The use of both qualitative and quantitative research methods promotes effectiveness
Researchers use qualitative and quantitative methods to collect data in the social sciences. Qualitative methods include the researcher’s experience through techniques such as focus groups, case studies, interviews, and personal observations. On the other hand, quantitative methods include hard facts illustrated in surveys and polls.
For the purposes of this article, I tried to choose one method over the other and justify my preference. Initially, I chose qualitative research because I enjoy the interaction with the subject under study. However, to make an educated and accurate choice, I believe it is necessary to understand why practitioners use each in the first place. Before choosing a method and taking sides, I identified the pros and cons of both research methods.
After doing both, I find that quantitative research has more pros than cons, unlike qualitative research. Some of the characteristics in favor of quantitative research are that it is objective, controlled, systematic, valid and reliable. It is objective in the sense that the researcher defines what is under study. It is controlled in the fact that data is defined, collected, and evaluated according to prescribed rules that can be checked for errors and measured for validity and reliability. Quantitative research identifies the hard facts and figures related to the problem.
On the other hand, qualitative research has more disadvantages than quantitative research. Because it is uncontrolled and subjective, the findings cannot be measured by validity or reliability tests. Unlike the quantitative, it also does not allow us to predict or generalize a population beyond what is found in the observation.
The main objective and therefore the advantage of qualitative research is to provide a richer and deeper understanding of a problem or question that is being observed. Because it is subjective due to researchers’ experience through interaction with individuals, it provides different ways of looking at the same problem. Without this understanding, researchers can only answer the question of how, not why.
Therefore, I choose triangulation, the method of using both to collect and analyze data. Public relations professionals aim to answer both how and why in a systematic way. In order to plan and execute an effective campaign, they must be able to identify the problem with qualitative research using methods such as surveys. However, it is equally important to understand the population. Through the use of interviews and focus groups, practitioners can identify why the problem exists and how to reach different audiences in a society filled with unlimited media noise and clutter.
For example, an awareness campaign that informs USF students about the consequences of drinking alcohol on campus could use campus posters, flyers, and the oracle to promote its messages. Quantitative methods, such as surveys, could be used to find out how many students actually drink, while qualitative methods, such as focus groups, would find out why students do or do not choose to drink.
In conclusion, the use of both methods ensures a better understanding of a population that translates into a better campaign. Arguments supporting both methods and their importance were given to show that it is imperative to do as much research as possible to create a systematic and effective programme.