Importance of Research Methodology

in Research It is necessary for a researcher to design a research methodology for the problem
chosen. One should note that even if the research method considered for two problems are same
the research methodology may be different. It is important for the researcher to know not only
the research methods necessary for the research under taken but also the methodology. For
example, a researcher not only needs to know how to calculate mean, variance and distribution
function for a set of data, how to find a solution of a physical system described by mathematical
model, how to determine the roots of algebraic equations and how to apply a particular method
but also need to know (i) which is a suitable method for the chosen problem, (ii) what is the
order of accuracy of the result of a method, (iii) what is the efficiency of the method? And so on.
Considerations of these aspects constitute a research methodology. More precisely, research
methods help us get a solution to a problem. On the other hand, research methodology is
concerned with the explanation of the following: (1) Why is a particular research study
undertaken? (2) How did one formulate a research problem? (3) What types of data were
collected? (4) What particular method has been used? (5) Why was a particular technique of
analysis of data used?
The study of research methods gives training to apply them to a problem. The study of research
methodology provides us the necessary training in choosing research methods, materials,
scientific tools and training in techniques relevant for the problem chosen. Research
methodology includes a philosophically coherent collection of theories, concepts or ideas as they
relate to a particular discipline or field of inquiry. Methodology refers to more than a simple set
of methods; rather it refers to the rationale and the philosophical assumptions that underlie a
particular study relative to the scientific method. This is why scholarly literature often includes a
section on the methodology of the researchers. This section does more than outline the
researchers’ methods (for example, “we conducted a survey of 50 people over a two-week period
and subjected the results to statistical analysis”, etc.); it might explain what the researchers’
ontological or epistemological views are. Researchers acknowledge the need for rigor, logic, and
coherence in their research methodologies, which are subject to peer review. 3.3.1 Types of
Research Methodologies Traditionally, research methodologies are broadly classified into
qualitative and quantitative thereby creating a huge divide amongst researchers, especially in
social sciences (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005). The difference between these two methods has
been prominent in many research methods publications (Howe, 1988; Neuman, 1997). For
instance, Myers (2009, p. 8) distinguishes that qualitative research is an in-depth study of social
and cultural phenomena and focuses on text whereas quantitative research investigates general
trends across population and focuses on numbers. Likewise, Miles and Huberman (1994)
maintain that qualitative research focuses on in depth examination of research issues while
Harrison (2001) argues that quantitative design provides broad understanding of issues under
investigation.
As ascertained by reputable research methodologies researchers above, we can conclude that
there are two main types of research methodology, 1- Quantitative methodology, 2- Qualitative
methodology.1- Quantitative research methodology is the type by which you test the significance
of your hypothesis, in other words you answer the words: How much? Is there a relationship?
Quantitative research methods tend to be systematic and use numbers. However, 2- Qualitative
methodology is the type by which you are depending on your observations and descriptions. It is
subjectively and descriptive, no facts. This kind of method is used to assess knowledge’s,
attitudes, behaviors, and opinions of people depending on the topic of your research. Researchers
in this
type of method use his opinion and experiences which are not allowed to be used in quantitative
method at all. Given this distinction, purists uphold that research questions are usually oriented
towards quantitative or qualitative direction and as such these two methodologies should not go
hand-inhand (Howe, 1988; Smith and Heshusius, 1986). Consequently, Myers (2009) supports
the purists’ view of separating the two research philosophies by citing examples of research
techniques under the two main categories in his recent publication on ‘Qualitative Research in
Business and Management’. Thus, qualitative research methods include action research, case
study, ethnography, grounded research, semiotics, discourse analysis, hermeneutics and narrative
while quantitative research methods encompass surveys, simulation, mathematical modelling,
laboratory experiments, statistical analysis, econometric and structured equations modelling
(Myers, 2009, p.8). From the purists’ perspective, the disparity between the qualitative and
quantitative paradigms emanates from the fact that epistemological, ontological and axiological
hypotheses of research issues are usually qualitative or quantitative in nature (Tashakkori and
Teddlie, 1998).
However, pragmatic researchers debunk the dichotomy between purists’ belief of qualitative and
quantitative methodologies but rather engage in arguments that reveal similarities between the
two and promote triangulation (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998;
Newman and Benz, 1998). In this respect, mixing qualitative with quantitative methods provides
opportunity to corroborate results from diverse methods of studying a given phenomenon in a
more rigorous manner (Neuman, 1997). Though the pragmatic researchers argue that mono-
method research is a danger to the advancement of social sciences and wonder how stakeholders
may develop confidence in findings from singular methods, they support the fact that the choice
of research methods must reflect the research questions being addressed (Onwuegbuzie and
Leech, 2005; Sechrest and Sadani, 1995). In the mist of this debate, researchers, particularly the
inexperienced ones may find it difficult to select the appropriate methodologies for a given
study. The basic and applied researches can be quantitative or qualitative or even both.
Quantitative research is based on the measurement of quantity or amount. Here a process is
expressed or described in terms of one or more quantities. Qualitative research is concerned with
qualitative phenomenon involving quality. It is non-numerical, descriptive, applies reasoning and
uses words. Its aim is to get the meaning, feeling and describe the situation. We measure and
weigh things in the study of substance or structure. Can we measure or weigh patterns? We
cannot measure or weigh patterns. But to study patterns we must map a configuration of
relationships. That is, structures involve quantities whereas patterns involve qualities. If one
wishes to investigate why certain data are random then it is a qualitative research. If the aim is to
study how random the data is, what is the mean, variance and distribution function then it
becomes quantitative. Explaining how digestion of food takes place in our body is a qualitative
description. It does not involve any numbers or data and quantities. Determination of exact
amount of a particular compound present in a volume is essentially quantitative analysis.
Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methodology
The above description of the types of research methodologies brings to light the fact that there
are two basic approaches to research, viz., quantitative approach and the qualitative approach.
The former involves the generation of data in quantitative form which can be subjected to
rigorous quantitative analysis in a formal and rigid fashion. Quantitative research is based on the
measurement of quantity or amount. It is applicable to phenomena that can be expressed in terms
of quantity. Qualitative research, on the other hand, is concerned with qualitative phenomenon,
i.e., phenomena relating to or involving quality or kind. Attitude or opinion research i.e.,
research designed to find out how people feel or what they think about a particular subject or
institution is also qualitative research.
Reviewing these definitions of what is meant by quantitative versus qualitative research helps
identify the reasons for the primarily separate use of each method and the continuing debate
among researchers concerning the relative value of each approach. The arguments can be
complicated and often are philosophical; however, they essentially make the following kinds of
distinctions. The word qualitative implies an emphasis on processes and meanings that are not
rigorously examined or measured (if measured at all), in terms of quantity, amount, intensity, or
frequency. Qualitative researchers stress the socially constructed nature of reality, the intimate
relationship between the researcher and what is studied, and the situational constraints that shape
inquiry. In contrast, quantitative studies emphasize the measurement and analysis of causal
relationships between variables, not processes. Inquiry is purported to be within a value-free
framework While it may be somewhat naive to delineate the differences between qualitative and
quantitative research so definitively, it is helpful to begin to understand the nature of the debate
by understanding commonly held divisions and basic definitions. Simply put, the terms
‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ should refer to the type of data generated in the research process.
Quantitative research produces data in the form of numbers while qualitative research tends to
produce data that are stated in prose or textual forms. In order to produce different types of data,
qualitative and quantitative research tend to employ different methods.
Using the terminology from Hentschel’s (1999) Research Methodology-Data Framework (Figure
3.1 below) non-contextual methods—applied across the population universe, often a country or
region—are designed to achieve breadth in coverage and analysis. Typically, the random sample
survey produces quantifiable data that can be statistically analysed with the main aim of
measuring, aggregating, modelling and predicting behaviour and relations. Contextual methods
in contrast are applied to a specific locality, case or social setting and sacrifice breadth of
population coverage and statistical generalisability in order to explore issues in depth (Booth et
al, 1998). Contextual research includes ethnographic techniques, such as participant observation,
interviews and participatory tools that are often group-based and visual. Using open-ended
questions these methods are designed to capture judgements and perceptions and allow complex
analyses of often non-quantifiable cause-and-effect processes.