PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10885211

Quantitative vs qualitative research methods.

M Lakshman·L Sinha·M Biswas·M Charles·N K Arora
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Quantitative methods have been widely used because of the fact that things that can be measured or counted gain scientific credibility over the unmeasurable. But the extent of biological abnormality, severity, consequences and the impact of illness cannot be satisfactorily captured and answered by the quantitative research alone. In such situations qualitative methods take a holistic perspective preserving the complexities of human behavior by addressing the "why" and "how" questions. In this paper an attempt has been made to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of both the methods and also that a balanced mix of both qualitative as well as quantitative methods yield the most valid and reliable results.

Explore related subjects

Data CollectionHumansResearchResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Lakshman, L Sinha, M Biswas, M Charles, N K Arora. 2000. Quantitative vs qualitative research methods.. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02820690

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2001

The complementarity of phenomenology, hermeneutics and existentialism as a philosophical perspective for nursing research.

The focus of this paper draws on the thinking of Husserl, Dilthey and Heidegger to identify elements of the phenomenological movement that can provide focus and direction for qualitative research in nursing. The authors interpret this tradition in two ways: emphasizing the possible complementarity of phenomenology, hermeneutics and existentialism, and demonstrating how these emphases ask for grounding, reflexivity and humanization in qualitative research. The paper shows that the themes of grounding, reflexivity and humanization are particularly important for nursing research.

Data Collection↗
PubMed2001

Potential exposure of hands inside protective gloves-a summary of data from non-agricultural pesticide surveys.

The results of individual surveys are compared and general observations are made about the protective nature of protective gloves. A total of 190 measurements of contamination by involatile components of pesticide products were made inside the gloves. Protective gloves were nearly always found to be contaminated inside, except for public hygiene insecticide uses. Disposable gloves were sometimes used when applying public hygiene insecticides, while gloves worn for other applications were normally re-used. The data suggest that when expressing inner glove exposure as 'amount of product per unit time', the data distributions of the non-zero results appeared similar for all activities except for the application of antifoulings. A median value for all non-zero data was indicated at 1.36mg product per minute; a 75th percentile at 4.21mg min(-1) and a 95th percentile at 71.9mg min(-1), assuming product densities of 1.0g ml(-1). In default of better information, these indicators can be used in health-based risk assessment. A further 47 data related to exposure inside new gloves, and 21 data to deposition on outer gloves. These indicate that in general, gloves provide a reasonable degree of protection to non-agricultural pesticides. Due regard should be paid to 'human factors' when considering contamination inside gloves. When people take off dirty gloves, it is difficult to avoid touching the glove exterior. With gloves off, the subject can touch contaminated surfaces. Donning dirty gloves furnishes an inevitable contact with contamination on the outside of the gloves, and can introduce that contamination inside. A common mode of contamination could contribute to the similar distributions for hand contamination inside gloves, from very different uses.

Data Collection↗