Research
Methods for Professional Inquiry

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare qualitative and quantitative approaches to research investigation in social science. After further examination of the relevant literature, a brief exploration of a mixed methods approach has also been taken into consideration within this paper. I discuss in detail about human perception and assumption and the impact that this can have on research investigation. I critically discuss and compare the differences of quantitative and qualitative research approaches, their underlying epistemological and theoretical different with an additional small focus on a mixed method approach. I consider the strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches, the differences in the research design and methodologies and present a logical academic argument to detail my understanding. The findings presented show human perception can have a huge impact on many aspects within research.

Introduction

Human
beings are naturally curious and inherently possess an inquisitive mind about
how the world works and about what truth really is. Scientists have spent many
years discovering new things about the world and filling in knowledge gaps
which once existed. The process of research inevitably brings about change. The
overarching idea of research investigation is based on an idea about how our
world is perceived, and is used by social scientists to find out more about it;
to deepen our understanding of our world.  

Everyone
has a different opinion of what reality is to them and this is therefore why
research investigation is a widely debated and complex process. Boethius
(quoted in Patel, no date, p3) believed that ‘knowledge is not based on the
thing known but on the nature of the knower’. 
This highlights to us the significance of human assumptions in the
research process and that each person can differ quite significantly in their
belief system.  Kuhn (1970) believed that
those whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed to the same
rules and standards. Kuhn (1970) further states that a paradigm dictates,
initially, not a subject matter but a group of practitioners. Research
paradigms are all relative to someone’s epistemological and ontological
assumptions and when a shared philosophical tradition is adopted to the
research, a common paradigm can penetrate this research and influence the
approaches and methodologies that they use.

A
consideration of ontology and epistemology helps to build a holistic picture of
how researchers perceive knowledge and how this knowledge relates to society
with the methodologies used to discover the knowledge. Being aware of a
researcher’s philosophical assumptions is important in influencing the entire
research process.

Research Paradigm

Firstly,
let’s consider the concept ‘paradigm’. According to Crotty (1998) a paradigm
consists of four key components; ontology, epistemology, methodology and
methods. A paradigm, according to Creswell and Poth (2017) is a basic set of beliefs
that guides enquiries which he refers to as ‘worldviews’. Lincoln and Guba (1985)
claim paradigms represent a refinement of what we think about the world, but
cannot yet prove. Creswell and Poth (2017, citing Huff, 2009) discusses the
importance of philosophy in research stating that the direction of our research
and the outcomes is driven by our assumptions which consequently influence our
chosen methodologies.

Through
my reading, I have had difficulty in consistently defining a set of paradigms
due to the range of almost conflicting and, at times, slightly confusing theories.
Creswell (2003) refers to paradigms as ‘worldviews’ which he believes to have
four elements; post-positivism, constructivism, transformative and pragmatic. Guba
(1990) refers to positivism as a separate entity from other paradigms such as
post-positivism and constructivism. Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) talk about
those paradigms discussed by Guba with an addition of pragmatism and (Shadish,
1995) talks about the concept of ‘logical positivism’. Bryman (2004) refers to
positivism and interpretivism and differentiates these from its variations;
phenomenology and symbolic interactionism. To clarify – and make myself feel
slightly better – Morgan (2007) explains that social scientists can talk about
‘paradigms’ and each easily mean something entirely different. Morgan talks
about four versions – each version treating paradigms as shared belief system –
influencing the knowledge that researchers seek. He uses this concept of a
paradigm as his main basis for discussion within his document. (Scotland, 2012)
explains that different paradigms consist of differing ontological and
epistemological views and therefore present differing assumptions of reality
and knowledge which is embedded within their research approach. Kuhn (1970)
details paradigms as epistemological stances which influences how research
questions are devised and answered, concentrating on a practitioner’s views
about the world within this philosophy of knowledge; affecting the research
design and approaches (Morgan, 2007). The philosophical foundations of each
paradigm can never be proven or disproven as everyone’s assumptions are
speculation; opening up room for debate and inaccuracies. The ontological and
epistemological differences within the paradigms, as stated previously, shape
and scaffold their approach to the research which directly affects the
methodologies and methods used within.

Approaches to Research

The
research approach adopted, depends on the philosophical stance underpinning the
research. Research approaches are plans and processes to build a deeper
understanding about the research; moving a researcher from their initial
assumptions into developing comprehensive methodologies, research design, data
collection and analysis. The main point to deliberate when considering a topic
of study, is which research approach would be best suited to where a
researcher’s philosophical stance lies. It must also be taken into
consideration that your audience may have different philosophical assumptions
(Creswell and Poth, 2017) as they review and critique your research. According
to Creswell (2003) doing your research is about more than philosophical ideas.
These must be combined with broad strategies to research and key methods
considered. More information will be shared about the inductive and deductive
approaches to research.

Reflecting
on the discussion on paradigms previously, it can be noted that each research
approach discussed in the next section will possess differing and conflicting
philosophical stances. Johnson and Christensen (2008) talk about three main
approaches to research which include a quantitative approach, a qualitative
approach and a mixed approach.  I will now
go on to discuss and analyse quantitative and qualitative approaches, each in
isolation and following this, I shall compare the approaches critically. I will
finish by talking briefly about the concept of mixed methods approach to
research.

Quantitative Research  

For
many years, a positivist paradigm was the norm, and quantitative research was
generally the dominant approach to research until around the 1980s. A
positivist paradigm is a philosophical theory which believes that knowledge is
learned through real events that can be observed, measured and explained with
logical analysis (Positivist Paradigm, 2018). The nature of reality in
quantitative research epistemology is objectivist – meaning that situations can be observed independent of personal
experience. There is only one
reality according to Lincoln
& Guba (1985) from the
positivists’ point of view; the knower and the known are independent and the
emphasis is on the theory. A deductive scientific method is taken within this
approach and the ‘top-down method’ is used, where the researcher tests
hypotheses and theory with data (Johnson and Christensen, 2008) – moving from a
general perspective to a more refined and specific one. The positivist paradigm
is directed at explaining connections and relationships. Researchers aim to generate
laws, to help them predict and generalise; this however, depends on the size of
the groups of which data is being gathered. This enables researchers to
understand the world enough, so we might be able to predict and even control aspects
of it. The data gathered is
usually collected through direct experience/observation and by collecting
and analysing data researchers are able to convert it into measurable and
numerical statistics; enabling the analysis of trends, patterns, relationships
and conclusions to be drawn from this information.

A philosophical perspective, based on realist ontology; positivists
attempt to identify causes which affect outcomes in their research (Creswell
and Poth, 2017). Creswell further explains that the process of quantitative
research usually begins with an area of interest from the researcher. This is
usually based on their ontological and epistemological ideas of the world. The
researcher aims to test a theory about their idea by creating narrow hypotheses
or questions and begins to plan and collect data which will support or disprove
the hypothesis. Bryman (2004, quoting Blaikie, 2000, p58) states that
‘establishing research questions or hypotheses makes it possible to select
research strategies and methods with confidence. In other words, a research
project is built on the foundation of research questions’. Gorard (2003) places emphasis on the
importance of a literature review within the quantitative research approach. Finding
a good balance of theory and data is key to a good research project he explains.
Quantitative
research begins with a question or hypothesis where a literature review, which
is an important step in formulating the research question or problem (Cooper,
1998) will help begin to fill the knowledge gap from the initial stages of the
research. The knowledge gained from the literature review is not enough to
define the problem adequately (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003). Using the background
knowledge on the research topic, gained from the formation of a literature
review, not only enables the quantitative researcher to carefully focus their
hypotheses and questions for research, but also allows the researcher to draw
relevant conclusions from the analysed data gathered from the methodology and
methods chosen.

The design of the
research is important. The design provides
specific direction for the actions taken in the research process (Creswell,
2003). There are many variables to consider during the experimental
design phase. The researcher should plan his methodology carefully to
enable him to discover the information he needs in a strategic manner; gathering
the data to help validate the researcher’s hypotheses or questions. The
methodology is influenced by the specific paradigm underpinning the research.
This then affects the data collection methods which are carefully considered
during this phase (Silverman, 1993). A positivist will generally find they make
use of quantitative data gathering tools – celebrating qualitative methods best
suited to the project (Saldana, 2011). Quantitative methods for gathering data
can range from field notes to surveys. Usually samples are gathered in large
numbers; the researcher to be objective and unbiased where they try to find
causal connections and relationships through objective measurement and
quantitative analysis (Firestone, 1987). Each result will be interpreted
differently by each practitioner as each of them thinks in a different way. Quantitative data can help link relationships between any
variables and the outcomes of the research. This data can allow others to
confirm the outcomes by replicating the analysis independently elsewhere (Dudwick, Kuehnast, Jones and Woolcock, 2006: p3). The
final step is to write a report to show a researcher’s findings.

Qualitative Research

Moving
on from the early 1980s, there appeared to be a paradigm shift as many
researchers began to challenge and question a quantitative approach to research
(Morgan, 2007). This change in attitude came from the rising awareness that
statistics and numbers would not meet the requirement to capture the depth of complex
human interactions within the world. As the questions about quantitative
research approaches increased, the development of a constructivist ontological
stance was moving forward. The development of constructivist knowledge claims
became more apparent in which qualitative research became more prominent.

Qualitative
research is concerned with the nature of phenomena (Dieronitou, 2014). The
nature of reality in qualitative research epistemology is subjective – meaning
that the study can be viewed by a
person, through their own perspective and personal experiences. It can take
into account their emotional stance as well as their own bias.  Qualitative research is a
personal process which is socially constructed, there is a focus on analysing
the processes and what they mean – the focus, unlike quantitative research, is
not to measure with numbers and statistics. Qualitative researchers want to
learn from the group of participants’ experiences as they happen and through
their own natural reactions, so the methods chosen by the researcher should
allow for spontaneous discovery to support the intricate human interactions
that occur. The data tends to be gathered through interviews, observations,
focus groups and action research (Marshall and Rossman, 2006). The data
gathered during the qualitative approach is data which is more comprehensive, focusing
on a much smaller number of people compared with quantitative inquiry. Conclusions
are reached through the validation of an outcome in one sample study being
applied to another setting to see how results compare.

Qualitative
analysis aims to capture the depth, breadth and complexity of people’s
experience in their own terms (Labuschagne, 2003). Consequently, the process of
qualitative research differs somewhat from a quantitative research approach.
Because qualitative research is believed by many theorists to be socially
constructed, the importance of spontaneous human interaction and involvement is
significant. Where quantitative research aims to find evidence to prove or
disprove a hypothesis, built on the gaps in their knowledge with which a
literature review demonstrated; qualitative research usually begins with a
problem observed in a setting. Similarly to a quantitative researcher, the problem is usually based
on their ontological and epistemological ideas of the world. The researcher
will use this problem to develop the core aims and objectives of the research.
The research design and methodology are planned thereafter.

The
design of the qualitative research is also important. Next I will go on to discuss
some qualitative designs, however it is important to note that this list is
non-exhaustive as I have only chosen only a few to define.

According
to Saldana (2011) qualitative research can possess a range of differing
elements and styles within the design. Saldana talks about the element of
ethnography where he explains it as observing and recording people in their own
social surroundings to build an awareness of their culture over a prolonged
period of time. Creswell (2003) explains that the process of ethnography can be
quite flexible. Saldana (2011) goes on to discuss differing approaches to the
design process of qualitative research through the element of grounded theory,
which he defines as an analytic process of comparing small pieces of
information to build a bigger picture and develop a greater understanding (Saldana,
2011). Grounded theory is a research design process where reliable
characterising and cumulative coding cycles are involved to observe any
categories that might begin to accumulate within the research – to build a
bigger picture of the research data. Furthermore, Crewell (2003) explains that a
researcher using grounded theory attempts to develop a general theory of a
process, action or interaction within in the views of the participants of the
study, which will enable the researcher to find out what the heart of the
research is about (Morrow, 2005; Saldana, 2011; Wutich and Bernard, 2016). This
methodology helps to generate a theory about the processes observed by a
qualitative researcher (Saldana, 2011). Phenomenology is further discussed as
understanding lived experiences from the participants, which can be seen as
both a method and also a philosophy according to Creswell (2003). Qualitative
methods for gathering data include personal
interviews, participant observations, focus groups, personal accounts of
individuals and personal constructs (Dash, 2005) and how a researcher considers
the data from these methods, depends on the method used. Each result will also be
interpreted differently by each practitioner as each of them thinks in a
different way. Good qualitative research
requires skill and a clear purpose. Unlike
quantitative research, the problem identified at the beginning of the research is
not one that needs an extensive literature review to develop a hypothesis.  

Quantitative Approach Vs Qualitative Approach

I
will now look at both approaches discussed earlier and begin to build a
comparative analysis of the strengths and potential weaknesses of each. Quantitative
and qualitative research have been viewed for many years as two separate
entities. Quantitative and qualitative approaches to research vary in their
principles and their processes. Both approaches vary in the logical structure
of the process – the research design, the methods used and how conclusions are
drawn from each. Qualitative and quantitative researchers also have differing
paradigmatic ideas – which initially
seems problematic in terms of a pragmatic approach to research, which will be
discussed later in this paper. Let us begin by first considering the
paradigmatic contrasts that appear between the two approaches.

Paradigm Comparison

Many
qualitative researchers have different epistemological assumptions compared
with quantitative researchers. These provide the basis for the entire research.
Quantitative researchers believe in the positivist paradigm.
Quantitative research is associated with objectivity – where a range of
observers agree on what is being observed (Johnson and Christensen, 2008).
Quantitative research tends to be deductive – where a conclusion follows from questions
or hypotheses agreed at the beginning of the process. Qualitative research
tends to be inductive –understanding the meaning of individuals or groups
(Creswell and Poth, 2017). However, according to Patel (n.d) some quantitative
research can be more inductive just like some qualitative research, although
usually inductive – allowing for social exploring – can also be used to support
a rigid, deductive hypothesis too. Interestingly however, Kuhn (1970) states
that there can be a ‘sort of’ scientific research without paradigms completely.
Morgan (2007) disregards the notion of the earlier claim by Kuhn that a
positivist paradigm in the social sciences existed at all, and believes that it
did not dominate social science research. He believes it to be an interpretation
of history rather than a statement about real information and facts. Is it therefore
possible to question whether these different paradigms even exist? Could there
be potential for them to be amalgamated? Or like Kuhn begins to explain in an
aspect of his discussion, which is backed up by Morgan’s drastic claim, can
these paradigms be omitted altogether? Further discussion can be found later in
this assignment.

The Research Design

Quantitative
and qualitative approaches to research differ in the way that the research is
planned, controlled and conducted. Prior to the mixed methods approach – which
will be discussed later, the two approaches to research depend on a
researcher’s philosophical stance as a practitioner. Positivists believe that quantitative methodology is
carefully designed to remove subjective elements from their inquiry –
highlighting the value of neutrality (Dieronitou, 2014). On the other hand, Marshall
and Rossman (2006) argue that in qualitative research, because the researcher tends
to be more personally involved in the research, certain qualitative approaches
can run the risk of being biased or too reflective of the researcher’s own
prejudgements or assumptions. Does this then impact on the validity of the
research? Creswell and Poth (2017) state that remaining objective is an important
part of any skilled inquiry. Is it possible for a qualitative researcher to
plan and design a research inquiry which remains neutral?

It
could be possible that both quantitative and qualitative approaches may find
this difficult because a researcher is only human. It could therefore be argued
that all researchers naturally possesses predetermined individual perceptions
and assumptions that automatically make all research methodology bias. Could it
be further argued then, that qualitative research methodology may perhaps have more of an advantage in controlling
this? Since qualitative research allows for some flexibility within the
methodology (Saldana, 2011) could it be possible that qualitative researchers,
because of their higher involvement within the research, can repair any
‘damage’ as it evolves? Or can a better way of designing the research be found?

Quantitative
research methodology is planned to test the initial hypotheses or questions at
the start of the research, using carefully planned data gathering tools.
Creswell and Poth (2017) believes that an advantage to quantitative design is
the gathering of data which makes it easy to generalise and replicate the
findings for future inquiries. It can be argued that because qualitative design
is a more socially complex process, where the researcher uses their assumptions
are their own unique interpretations of the data collected (Creswell and Poth,
2017) and create their own individual meaning during the analysis phase,
implying that this process is a much more complex one. It would therefore
appear from this discussion that qualitative design is much more difficult to
replicate compared to quantitative methodology. In the defence of qualitative
methodology, Tsai, et al., (2016) discuss an advantage to quantitative research
is that the data gathered can be anonymised and the statistical codes used
during this process which can be easily shared and replicated (Gandrud, 2013;
Peng 2009). So it appears that the question now is more about the data
collection tools used and the way that the data is considered and analysed.

Methods for Collecting and Analysing Data

The
research approaches differ in the preferred ways of gathering data and the way
that the data is analysed, presented and validated. The design principles and
structure need to be carefully planned and considered to ensure that the right information
is gathered and analysed in a strategic manner to support the validation process
of the researcher’s problem, question or hypothesis. According to Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) there are six
different methods for collecting data. These include, interviews, observations,
questionnaires, focus groups, tests and secondary data. Researchers choose the
methods to collect the data which they believe will get the best results from
the participants of the research. The tools used to collect this data should be
carefully considered.

Quantitative
research is deductive, structured and controlled. Quantitative data is usually
gathered to measure the impact, amount or frequency (Saldana, 2011; Firestone,
1987). Labuschagne (2003)
explainsthat the
advantage of the quantitative approach is that it measures a large amount of
people and their reactions/ideas/opinions within a limited set of questions.
This therefore provides the researcher with a large set of results which allows
for a simple and reliable collection and comparison of numerical data. It
allows for variables to be examined, measured and transferred into numerical
data to help analysis. Horkheimer (1972)
criticises quantitative research and the positivist paradigm, suggesting that failing
to take into consideration human values, cultural beliefs and morals is wrong.
Humans are people with emotions and beliefs and if we disregard this when they
are at the heart of our research then are we missing a vital component of the
research process? Qualitative
research, on the other hand, is inductive, exploratory and open-ended which
relies on spontaneous human interactions. Qualitative data is usually gathered
to deepen a researcher’s understanding of something; to build in a researcher’s
own inference, empathy and perception which helps to enrich the research
(Saldana, 2011). As we know, it is impossible for a researcher to completely
remove themselves from the research because they are only human. However, if
positivists would accept the notion of their research approach not being wholly
objective, does this mean that positivists could argue against Horkheimer’s
criticism? Or can it be argued that researchers’ own emotions influence and impact
negatively towards the validity of the data? A
discussion surrounding the implications of validity and bias arises later in
this section.

Qualitative
data can be analysed in a more holistic manner compared to quantitative
research. Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) believe
that qualitative coding of data can be sorted by scores on a quantitative
measure. In doing so can allow the researcher to notice trends, patterns in a
numerical fashion which can help provide a better insight into the initial
research problem, hypothesis or question. The added bonus of quantifying some
of the qualitative data is that the researcher can represent the bigger picture
– a more holistic picture of the data and reasons for the patterns and trends.
This is an advantage to the qualitative research approach, however the
potential question is, would the intersection of the two methods still allow
the qualitative researcher to remain within their own philosophical views and
beliefs? If the researcher is still allowed to explore human interactions and the
social constructivist concept, then I do believe that this remains within their
paradigmatic beliefs. Further to this discussion, Morrow (2005) noted that
dealing with people is a challenge. People are complex beings with a range of
emotions, opinions and cultural beliefs. This means that the knowledge that
qualitative researchers can develop from the approach that they take, are
complex, can be ‘large’ sample sizes (for the depth of data being gathered and
analysed these samples would be considered ’large’) and responses to the data
collection instruments can be varied quite significantly. Creswell (2003) would
argue that this complex volume of information can potentially blur the
researcher’s focus on what they are truly looking for in their research.  

Validity, Reliability and Bias

It
is paramount that as a researcher, your philosophical stance, the methodology,
methods and analysis are trustworthy and valid. Your paradigmatic underpinnings
throughout the entire research are embedded throughout. Gorard (2003) believes
that currently in time, a solely quantitative approach to research can often be
quite a weak approach to research. He also believes there to be many social
science journals which are full of basic arithmetic errors due to the
statistics and numerical values being largely unchecked. This begins to make me
wonder how trustworthy this is as an approach to research and question the
reliability of the data presented from the use of these methods.

Labuschagne
(2003) explains that many scientists who regularly participate in quantitative
research believe qualitative research to be unclear and almost ‘not real’. Qualitative
research situations tend to
be viewed by one person – relying on their sole personal experience, emotion,
and bias. Positivists believe that it is their job as
researchers to put aside their opinions and biases in order to remain
objective. As discussed earlier, it is unclear exactly how this objectivity can
be monitored and measured – whether the approach can be fully, authentically
objective. Morrow (2005, citing Scriven, 1972) explains that it is not right to
associate objectivity with quantitative and subjectivity with qualitative as,
Morrow continues to explain, all research is subject to bias.

Constructivists
believe that this just is not possible to escape bias. If both approaches hold
different philosophical beliefs which lie in the foundations of the research
approaches, then the concept of objectivity is already invalid. The qualitative
researcher needs to demonstrate that their personal interest will not affect
the study in terms of bias (Marshall and Rossman, 2006) as well as attempt to
develop a method of triangulation. However, Morrow (2005) explains that some
researchers will try hard to control or manage elements of subjectivity
however, depending on the paradigmatic underpinnings, they may embrace
subjectivity and use it as data.

Triangulation
is split into two separate terms according to Johnson and Christensen (2008).
They discuss methods triangulation and data triangulation. A qualitative
researcher looking to enhance the validity of their research could use methods
triangulation where they use more than one method (grounded theory,
phenomenology etc). Or they could use a range of data gathering tools,
discussed earlier in this section.

Ethical Implications

Prior
to conducting any research, ethical and moral considerations must be carefully planned
and explored in depth. Ethical attitudes can be difficult to measure. Maccoby
(1976, cited in Kidwell and Kidwell, 2007) identified different head/heart
characteristics to which Kidwell and Kidwell talk about the danger of an
imbalance between heart and head. They suggest that this would demonstrate a
lack of concern about ethics if the imbalance was in the ‘head’ region. A qualitative
researcher has an ethical obligation to discuss ethical issues and how she will
approach them (Marshall and Rossman, 2016). This is because qualitative
research produces words. Special care should be taken, ethically and morally,
to check that the words spoken by the participant are correct from the person
who spoke them and not based on the researcher’s interpretation of the words. Tsai
et al. (2016) discuss the difficulty with qualitative research and anonymity as
it is less efficiently anonymised to prevent any breaches of confidentiality. A
quantitative researcher generally deals with numbers and statistics which poses
less of a threat to a breach of ethical rules. It is easier for a quantitative
researcher to keep data anonymous. It does not mean however that quantitative
research is a more ethical process than qualitative. It just means that ethical
awareness should be carefully considered in both approaches.

Mixed Methods and Conclusion

It
appears that through the comparison of both these approaches that there seems
to be a number of common themes. According to Newman and Benz (1998, cited in
Creswell and Poth, 2017) the situation now, in this moment in our lives as
practitioners, is less qualitative versus quantitative and more about how
research approaches lie somewhere on a continuum between the two. Creswell and
Poth (2017) see a distinct form of qualitative inquiry where quantitative and
qualitative research can be linked in what they define as ‘mixed methods’.

Some
key differences between qualitative and quantitative research paradigms mostly
lie in the epistemological and ontological assumptions. If this is true then
how can merging these two approaches work? Morgan (2007, citing Smith and
Heshusius, 1986) explains their strong beliefs about constructivism and
positivism and how the two are considered by them to be completely separate
entities which should not be combined. Other researchers like Lincoln & Guba (1985) believe that
qualitative and quantitative approaches to research are not able to be combined.
(Creswell, 2003) believes that if the researcher is careful and skilled in what
they do, then there should be no problem in combining the two approaches.

As
discussed in depth previously, it is known that quantitative and qualitative
research methods address different research designs. Dieronitou (2014) believes
that there are aspects within these approaches which complement each other and
could be combined. Morgan (2007)
discusses the importance of first considering whether or not these research
approaches are possible, in paradigmatic term before tackling the question of
whether a combination of them is desirable. However, Creswell (2003, citing
Patton, 1990) states that knowledge claims in mixed methods come from actions
and situations and focuses on finding solutions to problems. The main point of
this approach is really the research problem. Furthermore, researchers can use any
approaches to research which best suit their research needs. Practitioners who
are under these knowledge claims are called pragmatists. Pragmatists open up
the world of research to a much more free inquiry which focuses on finding a
breadth of solutions to research problems using a wide range of approaches and
instruments to collect and triangulate the data. Pragmatism appears to
be a forward-thinking concept for detailed, reliable research which appears to
be changing the world of research rapidly.

References

• Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bunniss, S. and Kelly, D. (2010). Research paradigms in medical education research. Medical Education, 44(4), pp.358-366.
• Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research. Thousand Oaks, Cal. [u.a.]: SAGE Publ.
• Creswell, J. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. 2^nd ed. London. SAGE.
• Creswell, J. and Poth, C. (2017). Qualitative inquiry & research design. 4th ed. London. SAGE Publications Ltd.
• Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. London [u.a.]: SAGE.
• Dash, N. (2005). Research Methods Resource – Selection of the Research Paradigm and Methodology. [online] Celt.mmu.ac.uk. Available at: http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/researchmethods/Modules/Selection_of_methodology/  [Accessed 21 Jan. 2018].
• Dieronitou, I. (2014). THE ONTOLOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES TO RESEARCH. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, [online] 2(10). Available at: http://ijecm.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/210.pdf [Accessed 20 Jan. 2018].
• Dudwick, N., Kuehnast, K., Jones, V. N., and Woolcock, M. (2006) Analyzing Social Capital in Context: A Guide to Using Qualitative Methods and Data, World Bank Institute, Washington. 
• Firestone, WA. (1987). Meaning in Method: The Rhetoric of Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Educational Research, 16: 16–21.
• Gandrud, C., Reproducible Research with R and R Studio. Chapman and Hall/CRC, London (2013)
• Gorard, S. (2003). Quantitative Methods in Social Science. London: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.
• Guba, E. (1998). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park: Sage.
• Horkheimer (1972). Critical Theory. New York: Herder and Herder
• Johnson, B. and Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Approaches. London: Sage.
• Kidwell, L. and Kidwell, R. (2007). Do the Numbers Add Up to Different Views? Perceptions of Ethical Faculty Behaviour Among Faculty in Quantitative Versus Qualitative Disciplines. Journal of Business Ethics, [online] 78(1-2), pp.141-151.
• Available at: http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=bb6e802b-3402-4680-974f-c92bdecedaec%40sessionmgr4006 [Accessed 21 Jan. 2018].
• Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In: International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, 2nd ed. London: THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS LTD.
• Labuschagne, A. (2003). Qualitative Research – Airy Fairy or Fundamental?. The Qualitative Report,8(1), 100-103. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol8/iss1/7
• Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Brantford, Ont.: W. Ross MacDonald School Resource Services Library.
• Marshall, C and Rossman, G. (2006). Designing Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
• Morgan, D. (2007). Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), pp.48-76.
• Morrow, S. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counselling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), pp.250-260.
• Peng, R.D., (2009). Reproducible research and biostatistics, 10 (3) (2009), pp. 405-408
• Positivist Paradigm. (2018). Leong (encyc), [online] 2, p.343. Available at: http://personal.denison.edu/~kaboubf/Pub/2008-Positivist-Paradigm.pdf [Accessed 13 Jan. 2018].
• Patel, Z. (n.d.). CRITICAL EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT RESEARCH PARADIGMS.
• Saldana, J., (2011). Fundamentals of Qualitative Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA.
• Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the Philosophical Underpinnings of Research: Relating Ontology and Epistemology to the Methodology and Methods of the Scientific, Interpretive, and Critical Research Paradigms. English Language Teaching, 5(9).
• Shadish, W.(1995). Philosophy of Science and the Quantitative-Qualitative Debates, Evaluation and Program Planning, 18(1) 63-75
• Silverman, D. (1993).  Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. London: SAGE Publications.
• Smith J., & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Educational Leadership, 15(12), 4-12.
• Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (1998). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioural research. Thousand Oaks, Calif. [u.a.]: Sage.
• Tsai, A., Kohrt, B., Matthews, L., Betancourt, T., Lee, J., Papachristos, A., Weiser, S. and Dworkin, S. (2016). Promises and pitfalls of data sharing in qualitative research. Social Science & Medicine, [online] 169, pp.191-198. Available at: https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0277953616304269/1-s2.0-S0277953616304269-main.pdf?_tid=17098bb8-fde6-11e7-ac50-00000aacb35d&acdnat=1516455221_63c543e50d52c0c64f27d8394c3418f2. [Accessed 19 Jan. 2018]
• Wutich, A. and Bernard, H. (2016). Sharing qualitative data & analysis. With whom and how widely?: A response to ‘Promises and pitfalls of data sharing in qualitative research’. Social Science & Medicine, [online] 169, pp.199-200. Available at: https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0277953616305573/1-s2.0-S0277953616305573-main.pdf?_tid=3d4fe484-fde6-11e7-96d5-00000aacb362&acdnat=1516455277_31f949f750cd05d3a2b500504a66a571  [Accessed 20 Jan. 2018]