Qualitative Versus Quantitative Research Strategies: Contrasting Epistemological And Ontological Assumptions

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siti Fatimah Bahari
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Mixed Method ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Research Strategies ◽  
Intensive Research ◽  
Alternative Research

Kertas kerja ini membincangkan bagaimana strategi penyelidikan kualitatif (intensif) dan kuantitatif (ekstensif) berbeza dengan membandingkan aspek–aspek epistemologi dan ontologi dan bagaimana kepercayaan dan pandangan ini menepati objektif intelektual yang berbeza. Pertama sekali kertas kerja ini membincangkan kepentingan memahami falsafah dalam penyelidikan sains sosial dan hubungannya dengan strategi penyelidikan kualitatif (intensif) dan kuantitatif (ekstensif). Kemudian, perbincangan diteruskan dengan membandingkan dua jenis strategi penyelidikan ini berhubung dengan orientasi utama terhadap peranan teori, anggapan–anggapan epistemologi dan ontologi. Anggapan–anggapan epistemologi yang dibincangkan dalam kertas kerja ini termasuklah intepretivism bagi strategi penyelidikan kualitatif (intensif) dan positivisme bagi strategi penyelidikan kuantitatif (ekstensif). Manakala anggapan–anggapan ontologi yang dibincangkan dalam kertas kerja ini meragkumi subjectivism/constructivism bagi penyelidikan kualitatif (intensif) dan objektivisme bagi strategi penyelidikan kuantitatif (ekstensif). Seterusnya bahagian kedua kertas kerja ini, menerangkan bagaimana dua jenis strategi penyelidikan ini menepati objektif intelektual. Akhirnya, sebagai kesimpulan kertas kerja ini membincangkan strategi penyelidikan alternatif iaitu kaedah campuran (mixed methods) yang boleh diaplikasikan dalam penyelidikan sains sosial. Kata kunci: Kualitatif; kuantitatif; epistemologi; ontologi; strategi penyelidikan This paper attempts to discuss how qualitative (intensive) and quantitative (extensive) research strategies differ by contrasting epistemological and ontological aspects and how these beliefs and views fit with their different intellectual goals. Firstly, this paper discusses the importance of understanding philosophy in social science research and its relation to qualitative (intensive) and quantitative (extensive) research strategies. Then it develops by contrasting these two types of research strategies in relation to the principle orientation to the role of theory, epistemological and ontological assumptions. Epistemological assumptions consist of interpretivism for qualitative (intensive) research strategies and positivism for quantitative (extensive) research strategies. Whereas ontological assumptions constitute subjectivism/constructivism for qualitative (intensive) research and objectivism for quantitative (extensive) research strategies. Further it will explain how these two types of research strategies fit the different intellectual goals and finally concludes by discussing an alternative research strategi namely mixed method that may be employed in social science research. Key words: Qualitative; quantitative; epistemology; ontology; research strategies

How much would you like to pay? Trust, reciprocity and prosocial motivations in El trato

2012 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 389-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco J León ◽  
José A Noguera ◽  
Jordi Tena-Sánchez
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
External Validity ◽  
Laboratory Experiments ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Trust Game ◽  
Sales Strategy ◽  
Pay What You Want ◽  
Natural Settings

Prosocial motivations and reciprocity are becoming increasingly important in social-science research. While laboratory experiments have challenged the assumption of universal selfishness, the external validity of these results has not been sufficiently tested in natural settings. In this article we examine the role of prosocial motivations and reciprocity in a Pay What You Want (PWYW) sales strategy, in which consumers voluntarily decide how much to pay for a product or service. This article empirically analyses the only PWYW example in Spain to date: the El trato (‘The deal’) campaign launched by the travel company Atrápalo, which offered different holiday packages under PWYW conditions in July 2009. Our analysis shows that, although the majority of the customers did not behave in a purely self-interested manner, they nonetheless did so in a much higher proportion than observed in similar studies. We present different hypotheses about the mechanisms that may explain these findings. Specifically, we highlight the role of two plausible explanations: the framing of the campaign and the attribution of ‘hidden’ preferences to Atrápalo by its customers, which undermined the interpretation of El trato as a trust game.

scholarly journals The role of administrative data in the big data revolution in social science research

2016 ◽  
Vol 59 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roxanne Connelly ◽  
Christopher J. Playford ◽  
Vernon Gayle ◽  
Chris Dibben
Keyword(s):  
Big Data ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Administrative Data ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research

scholarly journals Erasing the Social from Social Science: The Intellectual Costs of Boundary-Work and the Canadian Institute of Health Research

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 393-420 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katelin E. Albert
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Boundary Work ◽  
Medical Science ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Canadian Institute ◽  
The Social

In 2009, Canadian social science research funding underwent a transition. Social science health-research was shifted from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) to the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR), an agency previously dominated by natural and medical science. This paper examines the role of health-research funding structures in legitimizing and/or delimiting what counts as ‘good’ social science health research. Engaging Gieryn’s (1983) notion of ‘boundary-work’ and interviews with qualitative social science graduate students, it investigates how applicants developed proposals for CIHR. Findings show that despite claiming to be interdisciplinary, the practical mechanisms through which CIHR funding is distributed reinforce rigid boundaries of what counts as legitimate health research. These boundaries are reinforced by applicants who felt pressure to prioritize what they perceived was what funders wanted (accommodating natural-science research culture), resulting in erased, elided, and disguised social science theories and methods common for ‘good social science.’

Organising: creating research worlds

2020 ◽  
pp. 79-110
Author(s):  
Paul Thompson ◽  
Ken Plummer ◽  
Neli Demireva
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Research Council ◽  
Social Research ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Academic Disciplines ◽  
Community Studies ◽  
Central Statistical ◽  
Major Section

This chapter looks at how social research gradually became organized through the work of our pioneers. It starts by looking at the growth of both universities and academic disciplines (like anthropology and sociology) as key backgrounds for understanding the growth of organized research. A major section discusses a range of early research agencies — the Colonial Research Council, Political and Economic Planning (PEP), the Institute of Community Studies, the CSO (Central Statistical Office), the SSRC, Social Science Research Council, and the UK Data Archive. Some new university-based centres are also considered: medical social science at Aberdeen, methods at Surrey and the BCCS (Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies). There are brief discussions of the Banbury Study with Meg Stacey and Colin Bell; and the Affluent Worker study. The chapter closes with some pioneering work on quantitative research, longitudinal studies and the rise of computing.

5. Finding Answers: Theories and How to Apply Them

2020 ◽  
pp. 123-158
Author(s):  
Sandra Halperin ◽  
Oliver Heath
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Independent Variable ◽  
Key Terms ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter shows how to develop an answer to a particular research question. It first considers the requirements and components of an answer to a research question before discussing the role of ‘theory’ in social science research, what a ‘theoretical framework’ is, and what a hypothesis is. It then explores the three components of a hypothesis: an independent variable, a dependent variable, and a proposition (a statement about the relationship between the variables). It also looks at the different types of hypotheses and how they guide various kinds of research. It also explains why conceptual and operational definitions of key terms are important and how they are formulated. Finally, it offers suggestions on how to answer normative questions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document