MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W73724950

Selecting a Quantitative or Qualitative Research Methodology: An Experience

2002· article· en· W73724950 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Olusegun Agboola Sogunro

Notice bibliographique

RevueEducational research quarterly · 2002
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineDecision Sciences
ThématiqueBusiness Strategies and Management Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDilemmaSubconsciousQualitative researchIdeologySociologyEpistemologyQuantitative researchEducational researchPoliticsPsychologyManagement scienceSocial sciencePolitical scienceLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Olusegun A. Sogunro, Central Connecticut State University The selection of appropriate research method has always been a dilemma for many researchers and evaluators. While quantitative-- qualitative research debate ravages, what is obvious is that there is no one best research method for all research and evaluations. Different research purposes require use of different research methods, separately or in concert with each other. For all practical purposes, both quantitative and qualitative methods have different, but complementary roles to play in a research process and outcome. This paper explains experience of author in using a mixture of two research approaches to evaluate a leadership training program. The fray between champions of these two distinguishable research approaches is essentially ideological and political. Basically, two approaches differ in their ways of conducting research, and each tends to claim superiority over other. Ironically, each tradition overtly discredits other as if it is infallible. The stage is always charged so that, given chance, these champions would fight at any to defend their research philosophies. Fueling this charged situation is subconscious luring of graduate students into these dichotomous camps of research methodologies and paradigms, especially from standpoint of research orientations of professors - instructing or advising. This paper presents my experience as a researcher, using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Definitions Creswell (1994) defined a quantitative research as an inquiry into a social or human problem, based on testing a theory composed of variables, measured with numbers, and analyzed with statistical procedures, in order to determine whether predictive generalizations of theory hold true and a qualitative research as an inquiry process of understanding a social or human problem, based on building a complex, holistic picture, formed with words, reporting detailed views of informants, and conducted in a natural setting (pp. 1-2). In a very simplistic form, Punch (1998) defined quantitative research as empirical research where data are in form of and qualitative research as empirical research where data are not in form of (p. 4). Gay and Airasian (2000) defined quantitative research as the collection of numerical data in order to explain, predict and/or control phenomena of and qualitative research as the collection of extensive data on many variables over extended period of time, in a naturalistic setting, in order to gain insights not possible using other types of research (p. 627). While both research approaches are equally recognized and used in conducting research, major differences between them are in areas of data collection and analyses. According to Gall, Gall & Borg (1999), quantitative research heavily on numerical data and statistical analysis. In contrast, qualitative research make little use of numbers or statistics but instead rely heavily on verbal data and subjective analysis (p. 13). My Experience in Using a Mixture of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Approaches In course of undertaking evaluation study toward my dissertation, it became apparent that suggestions given to me by my advisors were largely based on their professional preparations, interest or orientations. For instance, one professor suggested use of questionnaire for data collection while other suggested that use of interviews alone would suffice. However, based on my curiosity to explore two research approaches, I adopted mixed methodology approach. Between January 1994 and December 1995, I conducted evaluation study of impact of a leadership training program on participants. The program was organized by Rural Education Development Association (REDA) of Alberta, Canada. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,165
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,835
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,874

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,1650,088
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0140,016
Communication savante0,0100,007
Science ouverte0,0030,008
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,952
Tête enseignante GPT0,749
Écart entre enseignants0,203 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
DomaineMéthodes
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations82
Publié2002
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEducational research quarterlyMême sujetBusiness Strategies and Management ResearchTravaux en français237 207