CHAPTER 6

Qualitative and quantitative research

methods
Nitish Sardana1, Sahar Shekoohi2, Elyse M. Cornett2,3,4,5 and
Alan David Kaye2,3,4,6,7
1
Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ, United States
2
Department of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, Shreveport,
LA, United States
3
Louisiana Addiction Research Center, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, Shreveport, LA,
United States
4
Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology & Neuroscience, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport,
Shreveport, LA, United States
5
Department of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at New Orleans,
New Orleans, LA, United States
6
Departments of Anesthesiology and Pharmacology, School of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at
New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, United States
7
Departments of Anesthesiology and Pharmacology, Tulane School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, United States

Theory
Introduction
Research regarding the cause and effect of substance misuse and addiction dates back
hundreds of years. Most studies were conducted based on theories and psychological
evaluations rather than scientific evidence and experiments. A study that prompted
additional research was the careful analysis of morphine addiction back in 1875 by
Levinstein [1]. In the late 1920s, the National Research Council appointed a
Committee on Drug Administration to centralize their attention on this issue. The
team included scientists, psychologists, researchers, administrators, and H.J. Anslinger
as the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The team worked tirelessly to identify
solutions that would tame the growing numbers of substance misuse victims [2]. Later
in the 1960s, established organizations like the National Institute on Drug Abuse and
the National Institute of Mental Health started contributing toward funds and grants
that allowed for education and research in this growing field [1].

Methods
The research related to understanding the pathophysiology and developing therapies
to treat addiction and misuse has made great progress over time; however, the meth-
ods of gathering and analysis of data have not evolved as much. There are essentially
two effective methods of data organization, quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative

Substance Use and Addiction Research r 2023 Elsevier Inc.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-98814-8.00008-1 All rights reserved. 65
66 Substance Use and Addiction Research

Table 6.1 Key differences between qualitative and quantitative methods [3,9].
Qualitative Quantitative
Reviews and analysis of documents, focus Surveys and reviews of records for numeric
groups, and interviews outputs
Inductive theory to formulate a hypothesis Deductive processes used to make up
theories or confirm hypotheses
Subjective: point of view of the participant Objective: observations and interpretations
of the researcher
Text-based Number-based
In-depth information about fewer cases Less in-depth information but on a wide
array of cases
More unstructured responses Multiple choice/fixed response options
No statistical tests Statistical tests are used
The reliability and validity of the experiment Reliability and validity can heavily rely on
strongly rely on the skill of the conductor the method for collection used
Less time planning, more time analyzing data It takes us more time to plan and get
prepared for the analysis than the analysis
itself
More difficult to generalize Easier to generalize

research encompasses numbers and graphs, while qualitative research emphasizes words
and definitions [3]. Both have their strengths and weaknesses and prove to be effective
tools in confirming or denying proposed theories. As a general method, qualitative
research often entails prior observations, interviews, and previously published
articles [4 7], whereas quantitative methods include more graphs, math, surveys, and
hands-on experiments [3,8]. Table 6.1 summarizes the similarities and differences
between qualitative and quantitative data.

Collecting and organizing data

Data collection
The way data are collected usually dependent on the question being asked. Data col-
lection can be in the form of surveys, case studies, visual observations, experiments,
graphs, or open-ended response questions. All these methods can be classified as either
quantative or qualitative.

Quantitative data collection methods

1. Surveys: A variety of multiple-choice or free-response questions distributed to the
sample group is collected and analyzed. This survey can take place over the phone,
in person, or online.
 Qualitative and quantitative research methods 67

2. Experiments: Experiments are a common way of collecting data because cause-

and-effect relationships can be concluded from experiments where certain variables
are controlled or manipulated.
3. Observations: The difference between observations and experiments is that obser-
vations do not include manipulated variables. They are simply observing and
watching what is going on [3].

Qualitative data collection methods

1. Interviews: In this method, open-ended questions are asked of respondents. This is
a useful method for on-the-spot reactions and quick data collection.
2. Focus groups: Focus group research is when a group of people participating in the
experiment gathers information and opinions used in the research experiment.
3. Ethnography: When one takes part in an organization for a long time to observe
the behavior and actions of the people.
4. Literature review: A literature review is essential for any good publication. This is
when an author includes evaluations and surveys of work previously published by
other authors [5].

Method applicability
Quantitative research is useful when working to confirm or test a theory or hypothesis
[3]. However, qualitative research is preferable when attempting to depict and com-
prehend concepts such as experiences, perceptions, and thoughts [6].
When collecting data, a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-method approach can
be utilized [9]. This choice depends on whether it is inductive or deductive research,
the question being asked/answered, the cost, time, and availability. The individual
data sets are insufficient for drawing definitive conclusions and can be made more rele-
vant through interpretation and analysis of relationships. After this evaluation and anal-
ysis, the results are linked to the research question, and conclusive results are drawn.
Quantitative data are built on numbers, and statistical analysis and math skills are
required to draw commonalities and conclusions from the results. Therefore the data
are normally provided in tables or graphs. Coding applications and software like R,
SPSS, and Excel can assist with calculations and the collection of data. With these
applications it is easier to find average scores, the number of times an answer was
given, correlation and causation, and the reliability/validity of results [8]. Because
qualitative data includes more images and texts, it tends to be more tedious and diffi-
cult to interpret and analyze than quantitative data. Below are some ways qualitative
data can be analyzed [5].
1. Discourse analysis: Proving how important talking and communicating is in public
and social situations.
68 Substance Use and Addiction Research

2. Qualitative content analysis: Understanding and taking note of the positions and
occurrences of certain words and phrases.
3. Thematic analysis: Finding main themes and patterns in data by examining the data
in detail.
Some studies tend to be lacking in the specifics of their findings, paving the way
for mixed-method studies that can combine the best aspects of qualitative and quanti-
tative research to enable the most accurate scientific inferences.
Mixed methods research is most prevalent in behavioral, health, and science studies
since it is the most effective strategy for addressing complex problems with numerous
intricate elements.

Mixed methods
Mixed methods research can answer complex research questions with more accuracy
due to its three main characteristics: Generalizability, Contextualization, and Credibility
[9]. The sample size is a main contributing factor to whether research is generalizable or
not. Even with a small qualitative sample size, mixed methods offer generalizability
because of the validity of the quantitative research, which is a critical part of health and
neuroscience research. In addition, contextualization helps conclusions become stronger,
more detailed, and more applicable. Furthermore, mixed methods allow different data
collection methods, lending itself more validity and reliability.
Mixed methods research allows diversity in data collection, analysis, and interpreta-
tion and creates room to unite these methods to conclude. The choice of mixed
methods research design depends on the research approach, that is, inductive versus
deductive, research questions, data available to collect, analyze, and interpret [10].
Some of the most common mixed methods designs are listed below.
Convergent parallel: In this method, both data types are collected simultaneously,
but they are analyzed separately. The comparison and contrast of the two data sets occur
after the two analyses, leading to the conclusion about the prestudy hypothesis [10,11].
Embedded design: In this method, the collection and comparison of both data
types occur simultaneously. This method allows for expedited results and is preferred
in studies with time or resource constraints [10,11].
Explanatory sequential: In this method, the quantitative data collection and analysis
occur first, followed by qualitative data collection and analysis. This method is useful if
the qualitative data explain and contextualize the quantitative findings [11,12].
Exploratory sequential: In this method, qualitative data collection and analysis
occur first, followed by quantitative data collection and analysis. Again, this method
can be used if the quantitative data test or confirm the qualitative findings [11,12].
Mixed-method research has its advantages and disadvantages. Mixed approaches
allow for contextualized qualitative insights and generalizable quantitative content to
 Qualitative and quantitative research methods 69

produce well-balanced results [13], but they can be labor- and time-intensive. The
mixed-method requires more organization, delegation, teamwork, and capital costs than
stand-alone techniques. Finally, conflicting results between the qualitative and quantita-
tive methods can sometimes create confusion leading to inconclusive inferences.

Conclusion
In summary, there are various methods of collecting, organizing, and analyzing data for
scientific research, especially regarding substance misuse and addiction. These techniques
either offer value or pose a problem depending on the study question, approach, and
goal. No method, at present, is universally acceptable or applicable providing scientists
the unique opportunity to choose the best method from a vast spectrum in substance
misuse and addiction studies.

References
[1] Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Opportunities in Drug Abuse Research. Pathways of
addiction: opportunities in drug abuse research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US);
1996 (B, Drug Abuse Research in Historical Perspective). Available from: ,https://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/books/NBK232965/..
[2] Sacco LN. Drug enforcement in the United States: history, policy, and trends. CSR Report
No. R43749. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. 7-5700. ,http://www.crs.gov..
[3] Blinkhorn AS, Leathar DS, Kay EJ. An assessment of the value of quantitative and qualitative data
collection techniques. Community Dent Health 1989;6(2):147 51.
[4] Aspers P, Corte U. What is qualitative in qualitative research. Qual Sociol 2019;42(2):139 60.
[5] Denny E, Weckesser A. Qualitative research: what it is and what it is not: study design: qualitative
research. BJOG 2019;126(3):369.
[6] Barrett D, Twycross A. Data collection in qualitative research. Evid Based Nurs 2018;21(3):63 4.
[7] Cypress BS. Qualitative research: challenges and dilemmas. Dimens Crit Care Nurs 2019;
38(5):264 70.
[8] Watson R. Quantitative research. Nurs Stand 2015;29(31):44 8.
[9] Brown KM, Elliott SJ, Leatherdale ST, Robertson-Wilson J. Searching for rigour in the reporting
of mixed methods population health research: a methodological review. Health Educ Res 2015;
30(6):811 39.
[10] McCusker K, Gunaydin S. Research using qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods and choice
based on the research. Perfusion 2015;30(7):537 42.
[11] Desveaux L, Saragosa M, Rogers J, Bevan L, Loshak H, Moser A, et al. Improving the appropriateness
of antipsychotic prescribing in nursing homes: a mixed-methods process evaluation of an academic
detailing intervention. Implement Sci 2017;12(1):71.
[12] Younas A, Parveen Rasheed S, Zeb H. Using legitimation criteria to establish rigour in sequential
mixed-methods research. Nurse Res 2020;28(3):44 51.
[13] Regnault A, Willgoss T, Barbic S, On behalf of International Society for Quality of Life Research
(ISOQOL) Mixed Methods Special Interest Group (SIG). Towards the use of mixed methods
inquiry as best practice in health outcomes research. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2017;2(1):19.