Qualitative and Quantitative Research

Answer

Qualitative and Quantitative Research

Criminal justice, business, marketing, and psychology among other facets of human life depend upon information and evidence gleaned from research to make informed decisions. Specifically, informed and effective policing is crucial to the wellbeing and safety of people and communities. In their duty, law enforcement officers constantly encounter several of society’s most difficult challenges and in doing so, they must be vigilant, fair, and equitable (Ong, 2003). There are two main types of research designs that are commonly employed: qualitative and quantitative research techniques (Barbour, 2000). While either qualitative or quantitative research techniques can be employed in gathering information to inform and improve public safety at any one time, this paper argues that the employment of the two concurrently is of greater benefit than using either of them due to the various shortcomings of the techniques.

As mentioned above, there are two main research designs employed by researchers: qualitative and quantitative research designs. Qualitative research is a research that looks at the “when”, “how” and “when” with the aim of producing notes, observations, and descriptions of a motivation, phenomenon, and behaviour (Baxter, 2008). The research methods employed in this research include interviews, focus group, reviews, and observations, among others. Qualitative research techniques are employed to provide crucial insights into public feeling, workforce satisfaction, or experiences of a community/law enforcers. For instance, a police force may have interest in in bettering the training experience for their newly hired officers and thus choose to interview a sample of the newly hired officers with the aim of finding out how they found the training. The analysis and themes that emerge from the interviews can guide the police force in the modifications made to the training plan/programme. Evidently, qualitative research employs data but not in the number form since qualitative researchers study things right in their natural settings, trying to make sense of phenomena or interpret the phenomena in terms of the meanings that people give to them (Ong, 2003). Additionally, qualitative research obtains a deep understanding regarding an issue by studying through exchanges in people’s daily lives (Bowen, 2006).

Notwithstanding the above-mentioned strengths, qualitative research technique has several limitations as far as improving public safety is concerned. It is time a time-consuming process to conduct a qualitative research and interpretations re restricted since knowledge and experience of participants influence observations, data, and conclusions (Science, 2001). The technique does not also allow for the verification of results. Elo and Kyngäs (2008) state that since qualitative research is open-ended, study participants have more control on the quality and content of the data gathered. The technique is labour-intensive and it is also difficult to investigate causality using the technique. It requires thoughtful and careful planning to make sure that the results obtained re correct and accurate. Gathered data cannot be analyzed mathematically and the results are based upon judgment and opinions of the participants. The results cannot also be replicated because each study is unique to itself. Lastly, qualitative research is not representative statistically. Thus, when using this technique, it is crucial to cross-reference that information and data gathered with qualitative data (Maxwell, 2005).

The second main research technique is quantitative research technique. Quantitative research refers to a research technique that produces hard numbers which can be translated into statistics. An example of quantitative research is the census. Quantitative research methods, like controlled experiments and surveys, are used in criminal justice programs to help compare the various kinds of criminal offenders in terms of recidivism. Using mathematical models, data obtained through quantitative research can be used to identify trends and patterns or predict future performance (Mcleod, 2019). According to Veri (2016), quantitative research technique can assist police forces along with public safety agencies/organizations to better understand activity patterns and trends, like homelessness, crime, via trend assessment as well as geographical mapping. Survey analysis of large samples in a quantitative research can serve to uncover links between various factors that were not obvious previously (Baxter, 2008). Through this technique, public safety organizations and police officers can gain knowledge in order to effectively and efficiently direct their resources (Veri, 2016). Quantitative research’s principal purpose is data quantification. The technique allows for generalization of results by measuring the responses and views of a sample population (Maxwell, 2005). Every quantitative research methodology comprises of two broad stages: execution and planning. Thus, it is evident that that in the two phases, they are likely to have limitations that are beyond human control (Barbour, 2000).

Whereas quantitative research technique is crucial in enhancing public safety, there are limitations akin to it that cannot be ignored. The technique has improper characterization of the target population. Stewart (2013) reasons that an improper representation of population my hinder a researcher from realizing its desired objectives and aims. For this reason, miscalculations of a study’s probability distribution may result and this may lead to falsification of the study’s proposition (Bowen, 2006). Secondly, the technique is characterized by lack of resources for collection of data. Usually, quantitative research technique requires large sample size. Nonetheless, due to insufficient resources, this large-scale research usually becomes impossible. In most developing countries, interested parties may lack information and knowledge and particularly the resources required to carry out a thorough quantitative study (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008).

Thirdly, there is the inability to regulate the environment. Researchers sometimes encounter challenges of controlling the environment where the participants provide responses/answers to questions being asked (Mcleod, 2019). Responses or answers usually rely upon particular time which as well is reliant upon the conditions that are occurring in that specific time frame.

Fourthly, there are also limited outcomes when quantitative research methodology is employed. The methodology entails the use of structured questionnaires with close-ended questions. It results into limited results/outcomes in a research proposal, implying that results cannot often represent the actual happening in generalized form (Science, 2001). Additionally, the respondents have limited choices of answers/responses, depending upon the selection made by a researcher.

Quantitative research methodology is also expensive and time consuming. Mcleod (2019) states that quantitative research technique is expensive, difficult, and requires a lot of time for analysis to be fully completed. To achieve an in-depth understanding of a study, a large sample size is required. Cumulatively, the process of collecting and analysing collected data is difficult and tedious, requiring large manpower. The technique, therefore, requires extra resources to assess the outcomes. 

Evidently, either qualitative or quantitative research techniques can be used to improve public safety. However, due to the many limitations associated with either of them, it is necessary to employ the two at a go, the so called the mixed methodology research. When the mixed methodology is used, public safety organizations are able to get detailed evidence or get extra complete depiction of what they are studying about. It is, therefore, imperative to conclude since mixed methodology gives a more comprehensive outcome, void of the many limitations characterized by the two techniques when used individually, public safety organizations will do good to use the mixed research methodology.