Research Methods in Politics 4

1. Research Methods in Politics4 Qualitative versus Quantitative Methods: a continuing but outdated argument? Research Methods in Politics: Chapter 4

2. Qualitative v. Quantitative Methods: • ‘Quantitative research is hard and reliable . . . qualitative research is deep and rich’ (Bryman, 1996: 94).1 • ‘Qualitative and quantitative methodsare more than just differences between research strategies and data collection procedures. These approaches represent fundamentally different epistemological frameworks for conceptualising the nature of knowing, social reality, and procedures for comprehending those phenomena’. (Filstead, 1979: 45).2 Research Methods in Politics: Chapter 4

3. Teaching and Learning Objectives • to understand the origins, merits, strengths and weaknesses, claims and counter-claims of qualitative and quantitative research; • to consider whether ‘mixed methods’ are incompatible with best research scholarship; • to enable you to reach and defend your own preferences Research Methods in Politics: Chapter 4

4. Comparative Characteristics 1 Research Methods in Politics: Chapter 4

5. Comparative Characteristics 2 Research Methods in Politics: Chapter 4

6. Quantitative Methods • strengths • widespread acceptance, scientific, credible, dependable, preferred by news media, objective, bias-free • weaknesses and criticisms • positivistic, unable to grasp complexities of social world, sterile • defence and counter claims • can be applied to most social world, less imperfect than qualitative methods, statistical analysis identifies margins of error, most concepts can be represented by proxy-indicators, ‘puts science into political science’, ‘hard and reliable’ Research Methods in Politics: Chapter 4

7. Qualitative Methods • strengths • best suited to tackle and understand complexities of social world, unique capacity to learn and understand underlying values of individuals and groups, enables minorities to be studied who would be overlooked by sample surveys or unwilling to disclose their identities, empowers subjects • weaknesses and criticisms • soft option, subjective, unreliable, anecdotal, exaggerated, outlier-based, participation contaminates the social field, agents provocateurs, unscientific, no audit trail • defence and counter-claims • intellectually-demanding, only means to address minorities, accepts that language is never neutral, rigorous analysis of talk and text now available using software, audit trail created, good supervision eliminates extent of bias and over-identification, ‘rich and deep’ Research Methods in Politics: Chapter 4

8. ‘Mixed Methods’ • best of both worlds? OR • ontologically and epistemologically incompatible? • advantages of synergy, corroboration, triangulation • mixed methods more widely accepted where • one method is dominant • other used in secondary, supportive manner • example 1: election turnout: • example 2: increasing abstention Research Methods in Politics: Chapter 4

9. Questions for Discussion or Assignments 1 What do you understand by quantitative and qualitative methods? 2 Summarise the main claims and counter-claims of quantitative and qualitative methods. Which do you regard as more appropriate to research in Politics? Why? • You are asked to carry out research to test critically Galbraith’s ‘culture of contentment’ thesis. What method(s) would you use? Why? 4 Mixed methods: Are they ever justified? Choose and defend an example (of mixed methods) which supports your position Research Methods in Politics: Chapter 4