Evidence Based Practitioner

Marshall and Rossman (2006) stated that the issue of applicability, consistency and neutrality must be addressed whenever every systematic inquiry into human condition is executed. There are some critiques of qualitative research namely reliability/dependability, generalization/transferability, flexibility, time consuming, objectivity/confirmability, credibility/believability, and sampling/variables.

Itroduction: Evidence-based practice is an approach to medicine that uses scientific evidence to determine the best practice (Beyea & Slattery, 2006). As nurses perform their daily tasks they must continually ask themselves, “What is the evidence for this intervention?”. Nurses are well positioned to question current nursing practices and use evidence to make care more effective. In order to improve patients’ outcomes it is the responsibility of the nurse to transition evidence-based practice into the norm, through application of daily practice (Flynn Makic, Rauen, Watson & Will Poteet, 2014). Continual evaluation of current practice must be performed to ensure the use of evidence-based practice opposed to practice based upon tradition. The implementation of evidence-based practice standardizes healthcare practices and diminishes groundless variations within care. These variations lead to the production of uncertain health outcomes (Stevens, 2013).

For reference, evidence based practice (EBP) is defined as “the integration of the best available research with clinical expertise in the context of patient characteristics, culture and preferences” (American Psychological Association, 2005, p.5).

Qualitative research can often be labelled as biased and anecdotal however Anderson (2010) argues that when carried out rigorously it can be unbiased, in-depth and creditable, in fact becoming a leading research method for evidence based nursing. White (2006) explains that when the research is based on people’s perceptions then qualitative research is appropriate, it aids in developing an understanding for peoples understanding, feelings values and opinions. Qualitative research seeks to develop explanations for social trends/events, thus encouraging detail and depth whilst creating openness (Bamberger, 2000). In addition IVONNE (2004) reasons that qualitative research gives brand new insights by providing differing ideas on current practices. On the other hand, Abawl (2008) highlights that data collection can be very time consuming, open to interpretation and consequently influenced by researcher bias.

This research intends to achieve a qualitative paradigm to allow for in depth opinions and perceptions to be sought (Holliday, 2016; Saldana, 2015). Flick (2008) describes qualitative research to be an ‘interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world’ that

“Qualitative research aims to generate in-depth accounts from individuals and groups by talking with them, watching their behaviour, and analysing their artefacts”. (Kuper, 2008 P.288) The qualitative

In particular, qualitative researchers tend to focus more on the social-constructed reality and the contextual influence, interaction and constraints between the researcher(s) and the participants. They are interested in finding answers to questions that focus on the “social construction of experience and how meaning is created” (Cooper & White, 2012, p. 15). However, quantitative researchers “emphasize measurement and analysis, and focus on product rather than process” (Cooper & White, 2012, p. 15). Quantitative researchers perceive reality as observable and external so that they are interested in conducting research which is based on measurement or calculation. Therefore, it is the ontological and epistemological beliefs that usually drive the methodological preferences, but what helps the researchers make their final decisions about research methods is the guiding research question(s). Sechrest and Sidani (1995) point out the commonality that both methodologies “describe their data, construct explanatory arguments form their data, and speculate about why the outcomes they observed happened as they did (p. 78)”. Both research methodologies need to address issues of either validity or credibility, make the data unbiased and the research design as rigorous as possible.

Research encompasses a large range of activities which can be incorporated into everyday professional practice. Research data and methods can be put into two categories – quantitative and qualitative. The social sciences have been a quantitative field since its conception but a qualitative approach to psychological research has gained

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 pragmatic approach has also been taken into consideration within this paper. I will discuss in detail about human perception and assumption and the impact that this can have on research investigation. I will critically discuss and compare the epistemological differences of quantitative and qualitative research approaches with an additional focus on a mixed method approach. I will consider the strengths and weaknesses of the three approaches, the differences in the research design and methodologies and present a logical academic argument to detail my understanding.

Adopting explicit evaluation criteria increases the transparency of the research and provides the researcher with the means to highlight the strengths and limitations of that particular research (Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A., 2008). According to Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2008), one of the reasons that lead to a poor-quality research is when a qualitative research is assessed with the help of evaluation criteria adopted from quantitative research and vice-versa. Conducting a quantitative research requires gathering data from a large number of samples whereas in qualitative research, generally, data is collected from a relatively smaller number of participants and the focus is on understanding the participants social world in depth through probing, asking questions and case studies. When conducting a qualitative research, the question shouldn’t be “How many interviews do I need to do to get my theory accepted”? According to Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2008), by asking this question, the logic of quantitative acceptability enters into qualitative research. As mentioned earlier, assessing a qualitative research with the evaluation criteria adopted from quantitative research leads to a poor quality research and vice-versa. Instead, when evaluating qualitative research as a good-quality research, the focus should be on the materials obtained from the interviews, quality of the interviews and the logic through which a researcher makes

As Fred Kerlinger (1999) has mentioned about quantitative research, “There's no such thing as qualitative data. Everything is either 1 or 0”, quantitative research approach is an approach

Quantitative and qualitative research methods differ in the results products and suit different research studies depending on the practicality, purpose, nature and aim of studies (Saunders et al, 2012; Denscombe, 2014; Cameron and Price, 2009). Quantitative research involves quantifying, numerical data analysis to a large sample of participants producing statistical data (Grix, 2004; Strauss and Corbin, 1998; Veal, 1997). Qualitative research generally embroils a much smaller sample size which focuses on attainment rich information on participants’ personal experiences (Veal, 2006; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Therefore, quantitative research studies a narrow range of information from the experiences for a larger sample size and qualitative studies research a broader range of experiences from a much smaller sample of participants (Patton, 2002).

Qualitative analysis essentially places a heavier demand upon the involvement of the researcher in designing the frame for data analysis and the manner in which this analysis is carried out. This means that the qualitative research must plumb through a considerable amount of research and data in order to whittle down observational findings to a set of relevant and useful resolutions. And indeed, after the processes of observation and information gathering, it can be both time-consuming and intellectually taxing to reduce these findings to the most meaningful and relevant indicators available. This difficulty is further intensified by the inherently complicated task of clearly

For many who are new to research, there is little difference between quantitative and qualitative research. Key words to define quantitative research include empirical and statistics, while words to denote qualitative include subjective and naturalistic. However, for many research scholars, the differences between the models are vast. Much of the debate centers around validity that surrounds the heterogeneous methods used to determine outcomes in qualitative research (Madill & Gough, 2008). Opposing views see use of a variety of methods in qualitative research as a context driven, useful approach, that contributes unique ideas to science (Madill & Gough, 2008). For those who keep the debate alive, Walsh (2012) makes the point that perhaps, the debate lies within the realm of ego or, “who is “right” and who is “wrong” (p. 10). Regardless, in truth the past twenty years has seen the convergence of research using both quantitative and qualitative data. All one needs to do is explore a database using the two methods as the search term; results abound showing integration. Integration has been allowed through the rigorous pursuit of empiricism through more standardized data collection and analysis in qualitative research (Madill & Gough, 2008). Qualitative research has come a long way toward understanding the need for standards of practice in methodology. Thus, combining each method toward a comprehensive approach is a more pragmatic way of studying phenomenon.

Most important, both quantitative and qualitative research methods are fundamental towards fulfillment of voids; or perhaps, gaps of unknown phenomena from a vast existent body of knowledge. For example, “research is a systematic process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting information (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013, p. 2). For example, research does not consist of merely locating information pertaining to a topic presented within an argumentative stance based entirely on theories derived from various sources without substantiated evidence utilized in accordance with research procedures that prove otherwise.