Kkv Review Quantitative and Qualitative Research

April 11, 2018 General Studies

When comparing the KKV article with article two, there are several similarities’ and differences that stand out. The differences stand out because they are so extreme. However it’s the similarities that are fascinating. This is because they unit the gap between quantitative and qualitative research practices. Both articles seem to agree that weak designs can not be saved with statistical manipulation. They also agree about the nature of qualitative research, the definition of falsification, and the importance of design social inquiry.

How ever, they seem to disagree greatly on the validity of quasi-experimental analysis. Regarding the issue of weak designs, both articles seem to agree that weak designs can not be saved or be deemed usable by manipulating the statistics. “ Research that is structurally defective in the sense that there is no variation in explanatory variables (or more explanations then observations) is doomed to fail, no matter how insightful the analyst. Without an appropriate organizing structure, additional data, even the most sophisticated analysis can tell us little. (Research Design, Falsification and the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide. Pg, 1) What the above quote means simply is that if a research question is poorly developed, no amount of statistical manipulation is going to make the research useable. If the researcher has not taken into account all the variables and other central issues, then that research case study is doomed to fail. Personally I find this idea very encouraging. The fact that multiple professionals in the field of research place so much emphasis on conducting good research is a good thing.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

This means that researchers are making sure that all the information is supported by scientific proof. This helps to ensure more accurate results. Another issue that both articles agree on is the nature of qualitative research. Both articles seem to think that …”qualitative research [is] based on in-kind rather then in-degrees differences. ” (Research Design, Falsification and the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide. Pg, 2) “Measurement theory, qualities are represented as nominal variables, and quantities, as ordinal, interval, and ratio measures.

Qualitative variation is not variation in magnitude, quantifiable variation is. This characterization shows that it is the issue of magnitude versus quality. (Research Design, Falsification and the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide. Pg, 2) What this is basically means is that both articles seem to place less importance on numbers, and more importance on other variables being measured. Both articles seem to agree that this is the more appropriate way to measure qualitative research. With the issue of falsification, both authorities seem to disagree “that testing our theories in alternative settings is a good idea. (Research Design, Falsification and the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide. Pg, 3) “Carrying out the same test in the same settings provides little additional support for the theory. The same test in a different setting expands the slope of a theory and may add confirmation weight if additional factors thought to influence the outcome is taken into account. ” (Research Design, Falsification and the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide. Pg, 3) All this means is that the authors disagree on how to test these research questions.

Some think that in order to get an accurate test, the test needs to be as controlled as possible. However, some think that the testing of those research questions can not be fully accurate unless different variables are involved. Probably the biggest similarity between the two articles is the fact that both support the opinion of “Design Social Inquiry. ” “By outlining a research strategy applicable in both descriptive and causal settings and relevant to qualitative and quantitative research, KKV hold the promise of unifying previously fragmented parts of our discipline.

At the the very least, “Design Social Inquiry” encourages us to talk to one another and learn more precisely where our differences lie. ” (Research Design, Falsification and the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide. Pg, 5) What this means is that Design Social Inquiry would be a good thing to help us speak a more “common language” in terms of research. “Design Social Inquiry” would help to bride the rather large gap between qualitative and quantitative research techniques.

The only big difference that I noticed while reading these two articles was the difference of opinion regarding “quasi-experimental analysis. ” In the KKV article, they say that “we reject the concept” of quasi-experimental analysis. , or at the very least the word “quasi-experimentation. ” (Research Design, Falsification and the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide. Pg, 4) Furthermore, the KKV article argues that it is operator control of the different variables that determine the findings [results] in an experiment.

The other article argues otherwise. The authors of this article think that researcher control over independent variables is simply not enough to define an experiment. “Without manipulation of the independent variables, we can not be sure that hypothesized effects will have a chance to occur. ” (Research Design, Falsification and the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide. Pg, 4) So in conclusion, when comparing the KKV article with article two, there are several similarities’ and differences that stand out.

The biggest difference lays in the difference of opinion regarding quasi-experimental analysis. The respective authors disagree on the importance of controlling variables while testing a research question. The similarities are encouraging however, because they help to bridge the gap between both qualitative and quantitative research techniques. The authors seem to agree of the fundamentals of falsification, the nature of qualitative research, and making sure that research questions are not weak; and can be supported.

While the authors do disagree on a major issue in research design, the similarities are encouraging because it could help to create a more “common language” for our case studies to follow. References King, Gary. , Robert Keohane O. , Robert. , Verba Sidney (1995). “Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific inference in Qualitative Research. ” Retrieved 10/22/2009. from Access My Library database. King, Gary. , Robert Keohane O. , Robert. , Verba Sidney (1995). “The Importance of Research Design in Political Sciences. ” Retrieved 10/22/2009. from Access My Library database.

x

Hi!
I'm Amanda

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out