Both of two examples above have advantages and disadvantages. In terms of the randomized controlled trial, the researcher used controlled group and experiment group to explore the causality. The results of the experiment tend to contribute to the experimental stimulus. Increasing physical activities was associated with a decreasing incidence of diabetes among people who are at high risk in the illness of diabetes. Furthermore, if it uses the large-scale sample, the same experimental conditions could be tested again using more advanced statistical instruments. Therefore, we could build our confidence about the validity, reliability and generalizability in the future researches. However, it remains shortcomings in the …show more content…
Both of approaches have pros and cons, it is difficult to decide which research approach is appropriate for a specific research task. Excepting the selection of methods, the background information and the subjective consciousness of participants are main aspects to decide the quality of a given piece of research. Researchers should seriously consider the specific situation of the research. Meanwhile, researchers should synthesize the advantages between quantitative and qualitative research so as to effectively achieve the research aim by a mixed methodology.
Antwi, S. K., & Hamza, K. (2015). Qualitative and quantitative research paradigms in business research: A philosophical reflection. European Journal of Business and Management, 7(3), 215-225.
Babbie E. (2013). The practice of social research. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishers
Bracht, G. H., & Glass, G. V. (1968). The external validity of experiments. American educational research journal, 5(4), 437-474.
Bryman, A. (Ed.). (2013). Doing research in organizations. Routledge.
Burr, V. (2015). Social constructionism. Routledge.
Caldwell, B. (2010). Beyond positivism. Routledge.
Clough P., and Nutbrown C. (2005) A Student’s Guide to Methodology, SAGE Publications
Cohen, D., &
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
In article, Immediate and Delayed Cord Clamping in Infants Born Between 24 and 32 Weeks: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial, Mercer reported possible issues regarding methodological assessment of the preceding research involving the capability to perform a meta-analysis of the seven studies. However, a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) aggregates on the present day literature on cord clamping by considering the feasibility, recruitment strategies, and key outcomes of the possible increases in blood volume as a result of delayed cord clamping (DCC) (Mercer et al., 2003). In the pilot RCT, Mercer and the team wanted to assess credibility of DCC and the study protocol in the authors’ institution. In addition, they wanted to test and generate hypotheses in order to set up the groundwork for funding for a larger RCT. The first hypothesis stated that DCC in very low-birth-weight (VLBW) infants would have an outcome of higher mean blood pressure after reaching the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The second hypothesis stated that VLBW infants would have higher hematocrits, fewer clinical acuity indicated by fewer days of ventilation and fewer days of oxygen use when compared to ICC (Mercer et al., 2003). The focus of the study was to establish feasibility of a protocol for DCC against ICC at preterm birth and, also to inspect its outcomes on initial blood pressure and other events. This kind of study was the first one to observe the outcomes of DCC in
I enjoyed reading your very thorough and well laid out explanation of randomized controlled trials (RCT). There is no denying that among researchers this is considered the best and most valid method of conducting a study. The reason that RCTs are considered the gold standard is that they are the only type of study that randomizes and has the best avoidance of confounding, resulting in erroneous conclusions. Thus by its very nature RCT’s produce comparable study arms which, in turn, has a higher percentage yield of valid results (Tufts University, 2017). In your example, you reiterate this by stating, “you are decreasing selection bias by ensuring the sample is representative of the population.” Given these points, it is beneficial
Traditional research methods consist of implementing quantitative and qualitative research. Quantitative research utilizes statistical analysis by breaking down components of observation that are compared to other elements (Bergman, M. M., 2008). Qualitative research focuses on investigating the participant’s range of behavior, usually with small groups, which results in descriptive analysis (Bergman M. M., 2008).
In a randomized control trial by Smith, Usher, Alcock, and Petra (2013), the researchers aim to determine whether the use of NeoWrap, a polyethylene occlusive wrap, immediately after birth was more effective than standard protocol to control hypothermia in NICU admissions. Participants consist of 92 infants under 27 weeks of gestation and 44 infants less than 30 weeks gestation. The infants are randomly assigned to be in either the control or the intervention group; the control group is transferred under the prewarmed heater immediately after birth, dried and wrapped with prewarmed towels, and applied a hat. The intervention group is wrapped from the neck the down with the polyethylene wrap before being transferred to the prewarmed heater and undergoing the aforementioned process. World Health Organization’s definition for hypothermia, as cited by Smith et al. (2013), is a temperature of less than 36.5 degrees Celsius. This parameter was used by the researchers, and the temperatures of the infants were taken upon birth and upon NICU admissions as well as admission time for both the control and intervention groups. The temperature was taken axillary on the infant at birth, upon admission to the NICU and every 30 minutes using a digital thermometer until the infant reached 120 minutes postadmission. The results showed that although the usage of wrap increased the temperature in neonates less than 27 weeks old, no statistically significant difference on neonates 27 to 29
Meta-analysis of large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is the highest level of evi-dence available for clinical practice and guidelines are possible to be based on the re-sults from this analysis. When patients in clinical trials are representative of the whole population seen by clinicians the findings of RCTs are most useful. The validity of generalised conclusion may lack in clinical trials, because participant’s population is not representative of population, being on average androcentric, younger and racist. All trials use stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria, often lead to a highly selected cohort of patients which are relatively homogenous and adapted to be more like to the target outcome. Therefore, those
In the present day scenario, researchers may take the advantages of numerous options to conduct and complete their research in effectively, fulfilling their predetermined objectives with adequate efficiency. Applicable research methods may include qualitative, quantitative and mixed approaches, which are perceived as the most common and fundamental frameworks to conduct any study. To be mentioned in this context, the qualitative research approach is most commonly used to obtain adequate theoretical underpinning of the research topic, with the assistance of narrative analysis, as relevant for the identified research issue. On the other hand, quantitative analysis emphasises assessing the acquired data with the assistance of mathematical and statistical tools to obtain appropriate responses to the determined research question. Mixed approach refers to the amalgamation of qualitative and quantitative research approaches in a single study. To obtain a better understanding in this context,
In this proposed study, the researcher will use a mixed methods approach (Jack, Norman & Helen, 2012). Jack, Norman & Helen define a mixed method as a procedure for both quantitative and qualitative data at some stage of the research process, to understand a research problem more completely (Jack, Norman & Helen, 2012). Jack, Norman & Helen (2012) define qualitative research as “research studies that investigate the quality of relationships, activities, situations, or materials” (p. 426). In a qualitative research, people use more explanatory data, and data are collected in the form of words and description rather than numbers and statistics. A qualitative research is a method of analyzing, and interpreting data by observing what people do and say (Jack, Norman & Helen, 2012). In contrast to qualitative researches, a quantitative research is a formal, objective, systematic process in which numerical data are used to obtain information about the world (Burns & Grove, 2005). Data of the quantitative research is in numerical form such as statistics, and percentages.
Both quantitative and qualitative research approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, thus for the purpose of developing this reserach, both approaches have been adopted. Quantitative research ‘consists of those studies in which the data concerned can be analyzed in terms of numbers... Its results can be more readily analyzed and interpreted’ (Best & Khan, 1989, pp 89-90). Alternatively, qualitative research, “is more open and responsive to its subject ... Exploring details and aims to achieve depth rather than breadth’ (Blaxter, Hughes & Tight : 1996).
In business and management research, there are two different types of research strategies, quantitative research and qualitative research. They are all commonly used by managers for making strategic decisions. Because of the differences in their emphasis of epistemological and ontological issues, scholars always dispute about which method is more scientific, or which one is more frequently used by researchers, etc.
Page 174 give a strong distinction, generally between the quantitative and qualitative research and have require different techniques for the analysis. The research is not forced but however it is up to the researcher to choose between the two approaches in the research project.
There are two types of research methods: qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative research methods are complex meaningful analyses characterized by processes and meanings that are not measured in terms of mathematical measurements. Quantitative research however, relies and builds on mathematical procedures and methods, such as frequency, quality, amount and statistical procedure. There are unique characteristics which distinguish one research process from the other.
The proposed research is based on a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative research involves iterative, logical and exploratory process that gathers the views of participants with the objective of analysing the facts that relate to the study. On the other hand quantitative methods comprise of deductive ways of studying the data collected (Bryman, 2004 cited in Heath and Tyna, 2010; pg 10).
Along with qualitative and quantitative methodologies in research, the trend of combining both qualitative and quantitative methodologies is widely used and increasingly articulated, attached to research practice and recognized as the third major research approach or research paradigm (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie & Turner, 2007).
This layer highlights the decision about whether to choose a quantitative method(s) or qualitative method(s) or a mixture of both. Researcher can select single data collection technique and analysis procedure either a mono method quantitative design (e.g. Data collection using questionnaire and analysis statistically) or a mono method qualitative design (e.g. Data collection through deep interviews and analysis as narratives). Alternatively they can use multiple methods. In multi method quantitative design, researcher use multiple data collection techniques (e.g. Questionnaire and structured observations and statistically analyzed). For multi method qualitative design, he uses multiple qualitative data collection techniques (e.g. In depth interviews and diary acounts with associated analysis procedures). A mixed method design includes
Whereas, in the qualitative method, the quantity of participants in much smaller and signifies a purpose, meaning, the sampling of participants is prearranged as consistent foundations of the material being pursued after. The principal differences in the methods of research are found in the outcome of the conclusions and the way the conclusions are conveyed. The quantitative method uses the conclusions acquired in the study to prove a theory and endorse methods of to be taken with the subject of the study. The conclusions of a qualitative study are principally exploratory and strive to give clarifications and explanations of the study subject.