The Best of Both Research Worlds

So far, we have noted requirements tied to deploying effective surveys and how useful qualitative methods are in generating the sentiments and experiences that lay the foundation for mutual understanding. Both quantitative and qualitative methods are fine to use by themselves, given the research question at hand, but using both methods together has proven to be especially powerful in helping organizations gain a more three-dimensional understanding of the social things they deem to be worthy of study.

First, let’s break down the terms. The word quantitative is centered on the ‘quantities’ of things that are material or measurable in nature. Regardless of how advanced the technique may be, the counting of things serves as the foundation of whatever follows. The word qualitative is clearly akin to ‘quality,’ but primarily in the sense of aiming for the basic nature of a materialized phenomenon. It points to the essential character of something.

When a research project is properly designed, researchers understand that quantitative methods are a powerful way to gain concrete insights on how social groups are viewing something, such as political candidates, their economic prospects, or their experiences as a customer. In the same token, researchers also understand that using qualitative methods such as interviews, focus groups, or observation are a powerful way of understanding social meaning from a grounded, everyday life perspective. Most of the social scientific scholarship that is published clearly lands in just one of these worlds, which can be seen as choosing one over the other. From a certain standpoint, it can be said that quantitative researchers choose the ability the say something substantive about the sentiments of large groups over gaining a deeper understanding of what lies below the surface of the sentiments. In addition, it can also be said that qualitative researchers choose uncovering deeper social meanings and experiences over the ability to properly associate these meanings and experiences to larger populations. This purportedly leaves some to say, “OK, that’s nice you found that out about them, but, so what?”

Common concerns (roughly represented above) about the inherent limitations of choosing one research world over the other have led to an increasing number of scholars to embrace mixed methods research. Despite ongoing philosophical debates about the need to marry research methodology with epistemology, mixed methods researchers carry on by anchoring their data collection practices to the utilitarian principles of maximizing the discovery of data, creating useful knowledge, and addressing problems as they exist in the real world. In essence, these researchers are guided much more by finding empirical solutions to the problems and questions on their doorstep than they are by epistemological purity.

One of the most powerful aspects of mixed methods research is how it facilitates triangulation, or the ability to validate the findings that spring from one data collection method through the use of a distinctly different method(s). I’ve personally seen this several times, and in multiple directions. A series of focus groups can unearth that a particular ethnic group shares an experience that grants them special insight into the power of social service and a survey that is deployed later can validate the specialness of this insight by showing that this ethnic group had a statistically significant higher number of volunteer hours. A survey result that points to worldview differences making a statistically significant difference in whether a landlord acts to remove a tenant is further validated by two landlords, with effectively the same number of rental units in their portfolio, speaking to their different eviction approaches. Later, on the listen back, the researcher can identify clear commonalities between the worldviews expressed throughout the interview and their stated eviction practices.

At Kiaspo, we embrace the mixed methods orientation. Such an orientation is not about conducting mixed methods studies by any means necessary, it simply means being fully and flexibly responsive to the research needs of our clients. We love philosophy and respect epistemology, but we are foremost moved by addressing the relational questions/problems of our clients. Typically, our approach is using quantitative methods to assess organizational current states and qualitative methods to fully explore the root causes of current states that organizations find problematic. This is our standard approach to offering clients the best of both worlds as they aim to fortify their stakeholder relationships, because we recognize the inherent power of this approach. However, we never lose sight that serving the research question in the most effective way, and within scope, is most important.