A Comparative Analysis of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods and a Justification for Adopting Mixed Methods in Social Research.
| dc.contributor.author | Haq, Muhibul | * |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2015-08-28T11:00:49Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2015-08-28T11:00:49Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Haq M (2014) A comparative analysis of qualitative and quantitative research methods and a justification for use of mixed methods in social research. Annual PhD Conference, University of Bradford School of Management. June 2014. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10454/7389 | |
| dc.description | yes | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | The aim of this review is to create awareness about uses of available social research methods and to provide a guideline in adopting appropriate methods specifically in qualitative and mixed methods research genre. Based on the review of contemporary social research methods I believe that mixed methods research produces more accurate results than relying on either qualitative or quantitative methods alone in explaining complex social issues. This paper contributes to the methodological literature in two areas. First, create awareness among social researchers and students about the available research methods in order to help them to adopt suitable research designs in addressing their particular research questions. Second, encourage scholars from all disciplines to theorize further, especially in the field of mixed methods, and engage in a dialogue in order to improve methodological appropriateness for future research in social sciences. | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.rights | © 2014 The Author. Reproduced by permission from the copyright holder. | en_US |
| dc.subject | Qualitative research methods; Quantitative research methods; Mixed methods research; Social research paradigms | en_US |
| dc.title | A Comparative Analysis of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods and a Justification for Adopting Mixed Methods in Social Research. | en_US |
| dc.status.refereed | yes | en_US |
| dc.date.Accepted | 2015 | |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |
| dc.type.version | final draft paper | en_US |
| refterms.dateFOA | 2018-07-25T12:07:19Z |
Item file(s)
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Relationally Reflexive Practice: A Generative Approach to Theory Development in Qualitative Research(2014)In this article we explain how the development of new organization theory faces several mutually reinforcing problems, which collectively suppress generative debate and the creation of new and alternative theories. We argue that to overcome these problems, researchers should adopt relationally reflexive practices. This does not lead to an alternative method but instead informs how methods are applied. Specifically, we advocate a stance toward the application of qualitative methods that legitimizes insights from the situated life-with-others of the researcher. We argue that this stance can improve our abilities for generative theorizing in the field of management and organization studies.
-
Training and action for patient safety: embedding interprofessional education for patient safety within an improvement methodology(2012)INTRODUCTION: Despite an explosion of interest in improving safety and reducing error in health care, one important aspect of patient safety that has received little attention is a systematic approach to education and training for the whole health care workforce. This article describes an evaluation of an innovative multiprofessional, team-based training program that embeds patient safety within quality improvement methods. METHODS: Kirkpatrick's "levels of evaluation" model was adopted to evaluate the program in health organizations across one city in the north of England. Questionnaires were used to assess reaction of participants to the program (Level 1). Improvements in patient safety knowledge and patient safety culture (Level 2) were assessed using a 12-item multiple-choice questionnaire and a culture questionnaire. Interviews and project-specific quantitative measurements were used to assess changes in professional practice and patient outcomes (Levels 3 and 4). RESULTS: All aspects of the program were positively received by participants. Few participants completed the MCQ at both time points, but those who did showed improvement in knowledge. There were some small but significant improvements in patient safety culture. Interviews revealed a number of additional benefits beyond the specific problems addressed. Most importantly, 8 of the 11 teams showed improvements in patient safety practices and/or outcomes. DISCUSSION: This program is an example of interprofessional education in practice and demonstrates that team-based learning using quality improvement methods is feasible and can be effective in improving patient safety, but requires time and space for participants. Alignment with continuing education arrangements could support mainstream adoption of this approach within organizations.