterized by structured tools like surveys, substantial sample sizes, closed-ended questions, reliance on prior studies, data presented numerically, and the ability to generalize findings to the broader population.

The two main methods of quantitative research are Primary quantitative research methods, involving data collection directly from sources, and Secondary quantitative research methods, which utilize existing data for analysis.

1.Surveying to measure employee engagement with numerical rating scales. 2.Analyzing sales data to identify trends in product demand and market share. 4.Examining test scores to assess the impact of a new teaching method on student performance. 4.Using website analytics to track user behavior and conversion rates for an online store.

1.Differentiate between quantitative and qualitative approaches. 2.Choose a representative sample size. 3.Define clear research goals before data collection. 4.Use simple and easily understandable survey questions.

MORE LIKE THIS

QuestionPro: Leading the Charge in Customer Journey Management and Voice of the Customer Platforms

Sep 17, 2024

What is Driver Analysis? Importance and Best Practices

Was The Experience Memorable? (Part II) — Tuesday CX Thoughts

Data Discovery: What it is, Importance, Process + Use Cases

Sep 16, 2024

USC Libraries
Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

Quantitative Methods
Purpose of Guide
Design Flaws to Avoid
Independent and Dependent Variables
Glossary of Research Terms
Reading Research Effectively
Narrowing a Topic Idea
Broadening a Topic Idea
Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
Academic Writing Style
Applying Critical Thinking
Choosing a Title
Making an Outline
Paragraph Development
Research Process Video Series
Executive Summary
The C.A.R.S. Model
Background Information
The Research Problem/Question
Theoretical Framework
Citation Tracking
Content Alert Services
Evaluating Sources
Primary Sources
Secondary Sources
Tiertiary Sources
Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
Qualitative Methods
Insiderness
Using Non-Textual Elements
Limitations of the Study
Common Grammar Mistakes
Writing Concisely
Avoiding Plagiarism
Footnotes or Endnotes?
Further Readings
Generative AI and Writing
USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
Bibliography

Quantitative methods emphasize objective measurements and the statistical, mathematical, or numerical analysis of data collected through polls, questionnaires, and surveys, or by manipulating pre-existing statistical data using computational techniques . Quantitative research focuses on gathering numerical data and generalizing it across groups of people or to explain a particular phenomenon.

Babbie, Earl R. The Practice of Social Research . 12th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage, 2010; Muijs, Daniel. Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS . 2nd edition. London: SAGE Publications, 2010.

Need Help Locating Statistics?

Resources for locating data and statistics can be found here:

Statistics & Data Research Guide

Characteristics of Quantitative Research

Your goal in conducting quantitative research study is to determine the relationship between one thing [an independent variable] and another [a dependent or outcome variable] within a population. Quantitative research designs are either descriptive [subjects usually measured once] or experimental [subjects measured before and after a treatment]. A descriptive study establishes only associations between variables; an experimental study establishes causality.

Quantitative research deals in numbers, logic, and an objective stance. Quantitative research focuses on numeric and unchanging data and detailed, convergent reasoning rather than divergent reasoning [i.e., the generation of a variety of ideas about a research problem in a spontaneous, free-flowing manner].

Its main characteristics are :

The data is usually gathered using structured research instruments.
The results are based on larger sample sizes that are representative of the population.
The research study can usually be replicated or repeated, given its high reliability.
Researcher has a clearly defined research question to which objective answers are sought.
All aspects of the study are carefully designed before data is collected.
Data are in the form of numbers and statistics, often arranged in tables, charts, figures, or other non-textual forms.
Project can be used to generalize concepts more widely, predict future results, or investigate causal relationships.
Researcher uses tools, such as questionnaires or computer software, to collect numerical data.

The overarching aim of a quantitative research study is to classify features, count them, and construct statistical models in an attempt to explain what is observed.

Things to keep in mind when reporting the results of a study using quantitative methods :

Explain the data collected and their statistical treatment as well as all relevant results in relation to the research problem you are investigating. Interpretation of results is not appropriate in this section.
Report unanticipated events that occurred during your data collection. Explain how the actual analysis differs from the planned analysis. Explain your handling of missing data and why any missing data does not undermine the validity of your analysis.
Explain the techniques you used to "clean" your data set.
Choose a minimally sufficient statistical procedure ; provide a rationale for its use and a reference for it. Specify any computer programs used.
Describe the assumptions for each procedure and the steps you took to ensure that they were not violated.
When using inferential statistics , provide the descriptive statistics, confidence intervals, and sample sizes for each variable as well as the value of the test statistic, its direction, the degrees of freedom, and the significance level [report the actual p value].
Avoid inferring causality , particularly in nonrandomized designs or without further experimentation.
Use tables to provide exact values ; use figures to convey global effects. Keep figures small in size; include graphic representations of confidence intervals whenever possible.
Always tell the reader what to look for in tables and figures .

NOTE: When using pre-existing statistical data gathered and made available by anyone other than yourself [e.g., government agency], you still must report on the methods that were used to gather the data and describe any missing data that exists and, if there is any, provide a clear explanation why the missing data does not undermine the validity of your final analysis.

Babbie, Earl R. The Practice of Social Research . 12th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage, 2010; Brians, Craig Leonard et al. Empirical Political Analysis: Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods . 8th ed. Boston, MA: Longman, 2011; McNabb, David E. Research Methods in Public Administration and Nonprofit Management: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches . 2nd ed. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2008; Quantitative Research Methods. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Singh, Kultar. Quantitative Social Research Methods . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2007.

Basic Research Design for Quantitative Studies

Before designing a quantitative research study, you must decide whether it will be descriptive or experimental because this will dictate how you gather, analyze, and interpret the results. A descriptive study is governed by the following rules: subjects are generally measured once; the intention is to only establish associations between variables; and, the study may include a sample population of hundreds or thousands of subjects to ensure that a valid estimate of a generalized relationship between variables has been obtained. An experimental design includes subjects measured before and after a particular treatment, the sample population may be very small and purposefully chosen, and it is intended to establish causality between variables. Introduction The introduction to a quantitative study is usually written in the present tense and from the third person point of view. It covers the following information:

Identifies the research problem -- as with any academic study, you must state clearly and concisely the research problem being investigated.
Reviews the literature -- review scholarship on the topic, synthesizing key themes and, if necessary, noting studies that have used similar methods of inquiry and analysis. Note where key gaps exist and how your study helps to fill these gaps or clarifies existing knowledge.
Describes the theoretical framework -- provide an outline of the theory or hypothesis underpinning your study. If necessary, define unfamiliar or complex terms, concepts, or ideas and provide the appropriate background information to place the research problem in proper context [e.g., historical, cultural, economic, etc.].

Methodology The methods section of a quantitative study should describe how each objective of your study will be achieved. Be sure to provide enough detail to enable the reader can make an informed assessment of the methods being used to obtain results associated with the research problem. The methods section should be presented in the past tense.

Study population and sampling -- where did the data come from; how robust is it; note where gaps exist or what was excluded. Note the procedures used for their selection;
Data collection – describe the tools and methods used to collect information and identify the variables being measured; describe the methods used to obtain the data; and, note if the data was pre-existing [i.e., government data] or you gathered it yourself. If you gathered it yourself, describe what type of instrument you used and why. Note that no data set is perfect--describe any limitations in methods of gathering data.
Data analysis -- describe the procedures for processing and analyzing the data. If appropriate, describe the specific instruments of analysis used to study each research objective, including mathematical techniques and the type of computer software used to manipulate the data.

Results The finding of your study should be written objectively and in a succinct and precise format. In quantitative studies, it is common to use graphs, tables, charts, and other non-textual elements to help the reader understand the data. Make sure that non-textual elements do not stand in isolation from the text but are being used to supplement the overall description of the results and to help clarify key points being made. Further information about how to effectively present data using charts and graphs can be found here .

Statistical analysis -- how did you analyze the data? What were the key findings from the data? The findings should be present in a logical, sequential order. Describe but do not interpret these trends or negative results; save that for the discussion section. The results should be presented in the past tense.

Discussion Discussions should be analytic, logical, and comprehensive. The discussion should meld together your findings in relation to those identified in the literature review, and placed within the context of the theoretical framework underpinning the study. The discussion should be presented in the present tense.

Interpretation of results -- reiterate the research problem being investigated and compare and contrast the findings with the research questions underlying the study. Did they affirm predicted outcomes or did the data refute it?
Description of trends, comparison of groups, or relationships among variables -- describe any trends that emerged from your analysis and explain all unanticipated and statistical insignificant findings.
Discussion of implications – what is the meaning of your results? Highlight key findings based on the overall results and note findings that you believe are important. How have the results helped fill gaps in understanding the research problem?
Limitations -- describe any limitations or unavoidable bias in your study and, if necessary, note why these limitations did not inhibit effective interpretation of the results.

Conclusion End your study by to summarizing the topic and provide a final comment and assessment of the study.

Summary of findings – synthesize the answers to your research questions. Do not report any statistical data here; just provide a narrative summary of the key findings and describe what was learned that you did not know before conducting the study.
Recommendations – if appropriate to the aim of the assignment, tie key findings with policy recommendations or actions to be taken in practice.
Future research – note the need for future research linked to your study’s limitations or to any remaining gaps in the literature that were not addressed in your study.

Black, Thomas R. Doing Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences: An Integrated Approach to Research Design, Measurement and Statistics . London: Sage, 1999; Gay,L. R. and Peter Airasain. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications . 7th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merril Prentice Hall, 2003; Hector, Anestine. An Overview of Quantitative Research in Composition and TESOL . Department of English, Indiana University of Pennsylvania; Hopkins, Will G. “Quantitative Research Design.” Sportscience 4, 1 (2000); "A Strategy for Writing Up Research Results. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper." Department of Biology. Bates College; Nenty, H. Johnson. "Writing a Quantitative Research Thesis." International Journal of Educational Science 1 (2009): 19-32; Ouyang, Ronghua (John). Basic Inquiry of Quantitative Research . Kennesaw State University.

Strengths of Using Quantitative Methods

Quantitative researchers try to recognize and isolate specific variables contained within the study framework, seek correlation, relationships and causality, and attempt to control the environment in which the data is collected to avoid the risk of variables, other than the one being studied, accounting for the relationships identified.

Among the specific strengths of using quantitative methods to study social science research problems:

Allows for a broader study, involving a greater number of subjects, and enhancing the generalization of the results;
Allows for greater objectivity and accuracy of results. Generally, quantitative methods are designed to provide summaries of data that support generalizations about the phenomenon under study. In order to accomplish this, quantitative research usually involves few variables and many cases, and employs prescribed procedures to ensure validity and reliability;
Applying well established standards means that the research can be replicated, and then analyzed and compared with similar studies;
You can summarize vast sources of information and make comparisons across categories and over time; and,
Personal bias can be avoided by keeping a 'distance' from participating subjects and using accepted computational techniques .

Babbie, Earl R. The Practice of Social Research . 12th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage, 2010; Brians, Craig Leonard et al. Empirical Political Analysis: Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods . 8th ed. Boston, MA: Longman, 2011; McNabb, David E. Research Methods in Public Administration and Nonprofit Management: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches . 2nd ed. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2008; Singh, Kultar. Quantitative Social Research Methods . Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2007.

Limitations of Using Quantitative Methods

Quantitative methods presume to have an objective approach to studying research problems, where data is controlled and measured, to address the accumulation of facts, and to determine the causes of behavior. As a consequence, the results of quantitative research may be statistically significant but are often humanly insignificant.

Some specific limitations associated with using quantitative methods to study research problems in the social sciences include:

Quantitative data is more efficient and able to test hypotheses, but may miss contextual detail;
Uses a static and rigid approach and so employs an inflexible process of discovery;
The development of standard questions by researchers can lead to "structural bias" and false representation, where the data actually reflects the view of the researcher instead of the participating subject;
Results provide less detail on behavior, attitudes, and motivation;
Researcher may collect a much narrower and sometimes superficial dataset;
Results are limited as they provide numerical descriptions rather than detailed narrative and generally provide less elaborate accounts of human perception;
The research is often carried out in an unnatural, artificial environment so that a level of control can be applied to the exercise. This level of control might not normally be in place in the real world thus yielding "laboratory results" as opposed to "real world results"; and,
Preset answers will not necessarily reflect how people really feel about a subject and, in some cases, might just be the closest match to the preconceived hypothesis.

Research Tip

Finding Examples of How to Apply Different Types of Research Methods

SAGE publications is a major publisher of studies about how to design and conduct research in the social and behavioral sciences. Their SAGE Research Methods Online and Cases database includes contents from books, articles, encyclopedias, handbooks, and videos covering social science research design and methods including the complete Little Green Book Series of Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences and the Little Blue Book Series of Qualitative Research techniques. The database also includes case studies outlining the research methods used in real research projects. This is an excellent source for finding definitions of key terms and descriptions of research design and practice, techniques of data gathering, analysis, and reporting, and information about theories of research [e.g., grounded theory]. The database covers both qualitative and quantitative research methods as well as mixed methods approaches to conducting research.

SAGE Research Methods Online and Cases

<< Previous: Qualitative Methods
Next: Insiderness >>
Last Updated: Sep 17, 2024 10:59 AM
URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Research Process
Manuscript Preparation
Manuscript Review
Publication Process
Publication Recognition
Language Editing Services
Translation Services

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

3 minute read
52.5K views

Table of Contents

Choosing an optimal research methodology is crucial for the success of any research project. The methodology you select will determine the type of data you collect, how you collect it, and how you analyse it. Understanding the different types of research methods available along with their strengths and weaknesses, is thus imperative to make an informed decision.

Understanding different research methods:

There are several research methods available depending on the type of study you are conducting, i.e., whether it is laboratory-based, clinical, epidemiological, or survey based . Some common methodologies include qualitative research, quantitative research, experimental research, survey-based research, and action research. Each method can be opted for and modified, depending on the type of research hypotheses and objectives.

Qualitative vs quantitative research:

When deciding on a research methodology, one of the key factors to consider is whether your research will be qualitative or quantitative. Qualitative research is used to understand people’s experiences, concepts, thoughts, or behaviours . Quantitative research, on the contrary, deals with numbers, graphs, and charts, and is used to test or confirm hypotheses, assumptions, and theories.

Qualitative research methodology:

Qualitative research is often used to examine issues that are not well understood, and to gather additional insights on these topics. Qualitative research methods include open-ended survey questions, observations of behaviours described through words, and reviews of literature that has explored similar theories and ideas. These methods are used to understand how language is used in real-world situations, identify common themes or overarching ideas, and describe and interpret various texts. Data analysis for qualitative research typically includes discourse analysis, thematic analysis, and textual analysis.

Quantitative research methodology:

The goal of quantitative research is to test hypotheses, confirm assumptions and theories, and determine cause-and-effect relationships. Quantitative research methods include experiments, close-ended survey questions, and countable and numbered observations. Data analysis for quantitative research relies heavily on statistical methods.

Analysing qualitative vs quantitative data:

The methods used for data analysis also differ for qualitative and quantitative research. As mentioned earlier, quantitative data is generally analysed using statistical methods and does not leave much room for speculation. It is more structured and follows a predetermined plan. In quantitative research, the researcher starts with a hypothesis and uses statistical methods to test it. Contrarily, methods used for qualitative data analysis can identify patterns and themes within the data, rather than provide statistical measures of the data. It is an iterative process, where the researcher goes back and forth trying to gauge the larger implications of the data through different perspectives and revising the analysis if required.

When to use qualitative vs quantitative research:

The choice between qualitative and quantitative research will depend on the gap that the research project aims to address, and specific objectives of the study. If the goal is to establish facts about a subject or topic, quantitative research is an appropriate choice. However, if the goal is to understand people’s experiences or perspectives, qualitative research may be more suitable.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, an understanding of the different research methods available, their applicability, advantages, and disadvantages is essential for making an informed decision on the best methodology for your project. If you need any additional guidance on which research methodology to opt for, you can head over to Elsevier Author Services (EAS). EAS experts will guide you throughout the process and help you choose the perfect methodology for your research goals.

Why is data validation important in research?

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Doctor doing a Biomedical Research Paper

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

Writing a good review article

Scholarly Sources: What are They and Where can You Find Them?

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
BMJ Glob Health
v.4(Suppl 1); 2019

Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines on complex interventions: clarifying the purposes, designs and outlining some methods

1 School of Social Sciences, Bangor University, Wales, UK

Andrew Booth

2 School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Graham Moore

3 School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Wales, UK

Kate Flemming

4 Department of Health Sciences, The University of York, York, UK

Özge Tunçalp

5 Department of Reproductive Health and Research including UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

Elham Shakibazadeh

6 Department of Health Education and Promotion, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Associated Data

bmjgh-2018-000893supp001.pdf

bmjgh-2018-000893supp002.pdf

bmjgh-2018-000893supp003.pdf

bmjgh-2018-000893supp005.pdf

bmjgh-2018-000893supp004.pdf

Guideline developers are increasingly dealing with more difficult decisions concerning whether to recommend complex interventions in complex and highly variable health systems. There is greater recognition that both quantitative and qualitative evidence can be combined in a mixed-method synthesis and that this can be helpful in understanding how complexity impacts on interventions in specific contexts. This paper aims to clarify the different purposes, review designs, questions, synthesis methods and opportunities to combine quantitative and qualitative evidence to explore the complexity of complex interventions and health systems. Three case studies of guidelines developed by WHO, which incorporated quantitative and qualitative evidence, are used to illustrate possible uses of mixed-method reviews and evidence. Additional examples of methods that can be used or may have potential for use in a guideline process are outlined. Consideration is given to the opportunities for potential integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence at different stages of the review and guideline process. Encouragement is given to guideline commissioners and developers and review authors to consider including quantitative and qualitative evidence. Recommendations are made concerning the future development of methods to better address questions in systematic reviews and guidelines that adopt a complexity perspective.

Summary box

When combined in a mixed-method synthesis, quantitative and qualitative evidence can potentially contribute to understanding how complex interventions work and for whom, and how the complex health systems into which they are implemented respond and adapt.
The different purposes and designs for combining quantitative and qualitative evidence in a mixed-method synthesis for a guideline process are described.
Questions relevant to gaining an understanding of the complexity of complex interventions and the wider health systems within which they are implemented that can be addressed by mixed-method syntheses are presented.
The practical methodological guidance in this paper is intended to help guideline producers and review authors commission and conduct mixed-method syntheses where appropriate.
If more mixed-method syntheses are conducted, guideline developers will have greater opportunities to access this evidence to inform decision-making.

Introduction

Recognition has grown that while quantitative methods remain vital, they are usually insufficient to address complex health systems related research questions. 1 Quantitative methods rely on an ability to anticipate what must be measured in advance. Introducing change into a complex health system gives rise to emergent reactions, which cannot be fully predicted in advance. Emergent reactions can often only be understood through combining quantitative methods with a more flexible qualitative lens. 2 Adopting a more pluralist position enables a diverse range of research options to the researcher depending on the research question being investigated. 3–5 As a consequence, where a research study sits within the multitude of methods available is driven by the question being asked, rather than any particular methodological or philosophical stance. 6

Publication of guidance on designing complex intervention process evaluations and other works advocating mixed-methods approaches to intervention research have stimulated better quality evidence for synthesis. 1 7–13 Methods for synthesising qualitative 14 and mixed-method evidence have been developed or are in development. Mixed-method research and review definitions are outlined in box 1 .

Defining mixed-method research and reviews

Pluye and Hong 52 define mixed-methods research as “a research approach in which a researcher integrates (a) qualitative and quantitative research questions, (b) qualitative research methods* and quantitative research designs, (c) techniques for collecting and analyzing qualitative and quantitative evidence, and (d) qualitative findings and quantitative results”.A mixed-method synthesis can integrate quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method evidence or data from primary studies.† Mixed-method primary studies are usually disaggregated into quantitative and qualitative evidence and data for the purposes of synthesis. Thomas and Harden further define three ways in which reviews are mixed. 53

The types of studies included and hence the type of findings to be synthesised (ie, qualitative/textual and quantitative/numerical).
The types of synthesis method used (eg, statistical meta-analysis and qualitative synthesis).
The mode of analysis: theory testing AND theory building.

*A qualitative study is one that uses qualitative methods of data collection and analysis to produce a narrative understanding of the phenomena of interest. Qualitative methods of data collection may include, for example, interviews, focus groups, observations and analysis of documents.

†The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods group coined the term ‘qualitative evidence synthesis’ to mean that the synthesis could also include qualitative data. For example, qualitative data from case studies, grey literature reports and open-ended questions from surveys. ‘Evidence’ and ‘data’ are used interchangeably in this paper.

This paper is one of a series that aims to explore the implications of complexity for systematic reviews and guideline development, commissioned by WHO. This paper is concerned with the methodological implications of including quantitative and qualitative evidence in mixed-method systematic reviews and guideline development for complex interventions. The guidance was developed through a process of bringing together experts in the field, literature searching and consensus building with end users (guideline developers, clinicians and reviewers). We clarify the different purposes, review designs, questions and synthesis methods that may be applicable to combine quantitative and qualitative evidence to explore the complexity of complex interventions and health systems. Three case studies of WHO guidelines that incorporated quantitative and qualitative evidence are used to illustrate possible uses of mixed-method reviews and mechanisms of integration ( table 1 , online supplementary files 1–3 ). Additional examples of methods that can be used or may have potential for use in a guideline process are outlined. Opportunities for potential integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence at different stages of the review and guideline process are presented. Specific considerations when using an evidence to decision framework such as the Developing and Evaluating Communication strategies to support Informed Decisions and practice based on Evidence (DECIDE) framework 15 or the new WHO-INTEGRATE evidence to decision framework 16 at the review design and evidence to decision stage are outlined. See online supplementary file 4 for an example of a health systems DECIDE framework and Rehfuess et al 16 for the new WHO-INTEGRATE framework. Encouragement is given to guideline commissioners and developers and review authors to consider including quantitative and qualitative evidence in guidelines of complex interventions that take a complexity perspective and health systems focus.

Designs and methods and their use or applicability in guidelines and systematic reviews taking a complexity perspective

Case study examples and references	Complexity-related questions of interest in the guideline	Types of synthesis used in the guideline	Mixed-method review design and integration mechanisms	Observations, concerns and considerations
A. Mixed-method review designs used in WHO guideline development
Antenatal Care (ANC) guidelines ( )	What do women in high-income, medium-income and low-income countries want and expect from antenatal care (ANC), based on their own accounts of their beliefs, views, expectations and experiences of pregnancy?	Qualitative synthesis Framework synthesis Meta-ethnography	Quantitative and qualitative reviews undertaken separately (segregated), an initial scoping review of qualitative evidence established women’s preferences and outcomes for ANC, which informed design of the quantitative intervention review (contingent) A second qualitative evidence synthesis was undertaken to look at implementation factors (sequential) Integration: quantitative and qualitative findings were brought together in a series of DECIDE frameworks Tools included: Psychological theory SURE framework conceptual framework for implementing policy options Conceptual framework for analysing integration of targeted health interventions into health systems to analyse contextual health system factors	An innovative approach to guideline development No formal cross-study synthesis process and limited testing of theory. The hypothetical nature of meta-ethnography findings may be challenging for guideline panel members to process without additional training See Flemming for considerations when selecting meta-ethnography
	What are the evidence-based practices during ANC that improved outcomes and lead to positive pregnancy experience and how should these practices be delivered?	Quantitative review of trials
	Factors that influence the uptake of routine antenatal services by pregnant women Views and experiences of maternity care providers	Qualitative synthesis Framework synthesis Meta-ethnography
Task shifting guidelines ( )	What are the effects of lay health worker interventions in primary and community healthcare on maternal and child health and the management of infectious diseases?	Quantitative review of trials	Several published quantitative reviews were used (eg, Cochrane review of lay health worker interventions) Additional new qualitative evidence syntheses were commissioned (segregated) Integration: quantitative and qualitative review findings on lay health workers were brought together in several DECIDE frameworks. Tools included adapted SURE Framework and post hoc logic model	An innovative approach to guideline development The post hoc logic model was developed after the guideline was completed
Task shifting guidelines ( )	What factors affect the implementation of lay health worker programmes for maternal and child health?	Qualitative evidence synthesis Framework synthesis
Risk communication guideline ( )		Quantitative review of quantitative evidence (descriptive) Qualitative using framework synthesis	A knowledge map of studies was produced to identify the method, topic and geographical spread of evidence. Reviews first organised and synthesised evidence by method-specific streams and reported method-specific findings. Then similar findings across method-specific streams were grouped and further developed using all the relevant evidence Integration: where possible, quantitative and qualitative evidence for the same intervention and question was mapped against core DECIDE domains. Tools included framework using public health emergency model and disaster phases Very few trials were identified. Quantitative and qualitative evidence was used to construct a high level view of what appeared to work and what happened when similar broad groups of interventions or strategies were implemented in different contexts	Example of a fully integrated mixed-method synthesis. Without evidence of effect, it was highly challenging to populate a DECIDE framework
B. Mixed-method review designs that can be used in guideline development
Factors influencing children’s optimal fruit and vegetable consumption	Potential to explore theoretical, intervention and implementation complexity issues New question(s) of interest are developed and tested in a cross-study synthesis	Mixed-methods synthesis Each review typically has three syntheses: Statistical meta-analysis Qualitative thematic synthesis Cross-study synthesis	Aim is to generate and test theory from diverse body of literature Integration: used integrative matrix based on programme theory	Can be used in a guideline process as it fits with the current model of conducting method specific reviews separately then bringing the review products together
C. Mixed-method review designs with the potential for use in guideline development
Interventions to promote smoke alarm ownership and function	Intervention effect and/or intervention implementation related questions within a system	Narrative synthesis (specifically Popay’s methodology)	Four stage approach to integrate quantitative (trials) with qualitative evidence Integration: initial theory and logic model used to integrate evidence of effect with qualitative case summaries. Tools used included tabulation, groupings and clusters, transforming data: constructing a common rubric, vote-counting as a descriptive tool, moderator variables and subgroup analyses, idea webbing/conceptual mapping, creating qualitative case descriptions, visual representation of relationship between study characteristics and results	Few published examples with the exception of Rodgers, who reinterpreted a Cochrane review on the same topic with narrative synthesis methodology. Methodology is complex. Most subsequent examples have only partially operationalised the methodology An intervention effect review will still be required to feed into the guideline process
Factors affecting childhood immunisation	What factors explain complexity and causal pathways?	Bayesian synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence	Aim is theory-testing by fusing findings from qualitative and quantitative research Produces a set of weighted factors associated with/predicting the phenomenon under review	Not yet used in a guideline context. Complex methodology. Undergoing development and testing for a health context. The end product may not easily ‘fit’ into an evidence to decision framework and an effect review will still be required
Providing effective and preferred care closer to home: a realist review of intermediate care.	Developing and testing theories of change underpinning complex policy interventions What works for whom in what contexts and how?	Realist synthesis NB. Other theory-informed synthesis methods follow similar processes	Development of a theory from the literature, analysis of quantitative and qualitative evidence against the theory leads to development of context, mechanism and outcome chains that explain how outcomes come about Integration: programme theory and assembling mixed-method evidence to create Context, Mechanism and Outcome (CMO) configurations	May be useful where there are few trials. The hypothetical nature of findings may be challenging for guideline panel members to process without additional training. The end product may not easily ‘fit’ into an evidence to decision framework and an effect review will still be required
Use of morphine to treat cancer-related pain	Any aspect of complexity could potentially be explored How does the context of morphine use affect the established effectiveness of morphine?	Critical interpretive synthesis	Aims to generate theory from large and diverse body of literature Segregated sequential design Integration: integrative grid	There are few examples and the methodology is complex. The hypothetical nature of findings may be challenging for guideline panel members to process without additional training. The end product would need to be designed to feed into an evidence to decision framework and an intervention effect review will still be required
Food sovereignty, food security and health equity	Examples have examined health system complexity To understand the state of knowledge on relationships between health equity—ie, health inequalities that are socially produced—and food systems, where the concepts of 'food security' and 'food sovereignty' are prominent Focused on eight pathways to health (in)equity through the food system: (1) Multi-Scalar Environmental, Social Context; (2) Occupational Exposures; (3) Environmental Change; (4) Traditional Livelihoods, Cultural Continuity; (5) Intake of Contaminants; (6) Nutrition; (7) Social Determinants of Health; (8) Political, Economic and Regulatory context	Meta-narrative	Aim is to review research on diffusion of innovation to inform healthcare policy Which research (or epistemic) traditions have considered this broad topic area?; How has each tradition conceptualised the topic (for example, including assumptions about the nature of reality, preferred study designs and ways of knowing)?; What theoretical approaches and methods did they use?; What are the main empirical findings?; and What insights can be drawn by combining and comparing findings from different traditions? Integration: analysis leads to production of a set of meta-narratives (‘storylines of research’)	Not yet used in a guideline context. The originators are calling for meta-narrative reviews to be used in a guideline process. Potential to provide a contextual overview within which to interpret other types of reviews in a guideline process. The meta-narrative review findings may require tailoring to ‘fit’ into an evidence to decision framework and an intervention effect review will still be required Few published examples and the methodology is complex

Supplementary data

Taking a complexity perspective.

The first paper in this series 17 outlines aspects of complexity associated with complex interventions and health systems that can potentially be explored by different types of evidence, including synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Petticrew et al 17 distinguish between a complex interventions perspective and a complex systems perspective. A complex interventions perspective defines interventions as having “implicit conceptual boundaries, representing a flexible, but common set of practices, often linked by an explicit or implicit theory about how they work”. A complex systems perspective differs in that “ complexity arises from the relationships and interactions between a system’s agents (eg, people, or groups that interact with each other and their environment), and its context. A system perspective conceives the intervention as being part of the system, and emphasises changes and interconnections within the system itself”. Aspects of complexity associated with implementation of complex interventions in health systems that could potentially be addressed with a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence are summarised in table 2 . Another paper in the series outlines criteria used in a new evidence to decision framework for making decisions about complex interventions implemented in complex systems, against which the need for quantitative and qualitative evidence can be mapped. 16 A further paper 18 that explores how context is dealt with in guidelines and reviews taking a complexity perspective also recommends using both quantitative and qualitative evidence to better understand context as a source of complexity. Mixed-method syntheses of quantitative and qualitative evidence can also help with understanding of whether there has been theory failure and or implementation failure. The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group provide additional guidance on exploring implementation and theory failure that can be adapted to address aspects of complexity of complex interventions when implemented in health systems. 19

Health-system complexity-related questions that a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence could address (derived from Petticrew et al 17 )

Aspect of complexity of interest	Examples of potential research question(s) that a synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence could address	Types of studies or data that could contribute to a review of qualitative and quantitative evidence
What ‘is’ the system? How can it be described?	What are the main influences on the health problem? How are they created and maintained? How do these influences interconnect? Where might one intervene in the system?	Quantitative: previous systematic reviews of the causes of the problem); epidemiological studies (eg, cohort studies examining risk factors of obesity); network analysis studies showing the nature of social and other systems Qualitative data: theoretical papers; policy documents
Interactions of interventions with context and adaptation		Qualitative: (1) eg, qualitative studies; case studies Quantitative: (2) trials or other effectiveness studies from different contexts; multicentre trials, with stratified reporting of findings; other quantitative studies that provide evidence of moderating effects of context
System adaptivity (how does the system change?)	(How) does the system change when the intervention is introduced? Which aspects of the system are affected? Does this potentiate or dampen its effects?	Quantitative: longitudinal data; possibly historical data; effectiveness studies providing evidence of differential effects across different contexts; system modelling (eg, agent-based modelling) Qualitative: qualitative studies; case studies
Emergent properties	What are the effects (anticipated and unanticipated) which follow from this system change?	Quantitative: prospective quantitative evaluations; retrospective studies (eg, case–control studies, surveys) may also help identify less common effects; dose–response evaluations of impacts at aggregate level in individual studies or across studies included with systematic reviews (see suggested examples) Qualitative: qualitative studies
Positive (reinforcing) and negative (balancing) feedback loops	What explains change in the effectiveness of the intervention over time? Are the effects of an intervention are damped/suppressed by other aspects of the system (eg, contextual influences?)	Quantitative: studies of moderators of effectiveness; long-term longitudinal studies Qualitative: studies of factors that enable or inhibit implementation of interventions
Multiple (health and non-health) outcomes	What changes in processes and outcomes follow the introduction of this system change? At what levels in the system are they experienced?	Quantitative: studies tracking change in the system over time Qualitative: studies exploring effects of the change in individuals, families, communities (including equity considerations and factors that affect engagement and participation in change)

It may not be apparent which aspects of complexity or which elements of the complex intervention or health system can be explored in a guideline process, or whether combining qualitative and quantitative evidence in a mixed-method synthesis will be useful, until the available evidence is scoped and mapped. 17 20 A more extensive lead in phase is typically required to scope the available evidence, engage with stakeholders and to refine the review parameters and questions that can then be mapped against potential review designs and methods of synthesis. 20 At the scoping stage, it is also common to decide on a theoretical perspective 21 or undertake further work to refine a theoretical perspective. 22 This is also the stage to begin articulating the programme theory of the complex intervention that may be further developed to refine an understanding of complexity and show how the intervention is implemented in and impacts on the wider health system. 17 23 24 In practice, this process can be lengthy, iterative and fluid with multiple revisions to the review scope, often developing and adapting a logic model 17 as the available evidence becomes known and the potential to incorporate different types of review designs and syntheses of quantitative and qualitative evidence becomes better understood. 25 Further questions, propositions or hypotheses may emerge as the reviews progress and therefore the protocols generally need to be developed iteratively over time rather than a priori.

Following a scoping exercise and definition of key questions, the next step in the guideline development process is to identify existing or commission new systematic reviews to locate and summarise the best available evidence in relation to each question. For example, case study 2, ‘Optimising health worker roles for maternal and newborn health through task shifting’, included quantitative reviews that did and did not take an additional complexity perspective, and qualitative evidence syntheses that were able to explain how specific elements of complexity impacted on intervention outcomes within the wider health system. Further understanding of health system complexity was facilitated through the conduct of additional country-level case studies that contributed to an overall understanding of what worked and what happened when lay health worker interventions were implemented. See table 1 online supplementary file 2 .

There are a few existing examples, which we draw on in this paper, but integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence in a mixed-method synthesis is relatively uncommon in a guideline process. Box 2 includes a set of key questions that guideline developers and review authors contemplating combining quantitative and qualitative evidence in mixed-methods design might ask. Subsequent sections provide more information and signposting to further reading to help address these key questions.

Key questions that guideline developers and review authors contemplating combining quantitative and qualitative evidence in a mixed-methods design might ask

Compound questions requiring both quantitative and qualitative evidence?

Questions requiring mixed-methods studies?

Separate quantitative and qualitative questions?

Separate quantitative and qualitative research studies?

Related quantitative and qualitative research studies?

Mixed-methods studies?

Quantitative unpublished data and/or qualitative unpublished data, eg, narrative survey data?

Throughout the review?

Following separate reviews?

At the question point?

At the synthesis point?

At the evidence to recommendations stage?

Or a combination?

Narrative synthesis or summary?

Quantitising approach, eg, frequency analysis?

Qualitising approach, eg, thematic synthesis?

Tabulation?

Logic model?

Conceptual model/framework?

Graphical approach?

WHICH: Which mixed-method designs, methodologies and methods best fit into a guideline process to inform recommendations?

Complexity-related questions that a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence can potentially address

Petticrew et al 17 define the different aspects of complexity and examples of complexity-related questions that can potentially be explored in guidelines and systematic reviews taking a complexity perspective. Relevant aspects of complexity outlined by Petticrew et al 17 are summarised in table 2 below, together with the corresponding questions that could be addressed in a synthesis combining qualitative and quantitative evidence. Importantly, the aspects of complexity and their associated concepts of interest have however yet to be translated fully in primary health research or systematic reviews. There are few known examples where selected complexity concepts have been used to analyse or reanalyse a primary intervention study. Most notable is Chandler et al 26 who specifically set out to identify and translate a set of relevant complexity theory concepts for application in health systems research. Chandler then reanalysed a trial process evaluation using selected complexity theory concepts to better understand the complex causal pathway in the health system that explains some aspects of complexity in table 2 .

Rehfeuss et al 16 also recommends upfront consideration of the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence to decision criteria when planning a guideline and formulating questions. The criteria reflect WHO norms and values and take account of a complexity perspective. The framework can be used by guideline development groups as a menu to decide which criteria to prioritise, and which study types and synthesis methods can be used to collect evidence for each criterion. Many of the criteria and their related questions can be addressed using a synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence: the balance of benefits and harms, human rights and sociocultural acceptability, health equity, societal implications and feasibility (see table 3 ). Similar aspects in the DECIDE framework 15 could also be addressed using synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence.

Integrate evidence to decision framework criteria, example questions and types of studies to potentially address these questions (derived from Rehfeuss et al 16 )

Domains of the WHO-INTEGRATE EtD framework	Examples of potential research question(s) that a synthesis of qualitative and/or quantitative evidence could address	Types of studies that could contribute to a review of qualitative and quantitative evidence
Balance of benefits and harms	To what extent do patients/beneficiaries different health outcomes?	Qualitative: studies of views and experiences Quantitative: Questionnaire surveys
Human rights and sociocultural acceptability	Is the intervention to patients/beneficiaries as well as to those implementing it? To what extent do patients/beneficiaries different non-health outcomes? How does the intervention affect an individual’s, population group’s or organisation’s , that is, their ability to make a competent, informed and voluntary decision?	Qualitative: discourse analysis, qualitative studies (ideally longitudinal to examine changes over time) Quantitative: pro et contra analysis, discrete choice experiments, longitudinal quantitative studies (to examine changes over time), cross-sectional studies Mixed-method studies; case studies
Health equity, equality and non-discrimination	How is the intervention for individuals, households or communities? How —in terms of physical as well as informational access—is the intervention across different population groups?	Qualitative: studies of views and experiences Quantitative: cross-sectional or longitudinal observational studies, discrete choice experiments, health expenditure studies; health system barrier studies, cross-sectional or longitudinal observational studies, discrete choice experiments, ethical analysis, GIS-based studies
Societal implications	What is the of the intervention: are there features of the intervention that increase or reduce stigma and that lead to social consequences? Does the intervention enhance or limit social goals, such as education, social cohesion and the attainment of various human rights beyond health? Does it change social norms at individual or population level? What is the of the intervention? Does it contribute to or limit the achievement of goals to protect the environment and efforts to mitigate or adapt to climate change?	Qualitative: studies of views and experiences Quantitative: RCTs, quasi-experimental studies, comparative observational studies, longitudinal implementation studies, case studies, power analyses, environmental impact assessments, modelling studies
Feasibility and health system considerations	Are there any that impact on implementation of the intervention? How might , such as past decisions and strategic considerations, positively or negatively impact the implementation of the intervention? How does the intervention ? Is it likely to fit well or not, is it likely to impact on it in positive or negative ways? How does the intervention interact with the need for and usage of the existing , at national and subnational levels? How does the intervention interact with the need for and usage of the as well as other relevant infrastructure, at national and subnational levels?	Non-research: policy and regulatory frameworks Qualitative: studies of views and experiences Mixed-method: health systems research, situation analysis, case studies Quantitative: cross-sectional studies

GIS, Geographical Information System; RCT, randomised controlled trial.

Questions as anchors or compasses

Questions can serve as an ‘anchor’ by articulating the specific aspects of complexity to be explored (eg, Is successful implementation of the intervention context dependent?). 27 Anchor questions such as “How does intervention x impact on socioeconomic inequalities in health behaviour/outcome x” are the kind of health system question that requires a synthesis of both quantitative and qualitative evidence and hence a mixed-method synthesis. Quantitative evidence can quantify the difference in effect, but does not answer the question of how . The ‘how’ question can be partly answered with quantitative and qualitative evidence. For example, quantitative evidence may reveal where socioeconomic status and inequality emerges in the health system (an emergent property) by exploring questions such as “ Does patterning emerge during uptake because fewer people from certain groups come into contact with an intervention in the first place? ” or “ are people from certain backgrounds more likely to drop out, or to maintain effects beyond an intervention differently? ” Qualitative evidence may help understand the reasons behind all of these mechanisms. Alternatively, questions can act as ‘compasses’ where a question sets out a starting point from which to explore further and to potentially ask further questions or develop propositions or hypotheses to explore through a complexity perspective (eg, What factors enhance or hinder implementation?). 27 Other papers in this series provide further guidance on developing questions for qualitative evidence syntheses and guidance on question formulation. 14 28

For anchor and compass questions, additional application of a theory (eg, complexity theory) can help focus evidence synthesis and presentation to explore and explain complexity issues. 17 21 Development of a review specific logic model(s) can help to further refine an initial understanding of any complexity-related issues of interest associated with a specific intervention, and if appropriate the health system or section of the health system within which to contextualise the review question and analyse data. 17 23–25 Specific tools are available to help clarify context and complex interventions. 17 18

If a complexity perspective, and certain criteria within evidence to decision frameworks, is deemed relevant and desirable by guideline developers, it is only possible to pursue a complexity perspective if the evidence is available. Careful scoping using knowledge maps or scoping reviews will help inform development of questions that are answerable with available evidence. 20 If evidence of effect is not available, then a different approach to develop questions leading to a more general narrative understanding of what happened when complex interventions were implemented in a health system will be required (such as in case study 3—risk communication guideline). This should not mean that the original questions developed for which no evidence was found when scoping the literature were not important. An important function of creating a knowledge map is also to identify gaps to inform a future research agenda.

Table 2 and online supplementary files 1–3 outline examples of questions in the three case studies, which were all ‘COMPASS’ questions for the qualitative evidence syntheses.

Types of integration and synthesis designs in mixed-method reviews

The shift towards integration of qualitative and quantitative evidence in primary research has, in recent years, begun to be mirrored within research synthesis. 29–31 The natural extension to undertaking quantitative or qualitative reviews has been the development of methods for integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence within reviews, and within the guideline process using evidence to decision-frameworks. Advocating the integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence assumes a complementarity between research methodologies, and a need for both types of evidence to inform policy and practice. Below, we briefly outline the current designs for integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence within a mixed-method review or synthesis.

One of the early approaches to integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence detailed by Sandelowski et al 32 advocated three basic review designs: segregated, integrated and contingent designs, which have been further developed by Heyvaert et al 33 ( box 3 ).

Segregated, integrated and contingent designs 32 33

Segregated design.

Conventional separate distinction between quantitative and qualitative approaches based on the assumption they are different entities and should be treated separately; can be distinguished from each other; their findings warrant separate analyses and syntheses. Ultimately, the separate synthesis results can themselves be synthesised.

Integrated design

The methodological differences between qualitative and quantitative studies are minimised as both are viewed as producing findings that can be readily synthesised into one another because they address the same research purposed and questions. Transformation involves either turning qualitative data into quantitative (quantitising) or quantitative findings are turned into qualitative (qualitising) to facilitate their integration.

Contingent design

Takes a cyclical approach to synthesis, with the findings from one synthesis informing the focus of the next synthesis, until all the research objectives have been addressed. Studies are not necessarily grouped and categorised as qualitative or quantitative.

A recent review of more than 400 systematic reviews 34 combining quantitative and qualitative evidence identified two main synthesis designs—convergent and sequential. In a convergent design, qualitative and quantitative evidence is collated and analysed in a parallel or complementary manner, whereas in a sequential synthesis, the collation and analysis of quantitative and qualitative evidence takes place in a sequence with one synthesis informing the other ( box 4 ). 6 These designs can be seen to build on the work of Sandelowski et al , 32 35 particularly in relation to the transformation of data from qualitative to quantitative (and vice versa) and the sequential synthesis design, with a cyclical approach to reviewing that evokes Sandelowski’s contingent design.

Convergent and sequential synthesis designs 34

Convergent synthesis design.

Qualitative and quantitative research is collected and analysed at the same time in a parallel or complementary manner. Integration can occur at three points:

a. Data-based convergent synthesis design

All included studies are analysed using the same methods and results presented together. As only one synthesis method is used, data transformation occurs (qualitised or quantised). Usually addressed one review question.

b. Results-based convergent synthesis design

Qualitative and quantitative data are analysed and presented separately but integrated using a further synthesis method; eg, narratively, tables, matrices or reanalysing evidence. The results of both syntheses are combined in a third synthesis. Usually addresses an overall review question with subquestions.

c. Parallel-results convergent synthesis design

Qualitative and quantitative data are analysed and presented separately with integration occurring in the interpretation of results in the discussion section. Usually addresses two or more complimentary review questions.

Sequential synthesis design

A two-phase approach, data collection and analysis of one type of evidence (eg, qualitative), occurs after and is informed by the collection and analysis of the other type (eg, quantitative). Usually addresses an overall question with subquestions with both syntheses complementing each other.

The three case studies ( table 1 , online supplementary files 1–3 ) illustrate the diverse combination of review designs and synthesis methods that were considered the most appropriate for specific guidelines.

Methods for conducting mixed-method reviews in the context of guidelines for complex interventions

In this section, we draw on examples where specific review designs and methods have been or can be used to explore selected aspects of complexity in guidelines or systematic reviews. We also identify other review methods that could potentially be used to explore aspects of complexity. Of particular note, we could not find any specific examples of systematic methods to synthesise highly diverse research designs as advocated by Petticrew et al 17 and summarised in tables 2 and 3 . For example, we could not find examples of methods to synthesise qualitative studies, case studies, quantitative longitudinal data, possibly historical data, effectiveness studies providing evidence of differential effects across different contexts, and system modelling studies (eg, agent-based modelling) to explore system adaptivity.

There are different ways that quantitative and qualitative evidence can be integrated into a review and then into a guideline development process. In practice, some methods enable integration of different types of evidence in a single synthesis, while in other methods, the single systematic review may include a series of stand-alone reviews or syntheses that are then combined in a cross-study synthesis. Table 1 provides an overview of the characteristics of different review designs and methods and guidance on their applicability for a guideline process. Designs and methods that have already been used in WHO guideline development are described in part A of the table. Part B outlines a design and method that can be used in a guideline process, and part C covers those that have the potential to integrate quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method evidence in a single review design (such as meta-narrative reviews and Bayesian syntheses), but their application in a guideline context has yet to be demonstrated.

Points of integration when integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence in guideline development

Depending on the review design (see boxes 3 and 4 ), integration can potentially take place at a review team and design level, and more commonly at several key points of the review or guideline process. The following sections outline potential points of integration and associated practical considerations when integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence in guideline development.

Review team level

In a guideline process, it is common for syntheses of quantitative and qualitative evidence to be done separately by different teams and then to integrate the evidence. A practical consideration relates to the organisation, composition and expertise of the review teams and ways of working. If the quantitative and qualitative reviews are being conducted separately and then brought together by the same team members, who are equally comfortable operating within both paradigms, then a consistent approach across both paradigms becomes possible. If, however, a team is being split between the quantitative and qualitative reviews, then the strengths of specialisation can be harnessed, for example, in quality assessment or synthesis. Optimally, at least one, if not more, of the team members should be involved in both quantitative and qualitative reviews to offer the possibility of making connexions throughout the review and not simply at re-agreed junctures. This mirrors O’Cathain’s conclusion that mixed-methods primary research tends to work only when there is a principal investigator who values and is able to oversee integration. 9 10 While the above decisions have been articulated in the context of two types of evidence, variously quantitative and qualitative, they equally apply when considering how to handle studies reporting a mixed-method study design, where data are usually disaggregated into quantitative and qualitative for the purposes of synthesis (see case study 3—risk communication in humanitarian disasters).

Question formulation

Clearly specified key question(s), derived from a scoping or consultation exercise, will make it clear if quantitative and qualitative evidence is required in a guideline development process and which aspects will be addressed by which types of evidence. For the remaining stages of the process, as documented below, a review team faces challenges as to whether to handle each type of evidence separately, regardless of whether sequentially or in parallel, with a view to joining the two products on completion or to attempt integration throughout the review process. In each case, the underlying choice is of efficiencies and potential comparability vs sensitivity to the underlying paradigm.

Once key questions are clearly defined, the guideline development group typically needs to consider whether to conduct a single sensitive search to address all potential subtopics (lumping) or whether to conduct specific searches for each subtopic (splitting). 36 A related consideration is whether to search separately for qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method evidence ‘streams’ or whether to conduct a single search and then identify specific study types at the subsequent sifting stage. These two considerations often mean a trade-off between a single search process involving very large numbers of records or a more protracted search process retrieving smaller numbers of records. Both approaches have advantages and choice may depend on the respective availability of resources for searching and sifting.

Screening and selecting studies

Closely related to decisions around searching are considerations relating to screening and selecting studies for inclusion in a systematic review. An important consideration here is whether the review team will screen records for all review types, regardless of their subsequent involvement (‘altruistic sifting’), or specialise in screening for the study type with which they are most familiar. The risk of missing relevant reports might be minimised by whole team screening for empirical reports in the first instance and then coding them for a specific quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods report at a subsequent stage.

Assessment of methodological limitations in primary studies

Within a guideline process, review teams may be more limited in their choice of instruments to assess methodological limitations of primary studies as there are mandatory requirements to use the Cochrane risk of bias tool 37 to feed into Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) 38 or to select from a small pool of qualitative appraisal instruments in order to apply GRADE; Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE-CERQual) 39 to assess the overall certainty or confidence in findings. The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group has recently issued guidance on the selection of appraisal instruments and core assessment criteria. 40 The Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool, which is currently undergoing further development, offers a single quality assessment instrument for quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies. 41 Other options include using corresponding instruments from within the same ‘stable’, for example, using different Critical Appraisal Skills Programme instruments. 42 While using instruments developed by the same team or organisation may achieve a degree of epistemological consonance, benefits may come more from consistency of approach and reporting rather than from a shared view of quality. Alternatively, a more paradigm-sensitive approach would involve selecting the best instrument for each respective review while deferring challenges from later heterogeneity of reporting.

Data extraction

The way in which data and evidence are extracted from primary research studies for review will be influenced by the type of integrated synthesis being undertaken and the review purpose. Initially, decisions need to be made regarding the nature and type of data and evidence that are to be extracted from the included studies. Method-specific reporting guidelines 43 44 provide a good template as to what quantitative and qualitative data it is potentially possible to extract from different types of method-specific study reports, although in practice reporting quality varies. Online supplementary file 5 provides a hypothetical example of the different types of studies from which quantitative and qualitative evidence could potentially be extracted for synthesis.

The decisions around what data or evidence to extract will be guided by how ‘integrated’ the mixed-method review will be. For those reviews where the quantitative and qualitative findings of studies are synthesised separately and integrated at the point of findings (eg, segregated or contingent approaches or sequential synthesis design), separate data extraction approaches will likely be used.

Where integration occurs during the process of the review (eg, integrated approach or convergent synthesis design), an integrated approach to data extraction may be considered, depending on the purpose of the review. This may involve the use of a data extraction framework, the choice of which needs to be congruent with the approach to synthesis chosen for the review. 40 45 The integrative or theoretical framework may be decided on a priori if a pre-developed theoretical or conceptual framework is available in the literature. 27 The development of a framework may alternatively arise from the reading of the included studies, in relation to the purpose of the review, early in the process. The Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group provide further guidance on extraction of qualitative data, including use of software. 40

Synthesis and integration

Relatively few synthesis methods start off being integrated from the beginning, and these methods have generally been subject to less testing and evaluation particularly in a guideline context (see table 1 ). A review design that started off being integrated from the beginning may be suitable for some guideline contexts (such as in case study 3—risk communication in humanitarian disasters—where there was little evidence of effect), but in general if there are sufficient trials then a separate systematic review and meta-analysis will be required for a guideline. Other papers in this series offer guidance on methods for synthesising quantitative 46 and qualitative evidence 14 in reviews that take a complexity perspective. Further guidance on integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence in a systematic review is provided by the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group. 19 27 29 40 47

Types of findings produced by specific methods

It is highly likely (unless there are well-designed process evaluations) that the primary studies may not themselves seek to address the complexity-related questions required for a guideline process. In which case, review authors will need to configure the available evidence and transform the evidence through the synthesis process to produce explanations, propositions and hypotheses (ie, findings) that were not obvious at primary study level. It is important that guideline commissioners, developers and review authors are aware that specific methods are intended to produce a type of finding with a specific purpose (such as developing new theory in the case of meta-ethnography). 48 Case study 1 (antenatal care guideline) provides an example of how a meta-ethnography was used to develop a new theory as an end product, 48 49 as well as framework synthesis which produced descriptive and explanatory findings that were more easily incorporated into the guideline process. 27 The definitions ( box 5 ) may be helpful when defining the different types of findings.

Different levels of findings

Descriptive findings —qualitative evidence-driven translated descriptive themes that do not move beyond the primary studies.

Explanatory findings —may either be at a descriptive or theoretical level. At the descriptive level, qualitative evidence is used to explain phenomena observed in quantitative results, such as why implementation failed in specific circumstances. At the theoretical level, the transformed and interpreted findings that go beyond the primary studies can be used to explain the descriptive findings. The latter description is generally the accepted definition in the wider qualitative community.

Hypothetical or theoretical finding —qualitative evidence-driven transformed themes (or lines of argument) that go beyond the primary studies. Although similar, Thomas and Harden 56 make a distinction in the purposes between two types of theoretical findings: analytical themes and the product of meta-ethnographies, third-order interpretations. 48

Analytical themes are a product of interrogating descriptive themes by placing the synthesis within an external theoretical framework (such as the review question and subquestions) and are considered more appropriate when a specific review question is being addressed (eg, in a guideline or to inform policy). 56

Third-order interpretations come from translating studies into one another while preserving the original context and are more appropriate when a body of literature is being explored in and of itself with broader or emergent review questions. 48

Bringing mixed-method evidence together in evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks

A critical element of guideline development is the formulation of recommendations by the Guideline Development Group, and EtD frameworks help to facilitate this process. 16 The EtD framework can also be used as a mechanism to integrate and display quantitative and qualitative evidence and findings mapped against the EtD framework domains with hyperlinks to more detailed evidence summaries from contributing reviews (see table 1 ). It is commonly the EtD framework that enables the findings of the separate quantitative and qualitative reviews to be brought together in a guideline process. Specific challenges when populating the DECIDE evidence to decision framework 15 were noted in case study 3 (risk communication in humanitarian disasters) as there was an absence of intervention effect data and the interventions to communicate public health risks were context specific and varied. These problems would not, however, have been addressed by substitution of the DECIDE framework with the new INTEGRATE 16 evidence to decision framework. A d ifferent type of EtD framework needs to be developed for reviews that do not include sufficient evidence of intervention effect.

Mixed-method review and synthesis methods are generally the least developed of all systematic review methods. It is acknowledged that methods for combining quantitative and qualitative evidence are generally poorly articulated. 29 50 There are however some fairly well-established methods for using qualitative evidence to explore aspects of complexity (such as contextual, implementation and outcome complexity), which can be combined with evidence of effect (see sections A and B of table 1 ). 14 There are good examples of systematic reviews that use these methods to combine quantitative and qualitative evidence, and examples of guideline recommendations that were informed by evidence from both quantitative and qualitative reviews (eg, case studies 1–3). With the exception of case study 3 (risk communication), the quantitative and qualitative reviews for these specific guidelines have been conducted separately, and the findings subsequently brought together in an EtD framework to inform recommendations.

Other mixed-method review designs have potential to contribute to understanding of complex interventions and to explore aspects of wider health systems complexity but have not been sufficiently developed and tested for this specific purpose, or used in a guideline process (section C of table 1 ). Some methods such as meta-narrative reviews also explore different questions to those usually asked in a guideline process. Methods for processing (eg, quality appraisal) and synthesising the highly diverse evidence suggested in tables 2 and 3 that are required to explore specific aspects of health systems complexity (such as system adaptivity) and to populate some sections of the INTEGRATE EtD framework remain underdeveloped or in need of development.

In addition to the required methodological development mentioned above, there is no GRADE approach 38 for assessing confidence in findings developed from combined quantitative and qualitative evidence. Another paper in this series outlines how to deal with complexity and grading different types of quantitative evidence, 51 and the GRADE CERQual approach for qualitative findings is described elsewhere, 39 but both these approaches are applied to method-specific and not mixed-method findings. An unofficial adaptation of GRADE was used in the risk communication guideline that reported mixed-method findings. Nor is there a reporting guideline for mixed-method reviews, 47 and for now reports will need to conform to the relevant reporting requirements of the respective method-specific guideline. There is a need to further adapt and test DECIDE, 15 WHO-INTEGRATE 16 and other types of evidence to decision frameworks to accommodate evidence from mixed-method syntheses which do not set out to determine the statistical effects of interventions and in circumstances where there are no trials.

When conducting quantitative and qualitative reviews that will subsequently be combined, there are specific considerations for managing and integrating the different types of evidence throughout the review process. We have summarised different options for combining qualitative and quantitative evidence in mixed-method syntheses that guideline developers and systematic reviewers can choose from, as well as outlining the opportunities to integrate evidence at different stages of the review and guideline development process.

Review commissioners, authors and guideline developers generally have less experience of combining qualitative and evidence in mixed-methods reviews. In particular, there is a relatively small group of reviewers who are skilled at undertaking fully integrated mixed-method reviews. Commissioning additional qualitative and mixed-method reviews creates an additional cost. Large complex mixed-method reviews generally take more time to complete. Careful consideration needs to be given as to which guidelines would benefit most from additional qualitative and mixed-method syntheses. More training is required to develop capacity and there is a need to develop processes for preparing the guideline panel to consider and use mixed-method evidence in their decision-making.

This paper has presented how qualitative and quantitative evidence, combined in mixed-method reviews, can help understand aspects of complex interventions and the systems within which they are implemented. There are further opportunities to use these methods, and to further develop the methods, to look more widely at additional aspects of complexity. There is a range of review designs and synthesis methods to choose from depending on the question being asked or the questions that may emerge during the conduct of the synthesis. Additional methods need to be developed (or existing methods further adapted) in order to synthesise the full range of diverse evidence that is desirable to explore the complexity-related questions when complex interventions are implemented into health systems. We encourage review commissioners and authors, and guideline developers to consider using mixed-methods reviews and synthesis in guidelines and to report on their usefulness in the guideline development process.

Handling editor: Soumyadeep Bhaumik

Contributors: JN, AB, GM, KF, ÖT and ES drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to paper development and writing and agreed the final manuscript. Anayda Portela and Susan Norris from WHO managed the series. Helen Smith was series Editor. We thank all those who provided feedback on various iterations.

Funding: Funding provided by the World Health Organization Department of Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health through grants received from the United States Agency for International Development and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation.

Disclaimer: ÖT is a staff member of WHO. The author alone is responsible for the views expressed in this publication and they do not necessarily represent the decisions or policies of WHO.

Competing interests: No financial interests declared. JN, AB and ÖT have an intellectual interest in GRADE CERQual; and JN has an intellectual interest in the iCAT_SR tool.

Patient consent: Not required.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Data sharing statement: No additional data are available.

Supplemental material: This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

When Does a Researcher Choose a Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Research Approach?

Published: 26 November 2021
Volume 53 , pages 113–131, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

Feyisa Mulisa ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0738-6554 1

11k Accesses

16 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In educational studies, the paradigm war over quantitative and qualitative research approaches has raged for more than half a century. The focus in the late twentieth century was on the distinction between the two approaches, and the motivation was to retain one of the approaches’ supremacy. Since the early twenty-first century, there has been a growing interest in situating in the middle position and combining both approaches into a single study or a series of studies. Despite these signs of progress, when it comes to using the appropriate research approach at the right time, beginner educational researchers remain perplexed. This paper, therefore, provides useful guidelines that facilitate the choice of quantitative, qualitative, or mixed research approaches in educational inquiry. To achieve this objective, this article comprises three distinct and underlying areas of interest, which have been structured into three sections. The first section highlights the distinctions between quantitative and qualitative research approaches. The second section discusses the paradigm views that underpin the choice of a particular research approach. Finally, an effort has been made to determine the appropriate time to opt for any of the research approaches that facilitate successful educational investigations. Since truth and the means used to discover it are both dynamic, it is also essential to foresight innovative approaches to research with distinguishing features of applications to educational research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

The Paradigmatic Challenge of Mixed-Methods Research: Positivism, Relativism or Pragmatism?

Research Methods

Trends and Issues in Qualitative Research Methods

Explore related subjects.

Artificial Intelligence

Åkerblad, L., Seppänen-Järvelä, R., & Haapakoski, K. (2021). Integrative strategies in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 15 (2), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689820957125

Article Google Scholar

Allwood, C. M. (2012). The distinction between qualitative and quantitative research methods is problematic. Quality and Quantity, 46 (5), 1417–1429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9455-8

Amaratugna, D., Baldry, D., Sarshar, M., & Newton, R. (2002). Quantitative and qualitative research in the built environment: Application of “mixed” research approach. Work Study, 51 (1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/00438020210415488

Antwi, S. K., & Hamza, K. (2015). Quantitative and qualitative research paradigms in business research: A philosophical reflections. European Journal of Business and Management, 7 (3), 217–225.

Google Scholar

Bailey, L. F. (2014). The origin and success of qualitative research. International Journal of Market Research, 56 (2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2014-013

Belk, R. W. (2013). Qualitative versus quantitative research in marketing. Revista de Negócios, 18 (1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.7867/1980-4431.2013v18n1p5-9

Brinkmann, S., Jacobsen, M. H., Kristiansen, S., Brinkmann, S., Jacobsen, M. H., & Kristiansen, S. (2014). Historical overview of qualitative research in the social sciences. In The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 16–42). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199811755.013.017

Burke Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14–26.

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.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Steps in conducting a scholarly mixed methods study . http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=dberspeakers

Curry, L. A., Nembhard, I. M., & Bradley, E. H. (2009). Qualitative and mixed methods provide unique contributions to outcomes research. Circulation, 119 , 1442–1452. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.742775

Daniel, E. (2016). The usefulness of qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in researching problem-solving ability in science education curriculum. Journal of Education and Practice, 7 (15), 91–100.

Dawadi, S. (2017). Are quantitative and qualitative approaches to educational research compatible? The Warwick ELT , 3 (6). https://thewarwickeltezine.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/291/

Ejnavarzala, H. (2019). Epistemology–ontology relations in social research: A review. Sociological Bulletin, 68 (1), 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038022918819369

Fagan, M. B. (2010). Social construction revisited: Epistemology and scientific practice. Philosophy of Science, 77 (1), 92–116.

Farrell, E. (2020). Researching lived experience in education: Misunderstood or missed opportunity? International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920942066

Fassinger, R., & Morrow, S. L. (2013). Toward best practices in quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method research: A social justice perspective. Journal of Social Action in Counseling Psychology, 5 (2), 69–83.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11 (3), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255

Gunasekare, U. (2015). Mixed research method as the third research paradigm: A literature review. International Journal of Science and Research, 4 (8), 363–367.

Hodkinson, P. (2004). Research as a form of work: Expertise, community and methodological objectivity. British Educational Research Journal, 30 (1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920310001629947

Howitt, D., & Cramer, D. (2011). Introduction to research methods in psychology (3rd ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2020). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (7th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

Khaldi, K. (2017). Quantitative, qualitative or mixed research: Which research paradigm to use? Journal of Educational and Social Research, 7 (2), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2017.v7n2p15

Krivokapic-skoko, B., & O’neill, G. (2011). Beyond the qualitative-quantitative distinction: Some innovative methods for business and management research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 5 (5), 290–300. https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2011.5.3.290

Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research . https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.14.3.221.16560

Levers, M. J. D. (2013). Philosophical paradigms, grounded theory, and perspectives on emergence. SAGE Open, 3 (4), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013517243

Lobe, B., Morgan, D., & Hoffman, K. A. (2020). Qualitative data collection in an era of social distancing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920937875

Mack, L. (2010). The philosophical underpinnings of educational research. Polyglossia, 19 , 5–11.

Madill, A., & Gough, B. (2008). Qualitative research and its place in psychological science. Psychological Methods, 13 (3), 254–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013220

Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 13 (6), 522–525.

Maxwell, J. A., & Reybold, L. E. (2015). Qualitative research. In International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., Vol. 19, pp. 685–689). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.10558-6

Mertens, D. M. (2012). What comes first? The paradigm or the approach? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6 (4), 255–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812461574

Meyer, D. K., & Schutz, P. A. (2020). Why talk about qualitative and mixed methods in educational psychology? Introduction to special issue. Educational Psychologist, 55 (4), 193–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1796671

Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (1), 48–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462

Morgan, D. L., & Nica, A. (2020). Iterative thematic inquiry: A new method for analyzing qualitative data. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920955118

Östlund, U., Kidd, L., Wengström, Y., & Rowa-Dewar, N. (2011). Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: A methodological review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48 (3), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.10.005

Poli, R. (2018). A note on the classification of future-related methods. European Journal of Futures Research, 6 (1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-018-0145-9

Rahman, M. S. (2016). The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in language “Testing and Assessment” research: A literature review. Journal of Education and Learning, 6 (1), 102. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n1p102

Sale, J. E. M., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed methods research. Quality & Quantity, 36 , 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014301607592

Salvador, J. T. (2016). Exploring quantitative and qualitative methodologies: A guide to novice nursing researchers. European Scientific Journal, 12 (18), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2016.v12n18p107

Shannon-Baker, P. (2016). Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10 (4), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815575861

Symonds, J. E., & Gorard, S. (2010). Death of mixed methods? Or the rebirth of research as a craft. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23 (2), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500790.2010.483514

Taylor, P., & Kanis, H. (2004). The quantitative-qualitative research dichotomy revisited. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5 (6), 507–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922041233130303418

Techo, V. P. (2016). Research methods-quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods . Horizons University. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1262.4886

Wohlfart, O. (2020). “Digging Deeper?”: Insights from a novice researcher. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920963778

Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish . The Guilford Press.

Download references

No funding was received for this article.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Education and Behavioral Sciences, Ambo University, Ambo, Ethiopia

Feyisa Mulisa

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Feyisa Mulisa .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Mulisa, F. When Does a Researcher Choose a Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Research Approach?. Interchange 53 , 113–131 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-021-09447-z

Download citation

Received : 29 March 2021

Accepted : 18 November 2021

Published : 26 November 2021

Issue Date : March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-021-09447-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quantitative research
Qualitative research
Mixed research
Research approaches
Research paradigm
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Which Research Approach Is Best Suited to the Scientific Method?

Explore which research approach is best suited to the scientific method. Learn techniques to conduct precise experiments and analyze data.

The scientific method serves as the cornerstone of empirical inquiry, enabling researchers to systematically investigate the natural world and advance knowledge. In the context of scientific inquiry, choosing the most suitable research approach is vital for conducting rigorous and meaningful investigations.

This article aims to address the question of which research approach aligns best with the scientific method. It delves into the exploration of various types of research approaches, their respective advantages and disadvantages, and provides considerations to make an informed choice. By examining these factors, researchers can gain insights into selecting the most appropriate research approach that aligns with the principles and objectives of the scientific method.

Introduction to the Scientific Method

The scientific method serves as the foundation for empirical inquiry, providing a systematic approach to investigate and understand the natural world. It is a structured process that scientists employ to acquire knowledge, test hypotheses, and draw reliable conclusions.

At its core, the scientific method involves a series of logical steps that guide researchers in their quest for understanding. It begins with observation, where scientists carefully observe and identify patterns or phenomena of interest. These observations lead to the formulation of research questions or hypotheses, which are educated guesses about the relationships or explanations underlying the observed phenomena.

To test these hypotheses, researchers design and conduct experiments or studies, collecting data through systematic observations or measurements. The data collected is then analyzed using statistical or other appropriate methods to draw meaningful insights and conclusions. This process of analysis involves the identification of patterns, trends, or correlations within the data.

One critical aspect of the scientific method is the emphasis on objectivity and replicability. Findings and conclusions derived from scientific investigations must be based on evidence and be reproducible by other researchers following the same methodology. This ensures that scientific knowledge is reliable, verifiable, and can withstand scrutiny and peer review.

The scientific method is iterative in nature, with new observations and findings often leading to the formulation of new hypotheses or the refinement of existing ones. This iterative process contributes to the advancement of scientific knowledge over time, as researchers build upon previous work and expand the understanding of the subject matter.

By adhering to the principles of the scientific method, researchers can navigate through the complexities of the natural world, generate new insights, and contribute to the collective knowledge in their respective fields. It is a systematic and rigorous approach that forms the backbone of scientific inquiry, enabling researchers to uncover truths, challenge assumptions, and make meaningful contributions to their disciplines.

Types of Research Approaches

By gaining a thorough understanding of the various research approaches and their unique characteristics, researchers are empowered to make informed decisions regarding the most suitable approach for their specific research questions and objectives.

It is crucial to align the chosen approach with the nature of the research topic, the availability of resources, and the necessity to capture both objective and subjective aspects of the phenomenon being investigated.

Furthermore, researchers should consider the adoption of a mixed research approach, which combines quantitative and qualitative methods, to attain a more comprehensive understanding of complex research questions.

Here are the common types of research approaches, namely quantitative research, qualitative research, and mixed research .

Quantitative Research

Quantitative research involves the systematic collection and analysis of numerical data to establish relationships, test hypotheses, and make generalizations about a larger population. This approach relies on structured data collection methods, such as surveys, experiments, or the analysis of existing datasets.

Quantitative research aims to quantify variables, measure outcomes objectively, and often employs statistical techniques to analyze and interpret the data. By employing large sample sizes and statistical analysis, quantitative research strives for objectivity and generalizability of findings.

Qualitative Research

Qualitative research focuses on understanding complex phenomena and exploring subjective experiences, meanings, and contexts. This approach emphasizes in-depth exploration and interpretation of non-numerical data, such as interviews, observations, or textual analysis.

Qualitative research aims to capture rich and detailed insights, uncover underlying motivations, and generate theories grounded in real-life experiences. Researchers often employ techniques like thematic analysis or grounded theory to analyze qualitative data. Through open-ended questions and a flexible research design, qualitative research allows for a deep understanding of the complexities and nuances of a research topic.

Mixed Research

Mixed methods research integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches, recognizing the value of both types of data in providing a comprehensive understanding of a research topic. Researchers using this approach collect and analyze both numerical and non-numerical data, allowing for triangulation of findings and a more holistic perspective.

Mixed methods research enables researchers to explore complex research questions by combining the strengths of quantitative analysis (e.g., statistical significance) with the richness of qualitative insights (e.g., in-depth understanding of motivations). By utilizing multiple sources of data, researchers can gain a more comprehensive understanding and make informed interpretations.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Research Approaches

This section provides a comprehensive exploration of the advantages and disadvantages associated with different research approaches, including quantitative research, qualitative research, and mixed research. By examining these approaches, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of their advantages and disadvantages, allowing them to make informed decisions when selecting the most appropriate approach for their specific research objectives.

Quantitative Research Advantages and Disadvantages

Advantages:.

Allows for precise measurement and statistical analysis of data, providing objective and reliable results.
Enables generalization of findings to larger populations, enhancing the external validity of the study.
Offers a structured and systematic approach to research, ensuring rigorous data collection and analysis.
Facilitates replication and verification of results, contributing to the robustness of scientific knowledge.
Provides opportunities for hypothesis testing and establishing cause-and-effect relationships.

Disadvantages

May oversimplify complex phenomena and overlook contextual factors that influence the research topic.
May not capture the richness and depth of subjective experiences and perspectives.
Can be constrained by the availability and suitability of numerical data.
Requires careful consideration of sample size and potential biases to ensure valid and meaningful results.
Relies on predefined variables, limiting the exploration of unexpected insights.

Qualitative Research Advantages and Disadvantages

Provides in-depth understanding of complex phenomena, capturing rich and nuanced insights.
Allows for exploration of subjective experiences, meanings, and contexts.
Offers flexibility in data collection methods, allowing researchers to adapt to emerging insights.
Facilitates theory development and generates hypotheses for future research.
Supports the exploration of sensitive or difficult-to-measure topics.
Findings may be subjective and influenced by researchers’ interpretations and biases.
Limited generalizability due to small sample sizes and contextual specificity.
Time-consuming data collection and analysis processes, requiring significant resources.
Vulnerable to potential biases and subjectivity in data collection and interpretation.
Lack of standardized procedures may affect the reproducibility of results.

Mixed Research Advantages and Disadvantages

Provides a comprehensive and holistic understanding of research questions by integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches.
Enables triangulation of data sources, enhancing the validity and reliability of findings.
Allows for the exploration of complex phenomena from multiple perspectives.
Supports flexibility in research design and data collection methods.
Can uncover unexpected findings and bridge gaps in understanding.
Requires expertise in both quantitative and qualitative methods, necessitating multidisciplinary collaboration.
Time and resource-intensive, demanding careful planning and coordination.
Challenges in integrating and synthesizing data from different sources.
Complexity in analyzing and interpreting mixed data, requiring specialized skills.
Requires thoughtful consideration of research design to ensure coherence and effectiveness.

Choosing the most suitable research approach in accordance with the scientific method necessitates thoughtful deliberation of several factors. When making this decision, researchers must take into account a range of factors and address the question, “Which research approach is best suited to the scientific method?” When selecting a research approach. Here are some key considerations when selecting a research approach:

Considerations for Choosing a Research Approach

Research Objectives: Clarify the specific goals and objectives of your study. Are you seeking to quantify variables and establish relationships (quantitative research), or are you aiming to explore subjective experiences and meanings (qualitative research)? Clearly defining your research objectives will guide your choice of approach.
Research Questions: Examine the nature of your research questions. Do they require numerical data and statistical analysis (quantitative research), or do they necessitate in-depth exploration and understanding of complex phenomena (qualitative research)? Aligning your research questions with an appropriate approach is crucial for generating relevant and meaningful findings.
Available Resources: Consider the resources at your disposal, including time, budget, and expertise. Some research approaches may require specialized skills, equipment, or extensive data collection and analysis processes. Assessing the feasibility of different approaches within your available resources is essential.
Nature of the Phenomena: Reflect on the nature of the phenomena you are studying. Some phenomena lend themselves better to quantitative measurement and analysis, while others require a qualitative lens to capture nuanced details and contextual factors. Understanding the characteristics of your research topic will guide your choice of approach.
Ethical Considerations: Take into account ethical considerations associated with your research. Certain approaches may be more suitable for addressing sensitive or personal topics, while others may raise concerns regarding participant confidentiality or informed consent. Ensure that your chosen approach aligns with ethical guidelines and principles.
Existing Knowledge and Theoretical Frameworks: Consider the existing knowledge and theoretical frameworks relevant to your research topic. Are there established theories or models that align with your research objectives? Exploring the existing body of literature can help you identify the most appropriate research approach that builds upon prior knowledge.
Research Design and Methodological Fit: Evaluate the compatibility between your research design and the chosen approach. Ensure that the selected approach aligns with the overall design of your study, including data collection methods, analysis techniques, and the intended audience of your research findings.

In summary, selecting the most suitable research approach that aligns with the scientific method requires careful consideration of various factors. Researchers must address the question, “Which research approach is best suited to the scientific method?” and give due consideration to factors such as research objectives, research questions, available resources, the nature of the phenomena being studied, ethical considerations, existing knowledge and theoretical frameworks, as well as the overall compatibility with the research design.

Quantitative research offers precise measurement, statistical analysis, and the ability to generalize findings, but may oversimplify complex phenomena and overlook subjective experiences. Qualitative research provides in-depth understanding, flexibility in data collection methods, and the exploration of subjective meanings, but findings may be subjective and lack generalizability. Mixed research integrates quantitative and qualitative approaches, allowing for a comprehensive understanding and triangulation of findings, but requires expertise and careful coordination.

Ultimately, researchers must carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each approach to ensure the chosen approach aligns with the goals of their study. By adhering to the principles of the scientific method and selecting an appropriate research approach, researchers can conduct rigorous investigations, generate meaningful insights, and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their respective fields.

Create A Perfect-Matching Scientific Figure For Your Paper With Mind The Graph

Mind the Graph is a versatile platform that offers invaluable assistance to scientists in visualizing their research. Mind the Graph empowers researchers to effectively communicate complex scientific concepts and create visually appealing and accurate scientific figures for their research, enhancing the presentation and dissemination of scientific findings, allowing researchers to create perfect-matching figures that effectively convey their research insights to the scientific community and beyond.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Try the best infographic maker and promote your research with scientifically-accurate beautiful figures

no credit card required

About Jessica Abbadia

Jessica Abbadia is a lawyer that has been working in Digital Marketing since 2020, improving organic performance for apps and websites in various regions through ASO and SEO. Currently developing scientific and intellectual knowledge for the community's benefit. Jessica is an animal rights activist who enjoys reading and drinking strong coffee.

Content tags

(855) 776-7763

Training Maker

All Products

Qualaroo Insights

ProProfs.com

Get Started Free

FREE. All Features. FOREVER!

Try our Forever FREE account with all premium features!

What Is Quantitative Research? Types, Characteristics & Methods

Market Research Specialist

Emma David, a seasoned market research professional, specializes in employee engagement, survey administration, and data management. Her expertise in leveraging data for informed decisions has positively impacted several brands, enhancing their market position.

Step into the fascinating world of quantitative research , where numbers reveal extraordinary insights!

By gathering and studying data in a systematic way, quantitative research empowers us to understand our ever-changing world better. It helps understand a problem or an already-formed hypothesis by generating numerical data. The results don’t end here, as you can process these numbers to get actionable insights that aid decision-making.

You can use quantitative research to quantify opinions, behaviors, attitudes, and other definitive variables related to the market, customers, competitors, etc. The research is conducted on a larger sample population to draw predictive, average, and pattern-based insights.

Here, we delve into the intricacies of this research methodology, exploring various quantitative methods, their advantages, and real-life examples that showcase their impact and relevance.

Ready to embark on a journey of discovery and knowledge? Let’s go!

What Is Quantitative Research?

Quantitative research is a method that uses numbers and statistics to test theories about customer attitudes and behaviors. It helps researchers gather and analyze data systematically to gain valuable insights and draw evidence-based conclusions about customer preferences and trends.

Researchers use online surveys, questionnaires , polls , and quizzes to question a large number of people to obtain measurable and bias-free data.

In technical terms, quantitative research is mainly concerned with discovering facts about social phenomena while assuming a fixed and measurable reality.

Offering numbers and stats-based insights, this research methodology is a crucial part of primary research and helps understand how well an organizational decision is going to work out.

Let’s consider an example.

Suppose your qualitative analysis shows that your customers are looking for social media-based customer support. In that case, quantitative analysis will help you see how many of your customers are looking for this support.

If 10% of your customers are looking for such a service, you might or might not consider offering this feature. But, if 40% of your regular customers are seeking support via social media, then it is something you just cannot overlook.

Characteristics of Quantitative Research

Quantitative research clarifies the fuzziness of research data from qualitative research analysis. With numerical insights, you can formulate a better and more profitable business decision.

Hence, quantitative research is more readily contestable, sharpens intelligent discussion, helps you see the rival hypotheses, and dynamically contributes to the research process.

Let us have a quick look at some of its characteristics.

1. Measurable Variables

The data collection methods in quantitative research are structured and contain items requiring measurable variables, such as age, number of family members, salary range, highest education, etc.

These structured data collection methods comprise polls, surveys, questionnaires, etc., and may have questions like the ones shown in the following image:

As you can see, all the variables are measurable. This ensures that the research is in-depth and provides less erroneous data for reliable, actionable insights.

2. Sample Size

No matter what data analysis methods for quantitative research are being used, the sample size is kept such that it represents the target market.

As the main aim of the research methodology is to get numerical insights, the sample size should be fairly large. Depending on the survey objective and scope, it might span hundreds of thousands of people.

3. Normal Population Distribution

To maintain the reliability of a quantitative research methodology, we assume that the population distribution curve is normal.

This type of population distribution curve is preferred over a non-normal distribution as the sample size is large, and the characteristics of the sample vary with its size.

This requires adhering to the random sampling principle to avoid the researcher’s bias in result interpretation. Any bias can ruin the fairness of the entire process and defeats the purpose of research.

4. Well-Structured Data Representation

Data analysis in quantitative research produces highly structured results and can form well-defined graphical representations. Some common examples include tables, figures, graphs, etc., that combine large blocks of data.

This way, you can discover hidden data trends, relationships, and differences among various measurable variables. This can help researchers understand the survey data and formulate actionable insights for decision-making.

5. Predictive Outcomes

Quantitative analysis of data can also be used for estimations and prediction outcomes. You can construct if-then scenarios and analyze the data for the identification of any upcoming trends or events.

However, this requires advanced analytics and involves complex mathematical computations. So, it is mostly done via quantitative research tools that come with advanced analytics capabilities.

Types of Quantitative Research Methods

Quantitative research is usually conducted using two methods. They are-

Primary quantitative research methods
Secondary quantitative research methods

1. Primary quantitative research methods

Primary quantitative research is the most popular way of conducting market research. The differentiating factor of this method is that the researcher relies on collecting data firsthand instead of relying on data collected from previous research.

There are multiple types of primary quantitative research. They can be distinguished based on three distinctive aspects, which are:

1.1. Techniques & Types of Studies:

Survey Research

Surveys are the easiest, most common, and one of the most sought-after quantitative research techniques. The main aim of a survey is to widely gather and describe the characteristics of a target population or customers. Surveys are the foremost quantitative method preferred by both small and large organizations.

They help them understand their customers, products, and other brand offerings in a proper manner.

Surveys can be conducted using various methods, such as online polls, web-based surveys, paper questionnaires, phone calls, or face-to-face interviews. Survey research allows organizations to understand customer opinions, preferences, and behavior, making it crucial for market research and decision-making.

You can watch this quick video to learn more about creating surveys.

Watch: How to Create a Survey Using ProProfs Survey Maker

Surveys are of two types:

Cross-Sectional Surveys Cross-sectional surveys are used to collect data from a sample of the target population at a specific point in time. Researchers evaluate various variables simultaneously to understand the relationships and patterns within the data.
Cross-sectional surveys are popular in retail, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and healthcare industries, where they assess customer satisfaction, market trends, and product feedback.
Longitudinal Surveys Longitudinal surveys are conducted over an extended period, observing changes in respondent behavior and thought processes.
Researchers gather data from the same sample multiple times, enabling them to study trends and developments over time. These surveys are valuable in fields such as medicine, applied sciences, and market trend analysis.

Surveys can be distributed via various channels. Some of the most popular ones are listed below:

Email: Sending surveys via email is a popular and effective method. People recognize your brand, leading to a higher response rate. With ProProfs Survey Maker’s in-mail survey-filling feature, you can easily send out and collect survey responses.
Embed on a website: Boost your response rate by embedding the survey on your website. When visitors are already engaged with your brand, they are more likely to take the survey.
Social media: Take advantage of social media platforms to distribute your survey. People familiar with your brand are likely to respond, increasing your response numbers.
QR codes: QR codes store your survey’s URL, and you can print or publish these codes in magazines, signs, business cards, or any object to make it easy for people to access your survey.
SMS survey: Collect a high number of responses quickly with SMS surveys. It’s a time-effective way to reach your target audience.

1.2. Correlational Research:

Correlational research aims to establish relationships between two or more variables.

Researchers use statistical analysis to identify patterns and trends in the data, but it does not determine causality between the variables. This method helps understand how changes in one variable may impact another.

Examples of correlational research questions include studying the relationship between stress and depression, fame and money, or classroom activities and student performance.

1.3. Causal-Comparative Research:

Causal-comparative research, also known as quasi-experimental research, seeks to determine cause-and-effect relationships between variables.

Researchers analyze how an independent variable influences a dependent variable, but they do not manipulate the independent variable. Instead, they observe and compare different groups to draw conclusions.

Causal-comparative research is useful in situations where it’s not ethical or feasible to conduct true experiments.

Examples of questions for this type of research include analyzing the effect of training programs on employee performance, studying the influence of customer support on client retention, investigating the impact of supply chain efficiency on cost reduction, etc.

1.4. Experimental Research:

Experimental research is based on testing theories to validate or disprove them. Researchers conduct experiments and manipulate variables to observe their impact on the outcomes.

This type of research is prevalent in natural and social sciences, and it is a powerful method to establish cause-and-effect relationships. By randomly assigning participants to experimental and control groups, researchers can draw more confident conclusions.

Examples of experimental research include studying the effectiveness of a new drug, the impact of teaching methods on student performance, or the outcomes of a marketing campaign.

2. Data collection methodologies

After defining research objectives, the next significant step in primary quantitative research is data collection. This involves using two main methods: sampling and conducting surveys or polls.

2.1Sampling methods:

In quantitative research, there are two primary sampling methods: Probability and Non-probability sampling.

2.2Probability Sampling

In probability sampling, researchers use the concept of probability to create samples from a population. This method ensures that every individual in the target audience has an equal chance of being selected for the sample.

There are four main types of probability sampling:

Simple random sampling: Here, the elements or participants of a sample are selected randomly, and this technique is used in studies that are conducted over considerably large audiences. It works well for large target populations.
Stratified random sampling: In this method, the entire population is divided into strata or groups, and the sample members get chosen randomly from these strata only. It is always ensured that different segregated strata do not overlap with each other.
Cluster sampling: Here, researchers divide the population into clusters, often based on geography or demographics. Then, random clusters are selected for the sample.
Systematic sampling: In this method, only the starting point of the sample is randomly chosen. All the other participants are chosen using a fixed interval. Researchers calculate this interval by dividing the size of the study population by the target sample size.

2.3Non-probability Sampling

Non-probability sampling is a method where the researcher’s knowledge and experience guide the selection of samples. This approach doesn’t give all members of the target population an equal chance of being included in the sample.

There are five non-probability sampling models:

Convenience sampling: The elements or participants are chosen on the basis of their nearness to the researcher. The people in close proximity can be studied and analyzed easily and quickly, as there is no other selection criterion involved. Researchers simply choose samples based on what is most convenient for them.
Consecutive sampling: Similar to convenience sampling, researchers select samples one after another over a significant period. They can opt for a single participant or a group of samples to conduct quantitative research in a consecutive manner for a significant period of time. Once this is over, they can conduct the research from the start.
Quota sampling: With quota sampling, researchers use their understanding of target traits and personalities to form groups (strata). They then choose samples from each stratum based on their own judgment.
Snowball sampling: This method is used where the target audiences are difficult to contact and interviewed for data collection. Researchers start with a few participants and then ask them to refer others, creating a snowball effect.
Judgmental sampling: In judgmental sampling, researchers rely solely on their experience and research skills to handpick samples that they believe will be most relevant to the study.

3. Data analysis techniques

To analyze the quantitative data accurately, you’ll need to use specific statistical methods such as:

SWOT Analysis: This stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats analysis. Organizations use SWOT analysis to evaluate their performance internally and externally. It helps develop effective improvement strategies.
Conjoint Analysis: This market research method uncovers how individuals make complex purchasing decisions. It involves considering trade-offs in their daily activities when choosing from a list of product/service options.
Cross-tabulation: A preliminary statistical market analysis method that reveals relationships, patterns, and trends within various research study parameters.
TURF Analysis: Short for Totally Unduplicated Reach and Frequency Analysis, this method helps analyze the reach and frequency of favorable communication sources. It provides insights into the potential of a target market.
By using these statistical techniques and inferential statistics methods like confidence intervals and margin of error, you can draw meaningful insights from your primary quantitative research that you can use in making informed decisions.

2. Secondary Quantitative Research Methods

Secondary quantitative research, also known as desk research, is a valuable method that uses existing data, called secondary data.
Instead of collecting new data, researchers analyze and combine already available information to enhance their research. This approach involves gathering quantitative data from various sources such as the internet, government databases, libraries, and research reports.
Secondary quantitative research plays a crucial role in validating data collected through primary quantitative research. It helps reinforce or challenge existing findings.

Here are five commonly used secondary quantitative research methods:

A. Data Available on the Internet:

The Internet has become a vast repository of data, making it easier for researchers to access a wealth of information. Online databases, websites, and research repositories provide valuable quantitative data for researchers to analyze and validate their primary research findings.

B. Government and Non-Government Sources:

Government agencies and non-government organizations often conduct extensive research and publish reports. These reports cover a wide range of topics, providing researchers with reliable and comprehensive data for quantitative analysis.

C. Public Libraries:

While less commonly used in the digital age, public libraries still hold valuable research reports, historical data, and publications that can contribute to quantitative research.

D. Educational Institutions:

Educational institutions frequently conduct research on various subjects. Their research reports and publications can serve as valuable sources of information for researchers, validating and supporting primary quantitative research outcomes.

E. Commercial Information Sources:

Commercial sources such as local newspapers, journals, magazines, and media outlets often publish relevant data on economic trends, market research, and demographic analyses. Researchers can access this data to supplement their own findings and draw better conclusions.

Advantages of Quantitative Research Methods

Quantitative research data is often standardized and can be easily used to generalize findings for making crucial business decisions and uncover insights to supplement the qualitative research findings.

Here are some core benefits this research methodology offers.

Direct Result Comparison

As the studies can be replicated for different cultural settings and different times, even with different groups of participants, they tend to be extremely useful. Researchers can compare the results of different studies in a statistical manner and arrive at comprehensive conclusions for a broader understanding.

Replication

Researchers can repeat the study by using standardized data collection protocols over well-structured data sets. They can also apply tangible definitions of abstract concepts to arrive at different conclusions for similar research objectives with minor variations.

Large Samples

As the research data comes from large samples, the researchers can process and analyze the data via highly reliable and consistent analysis procedures. They can arrive at well-defined conclusions that can be used to make the primary research more thorough and reliable.

Hypothesis Testing

This research methodology follows standardized and established hypothesis testing procedures. So, you have to be careful while reporting and analyzing your research data , and the overall quality of results gets improved.

Proven Examples of Quantitative Research Methods

Below, we discuss two excellent examples of quantitative research methods that were used by highly distinguished business and consulting organizations. Both examples show how different types of analysis can be performed with qualitative approaches and how the analysis is done once the data is collected.

1. STEP Project Global Consortium / KPMG 2019 Global Family Business survey

This research utilized quantitative methods to identify ways that kept the family businesses sustainably profitable with time.

The study also identified the ways in which the family business behavior changed with demographic changes and had “why” and “how” questions. Their qualitative research methods allowed the KPMG team to dig deeper into the mindsets and perspectives of the business owners and uncover unexpected research avenues as well.

It was a joint effort in which STEP Project Global Consortium collected 26 cases, and KPMG collected 11 cases.

The research reached the stage of data analysis in 2020, and the analysis process spanned over 4 stages.

The results, which were also the reasons why family businesses tend to lose their strength with time, were found to be:

Family governance
Family business legacy

2. EY Seren Teams Research 2020

This is yet another commendable example of qualitative research where the EY Seren Team digs into the unexplored depths of human behavior and how it affected their brand or service expectations.

The research was done across 200+ sources and involved in-depth virtual interviews with people in their homes, exploring their current needs and wishes. It also involved diary studies across the entire UK customer base to analyze human behavior changes and patterns.

The study also included interviews with professionals and design leaders from a wide range of industries to explore how COVID-19 transformed their industries. Finally, quantitative surveys were conducted to gain insights into the EY community after every 15 days.

The insights and results were:

A culture of fear, daily resilience, and hopes for a better world and a better life – these were the macro trends.
People felt massive digitization to be a resourceful yet demanding aspect as they have to adapt every day.
Some people wished to have a new world with lots of possibilities, and some were looking for a new purpose.

8 Best Practices to Conduct Quantitative Research

Here are some best practices to keep in mind while conducting quantitative research:

1. Define Research Objectives

There can be many ways to collect data via quantitative research methods that are chosen as per the research objective and scope. These methods allow you to build your own observations regarding any hypotheses – unknown, entirely new, or unexplained.

You can hypothesize a proof and build a prediction of outcomes supporting the same. You can also create a detailed stepwise plan for data collection, analysis, and testing.

Below, we explore quantitative research methods and discuss some examples to enhance your understanding of them.

2. Keep Your Questions Simple

The surveys are meant to reach people en-masse, and that includes a wide demographic range with recipients from all walks of life. Asking simple questions will ensure that they grasp what’s being asked easily.

3. Develop a Solid Research Design

Choose an appropriate research design that aligns with your objectives, whether it’s experimental, quasi-experimental, or correlational. You also need to pay attention to the sample size and sampling technique such that it represents the target population accurately.

4. Use Reliable & Valid Instruments

It’s crucial to select or develop measurement instruments such as questionnaires, scales, or tests that have been validated and are reliable. Before proceeding with the main study, pilot-test these instruments on a small sample to assess their effectiveness and make any necessary improvements.

5. Ensure Data Quality

Implement data collection protocols to minimize errors and bias during data gathering. Double-check data entries and cleaning procedures to eliminate any inconsistencies or missing values that may affect the accuracy of your results. For instance, you might regularly cross-verify data entries to identify and correct any discrepancies.

6. Employ Appropriate Data Analysis Techniques

Select statistical methods that match the nature of your data and research questions. Whether it’s regression analysis, t-tests, ANOVA, or other techniques, using the right approach is important for drawing meaningful conclusions. Utilize software tools like SPSS or R for data analysis to ensure the accuracy and reproducibility of your findings.

7. Interpret Results Objectively

Present your findings in a clear and unbiased manner. Avoid making unwarranted causal claims, especially in correlational studies. Instead, focus on describing the relationships and patterns observed in your data.

8. Address Ethical Considerations

Prioritize ethical considerations throughout your research process. Obtain informed consent from participants, ensuring their voluntary participation and confidentiality of data. Comply with ethical guidelines and gain approval from a governing body if necessary.

Enhance Your Quantitative Research With Cutting-Edge Software

While no single research methodology can produce 100% reliable results, you can always opt for a hybrid research method by opting for the methods that are most relevant to your objective.

This understanding comes gradually as you learn how to implement the correct combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods for your research projects. For the best results, we recommend investing in smart, efficient, and scalable research tools that come with delightful reporting and advanced analytics to make every research initiative a success.

These software tools, such as ProProfs Survey Maker, come with pre-built survey templates and question libraries and allow you to create a high-converting survey in just a few minutes.

So, choose the best research partner, create the right research plan, and gather insights that drive sustainable growth for your business.

About the author

Emma David is a seasoned market research professional with 8+ years of experience. Having kick-started her journey in research, she has developed rich expertise in employee engagement, survey creation and administration, and data management. Emma believes in the power of data to shape business performance positively. She continues to help brands and businesses make strategic decisions and improve their market standing through her understanding of research methodologies.

How to Ask Employee Survey Questions About Management the Right Way: A Guide

How to Use Open-Ended Questions: Tips, Advantages & Examples

Product Market Fit: An Ultimate Guide

Survey Question: 250+Examples, Types & Best Practices

How to Ask Sensitive Questions in Surveys

What is Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)? 25+ Survey Questions to Ask

IMAGES

Quantitative Research -What Is It, Examples, Methods, Advantages
Quantitative Research
Quantitative Research Process
What is Quantitative Methods : Definition, Types & Applications
Quantitative Research: What It Is, Practices & Methods
PPT

VIDEO

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH DESIGNS
Quantitative Research:Importance, Characteristics
QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
10 Difference Between Qualitative and Quantitative Research (With Table)
How to Develop Quantitative Research Titles: Means and Ends
Quantitative Data Analysis in Research

COMMENTS

A Practical Guide to Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research Questions and Hypotheses in Scholarly Articles
INTRODUCTION. Scientific research is usually initiated by posing evidenced-based research questions which are then explicitly restated as hypotheses.1,2 The hypotheses provide directions to guide the study, solutions, explanations, and expected results.3,4 Both research questions and hypotheses are essentially formulated based on conventional theories and real-world processes, which allow the ...
What Is Quantitative Research?
Revised on June 22, 2023. Quantitative research is the process of collecting and analyzing numerical data. It can be used to find patterns and averages, make predictions, test causal relationships, and generalize results to wider populations. Quantitative research is the opposite of qualitative research, which involves collecting and analyzing ...
Quantitative and Qualitative Research
Social scientists are concerned with the study of people. Quantitative research is a way to learn about a particular group of people, known as a sample population. Using scientific inquiry, quantitative research relies on data that are observed or measured to examine questions about the sample population. Allen, M. (2017). The SAGE encyclopedia ...
What Is Quantitative Research? An Overview and Guidelines
Abstract. In an era of data-driven decision-making, a comprehensive understanding of quantitative research is indispensable. Current guides often provide fragmented insights, failing to offer a holistic view, while more comprehensive sources remain lengthy and less accessible, hindered by physical and proprietary barriers.
What is Quantitative Research? Definition, Examples, Key ...
Quantitative research stands as a powerful research methodology dedicated to the systematic collection and analysis of measurable data. Learn more about quantitative research Examples, key advantages, methods and best practices. ... Quantitative research is well-suited for testing specific hypotheses or research questions, ... 7 Best Practices ...
Broadening horizons: Integrating quantitative and qualitative research
Quantitative research is very well suited to establishing cause-and-effect relationships, to testing hypotheses and to determining the opinions, attitudes and practices of a large population, whereas qualitative research lends itself very well to developing hypotheses and theories and to describing processes such as decision making or ...
Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research
When collecting and analyzing data, quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings. Both are important for gaining different kinds of knowledge. Quantitative research. Quantitative research is expressed in numbers and graphs. It is used to test or confirm theories and assumptions.
Quantitative Methods
Quantitative method is used to summarize, average, find patterns, make predictions, and test causal associations as well as generalizing results to wider populations. It allows us to quantify effect sizes, determine the strength of associations, rank priorities, and weigh the strength of evidence of effectiveness.
PDF Introduction to quantitative research
Mixed-methods research is a flexible approach, where the research design is determined by what we want to find out rather than by any predetermined epistemological position. In mixed-methods research, qualitative or quantitative components can predominate, or both can have equal status. 1.4. Units and variables.
How To Choose The Right Research Methodology
1. Understanding the options. Before we jump into the question of how to choose a research methodology, it's useful to take a step back to understand the three overarching types of research - qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods -based research. Each of these options takes a different methodological approach.
Quantitative Research Methodologies
In quantitative research, a variable is something (an intervention technique, a pharmaceutical, a temperature, etc.) that changes. There are two kinds of variables: independent variables and dependent variables.In the simplest terms, the independent variable is whatever the researchers are using to attempt to make a change in their dependent variable.
Quantitative Research: What It Is, Practices & Methods
Quantitative research involves analyzing and gathering numerical data to uncover trends, calculate averages, evaluate relationships, and derive overarching insights. It's used in various fields, including the natural and social sciences. Quantitative data analysis employs statistical techniques for processing and interpreting numeric data.
4 types of quantitative research and when to use them
Research in which collected data is converted into numbers or numerical data is quantitative research. It is widely used in surveys, demographic studies, census information, marketing, and other studies that use numerical data to analyze results. Primary quantitative research yields results that are objective, statistical, and unbiased.
Quantitative Methods
Quantitative methods emphasize objective measurements and the statistical, mathematical, or numerical analysis of data collected through polls, questionnaires, and surveys, or by manipulating pre-existing statistical data using computational techniques.Quantitative research focuses on gathering numerical data and generalizing it across groups of people or to explain a particular phenomenon.
Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide
Choosing an optimal research methodology is crucial for the success of any research project. The methodology you select will determine the type of data you collect, how you collect it, and how you analyse it. Understanding the different types of research methods available along with their strengths and weaknesses, is thus imperative to make an ...
How to choose the research methodology best suited for your study
Quantitative research. In this type of research, the data collected is generally expressed in numbers and graphs to confirm theories and assumptions. The data collected are factual information on the topic. Under the quantitative research method, the factual information can be collected in many ways such as:
PDF Quantitative Research Methods
tion (Fraenkel et al., 2012). It is primarily a quantitative research technique in which the researcher administers some sort of survey or questionnaire to a sample—or, in some cases, an entire population—of individuals to describe their attitudes, opinions, behaviors, experiences, or other characteristics of th.
15 Reasons to Choose Quantitative over Qualitative Research
Quantitative methodology would best apply to this research problem. Use quantitative research methods such as A/B testing for validating or choosing a design based on user satisfaction scores, perceived usability measures, and/or task performance. The data received is statistically valid and can be generalized to the entire user population ...
Synthesising quantitative and qualitative evidence to inform guidelines
Introduction. Recognition has grown that while quantitative methods remain vital, they are usually insufficient to address complex health systems related research questions. 1 Quantitative methods rely on an ability to anticipate what must be measured in advance. Introducing change into a complex health system gives rise to emergent reactions, which cannot be fully predicted in advance.
When Does a Researcher Choose a Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed
In educational studies, the paradigm war over quantitative and qualitative research approaches has raged for more than half a century. The focus in the late twentieth century was on the distinction between the two approaches, and the motivation was to retain one of the approaches' supremacy. Since the early twenty-first century, there has been a growing interest in situating in the middle ...
(PDF) Quantitative Research: A Successful Investigation in Natural and
Quantitative research explains phenomena by collecting numerical unchanging d etailed data t hat. are analyzed using mathematically based methods, in particular statistics that pose questions of ...
Which Research Approach Is Best Suited to the Scientific Method?
Quantitative research involves the systematic collection and analysis of numerical data to establish relationships, test hypotheses, and make generalizations about a larger population. This approach relies on structured data collection methods, such as surveys, experiments, or the analysis of existing datasets.
What Is Quantitative Research? Types, Characteristics & Methods
Let us have a quick look at some of its characteristics. 1. Measurable Variables. The data collection methods in quantitative research are structured and contain items requiring measurable variables, such as age, number of family members, salary range, highest education, etc. These structured data collection methods comprise polls, surveys ...

Quantitative and Qualitative Research

What is Quantitative Research?

Have a language expert improve your writing

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research | Differences, Examples & Methods

Table of contents

Quantitative data collection methods

Qualitative data collection methods

Quantitative research approach

Qualitative research approach

Mixed methods approach

Analyzing quantitative data

Analyzing qualitative data

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Raimo Streefkerk

How To Choose Your Research Methodology

Overview: Choosing Your Methodology

1. Understanding the options

2. How to choose a research methodology

Factor #1: The nature of your research

Need a helping hand?

Factor #2: The disciplinary norms

Factor #3: Practicalities

Constraint #1: Data access

Constraint #2: Time

Constraint #3: Money

Constraint #4: Equipment & software

Constraint #5: Your knowledge and skillset

Recap: Choosing a methodology

Psst... there’s more!

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Research Methodologies

Library Help

Independent and Dependent Variables

Correlational

Descriptive

Experimental

Quasi-Experimental/Quasi-Comparative

Quantitative Research: What It Is, Practices & Methods

What is Quantitative Research?

Quantitative Research Characteristics

Quantitative Research Methods

Primary Quantitative Research Methods

A. Techniques and Types of Studies

01. Survey Research

02. Correlational Research

03. Causal-comparative Research

04. Experimental Research

B. Data Collection Methodologies

01. Data Collection Methodologies: Sampling Methods

02. Data collection methodologies: Using surveys & polls

C. Data Analysis Techniques

Secondary Quantitative Research Methods

Quantitative Research Examples

What are the Advantages of Quantitative Research?

Collect Reliable and Accurate Data:

Quick Data Collection:

Wider Scope of Data Analysis:

Eliminate Bias:

Best Practices to Conduct Quantitative Research

Quantitative Research vs Qualitative Research

Quantitative Research

Qualitative Research

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

MORE LIKE THIS

QuestionPro: Leading the Charge in Customer Journey Management and Voice of the Customer Platforms

What is Driver Analysis? Importance and Best Practices

Was The Experience Memorable? (Part II) — Tuesday CX Thoughts

Data Discovery: What it is, Importance, Process + Use Cases

Other categories

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

Need Help Locating Statistics?

Characteristics of Quantitative Research

Basic Research Design for Quantitative Studies

Strengths of Using Quantitative Methods

Limitations of Using Quantitative Methods

Research Tip

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Understanding different research methods:

Qualitative vs quantitative research: