Running head: CRITICAL LOOK AT RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Quantitative and Qualitative Research: A Critical Look at Research Methodology

Josephine Chen, Laura Yankov, Michelle Relova
University of British Columbia

CRITICAL LOOK AT RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Quantitative and Qualitative Research:

A Critical Look at Research Methodology
This paper will analyze, critique, and compare the quantitative study, Can Instructional
and Emotional Support in the First- Grade Classroom Make a Difference for Children at Risk of
School Failure?, conducted by Bridget Hamre & Robert Pianta (2005) and the qualitative study,
Developing Teacher Epistemological Sophistication About Multicultural Curriculum: A Case
Study, performed by Christine Sleeter (2011). Furthermore, the findings from this analysis will
be considered for future research that will be conducted in this course.
Analysis and Critique of Quantitative Research
Hamre and Pianta used causal-comparative research to examine the experiences of
children, at risk of early school failure, in high-quality classrooms. By employing proportional
stratified sampling to identify subgroups of students, either demographically or functionally,
Hamre and Pianta's study was conducted with 910 grade one students from ten different cities in
the United States. The main demographic risk indicator found was low maternal education
(mothers with less than four years of college education) with the functional risk factors of
behaviour, attention, social and academic problems. As a result, Hamre and Pianta developed a
series of hypotheses, and conducted quantitative correlation research. The variables identified in
their study included at-risk children, and instructional and emotional teacher support. Their
quantitative study relied heavily on standardized tests, rating scales, and observations. Using this
method of study, Hamre and Pianta were able to avoid the ethical concerns of placing at-risk

CRITICAL LOOK AT RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

students in low support classrooms that participants may have surfaced if this study were
conducted using an experimental research method.
While Hamre and Pianta went to great extents when attempting to create a reliable and
valid quantitative study, findings suggested that Type I errors may have been present, thus
harming the statistical significance (Hamre & Pianta, 2005) and the ability to translate the results
to other similar areas of research (Gay, Mills & Airasian, 2012). Additionally, while there was
an effort to create a longitudinal study that examined children over an extended period of time,
Hamre and Pianta only collected data at two intervals, therefore missing valuable data on the
childrens true level of risk. Preferably, the authors would have collected data more frequently
and included a greater number of children at-risk of poverty.
Analysis and Critique of Qualitative Research
The research conducted by Sleeter, in contrast, was more personal and descriptive. Her
qualitative approach, captured through a case study, examined the complexity and uniqueness of
teaching and learning through a single participant. The research question focused on the
development of teachers thinking about curriculum and illuminated the relationship between
learning and teaching strategies. Through this qualitative study the complexity of an individuals
personal experience was highlighted.
However, case studies are not without their criticism as they suffer from low external
validity as they cannot be generalized to larger groups (Gay et al., 2012). In this example, an
ongoing examination of the participant would provide meaningful data on how the learning was
sustained or evolved over a period of time. Furthermore this would strengthen the author's

CRITICAL LOOK AT RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

claims of success by avoiding making "premature decisions or assumptions about the study"
(Gay et al., p. 16, 2012).

Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research

Researchers are often faced with making challenging decisions to ensure that their
research can be conducted in an effective and efficient manner. Qualitative and quantitative
research methods differ in many aspects, providing researchers with choice in the methodology
that will best meet their research "aims and needs" (Gay et al., p. 142, 2012). The two articles
examined highlight a number of notable differences between the two research methods, each
presenting their own strengths and weaknesses.
Significant Differences
There are a number of significant differences between Hamre & Pianta's quantitative
study and Sleeter's qualitative study, with the major differences emerging from the core
characteristics of the two research methods. In Hamre & Pianta quantitative research, the
problem is written with a hypothesis, while Sleeters study begins by identifying key questions.
To test the hypothesis, Hamre & Pianta employed a random (stratified) sampling to maximize
validity and include a broad sample of students. On the other hand, the qualitative example
selected only one participant, the one believed to best add to the understanding (Gay et al, p.
142, 2012) and "catch the complexity of [the] single case (Sleeter, p. 52, 2011).

CRITICAL LOOK AT RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In Hamre & Piantas quantitative research, data was collected twice, with results studied
and analyzed using the Analysis of Covariance model. By contrast, Sleeter employed research
journals, observational field notes, and face-to-face interviews to collect data on an ongoing
basis. This data was used to triangulate evidence and provide detailed descriptions of the study's
findings.
Another noteworthy difference was in the literature examined. Hamre and Piantas
review of pertinent literature played an important role in their study, particularly as the intent of
the study was to build on a previous research. Their review of other quantitative studies helped
them in defining their field of study, identifying gaps in knowledge, and defining the variables
under investigation. In the qualitative study, the literature review outlined key aspects of the
study, laying the foundation for Sleeter's rationale in her research. Through anecdotal notes, and
observations, and reflections on the rubric analysis, Sleeter shed light on the impact that the
findings of her study uncovered.
Concluding the research, Hamre and Pianta verified their hypotheses using objective
findings represented by numeric data to support their arguments. In their conclusion they also
recognized certain limitations in their study, which can affect the generalizability of the
outcomes. Sleeters conclusions were based on the growth experienced by the participant
illuminated her subjective observations. Sleeter was less conservative in the discussion of her
findings as she presented her findings confidently while acknowledging the limitations of the
generalizability of her study.
Methodologies for Future Research
Qualitative studies seem to be easier to conduct, since the research questions drive

CRITICAL LOOK AT RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

the procedures, selection of participants, and context. It also provides some insights into the
participants individual experience. However, a qualitative study has some disadvantages. First, it
is not always possible to generalize the result of a case study to larger populations. Second, it
requires the researcher to have strong skills in observation, interview and critique of artifacts.
Finally, I think that in a qualitative study, the researcher puts himself/herself at risk of bias due to
possible personal connections with the participants and the necessity of making personal
statements.
Quantitative studies, on the other hand, are driven by a hypothesis and the
purpose of the research is to prove or disprove that hypothesis. They seem to be more valuable
in regards to the process of selecting participants, collecting and analyzing data and reporting
results. Validity, reliability and generalization are important aspects of a quantitative research in
order to demonstrate a truth. However, a quantitative study may not provide insights into how
or why some results may occur and it may also become quite a challenging task when making
sense of statistical analysis.
For my personal research I am interested in both quantitative and qualitative
methods. I am inclined to create a quantitative study providing meaningful data to help me make
professional decisions in my teaching practice. However, the depth of information and causal
factors that can be established through a qualitative method also appeal to me, making me think
about using both of these methods of research.

CRITICAL LOOK AT RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

References:
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational research:
Competencies for analysis and applications (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey:
Pearson.
Hamre, B.K., & Pianta, R.C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first- grade
classroom made a difference for children at risk of school failure? In L.R. Gay, G.E.
Mills & P. Airasian, Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications
(10th ed.) (pp. 33-50). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Sleeter, C. (2009). Developing teacher epistemological sophistication about multicultural
curriculum: A case study. In L.R. Gay, G.E. Mills & P. Airasian, Educational
research: Competencies for analysis and applications (10th ed.) (pp. 51-59). Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.