The articles critiqued here in include a quantitative study by Chaboyer, Bucknall, Webster et al. (2016): The effect of a patient centred care bundle intervention on pressure ulcer incidence (INTACT): a cluster randomised trial ; and a qualitative study by Clissett, Porock, Harwood et al. (2013): The challenges of achieving person-centred care in acute hospitals: a qualitative study of people with dementia and their families. It is important to point out that a review of the abstracts of the two articles reveals similarities and major differences between quantitative and qualitative research. In both articles, the backgrounds of the studies are clearly developed as the researchers emphasize on the significance of the study by linking it to critical aspects in the literature review. For instance, in the quantitative article, Chaboyer, Bucknall, Webster et al. (2016) conceptualized the study based on the seriousness of hospital-acquired pressure ulcers as patient safety concern and its association with poor patient outcomes, elevated hospital costs, and as an indicator of quality care. Similarly, Clissett, Porock, Harwood et al. (2013) conceptualized their study on the significance of person-centered care as a strategy of caring for people with dementia, and factors limiting its implementation. The structure and organization of the two articles capture the basic requirement of any research paper, but similarities between them end here.
The objectives of the two articles set them apart because they provide insights into the research designs used in each. The quantitative study used a pragmatic cluster randomized trial, employing 1,600 participants from eight referral hospitals with large bed capacity across Australia. These details point to the fact that Chaboyer, Bucknall, Webster et al. (2016) explored a number of independent and dependent variables, implying that the correlation could only be established through statistical analyses. One can argue that the choice of the research design and methodological approach relied on the projected relationship between variables. On the other hand, the qualitative study by Clissett, Porock, Harwood et al. (2013) does not present a candid statement of the research design. However, the researchers elaborated that they used observations and interviews in data collection while applying Kitwood’s five dimensions of personhood as a priori framework, which are qualitative techniques. The two designs, the use of pragmatic cluster randomized trials, and the use of interviews and observations stand out in categorizing the studies as quantitative and qualitative respectively.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Quantitative and qualitative research can be used as complimentary techniques to enhance the credibility of the study. The fact that each methodology has pros and cons implies their use together assists in solving limitations in the study design (Rahman, 2016). However, neither of the studies adopts such a mixed methodology approach, making them extremely reliant on the advantages of quantitative and qualitative techniques. The quantitative study critiqued herein highlights the importance of the technique in measurements and analysis of data. Statistical tools such as randomization, concealment, and blinding, use of controls, use of clusters, and statistical analyses, allowed Chaboyer, Bucknall, Webster et al. (2016) to explore the correlation between patient-centered care and other variables in pressure ulcer incidence. According to Rahman (2016), the objectivity of the findings in quantitative research enhances credibility making them useful in testing of hypotheses. However, the validity and credibility of quantitative studies suffer because large samples are needed for the results to be significant. While concluding their article, Chaboyer, Bucknall, Webster et al. (2016) posited that the findings were statistically insignificant and attributed it to a very small sample size of 1,600.
From the onset, it is clear that Clissett, Porock, Harwood et al. (2013) qualitative study had no very specific research design. The lack of a strict design plan prior to conduction of such studies is an advantage. It accords the research the ability to let the study unfold more naturally, especially given that subjects are studied in their natural settings, in this case, family, care giver, and co-patients of individuals with dementia. Qualitative studies also provide detailed information as evidence through the use of interviews and observations. The insights gained by the researcher towards the context and social meaning and their effects on individuals are indispensable in such studies. However, the heavy involvement of the researcher in the study contributes to subjectivity and may introduce bias and skew the data. Also, generalizability of the findings is difficult because qualitative studies use a small sample size. For instance, to ensure manageability in thematic data analysis, Clissett, Porock, Harwood et al. (2013) recruited only 34 participants and observation were only done for 72 hours, which is not enough to understand the underlying social context and its influence on the concept being studied.
Bryman and Bell (2015) cautioned against the school of thought that quantitative research is better than qualitative research because none is better than the other and the use of either is attributed to each having its pros and cons in relation to the research design. While the strength of quantitative method lies in statistical analyses, the method cannot be employed to study social phenomena that cannot be quantified. Where data involves views and opinions of participants about a given phenomenon, qualitative methods prove suitable; hence have gained significance in the field of social science. Therefore, superiority of either methodology is dependent on the study design and the phenomenon being studied.
Olsen (2004) posited of the need for a realist approach in pragmatic application of quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The assertions are founded on the complimentary nature of the techniques not just when used to validate one another, but also when employed in deepening one’s understanding of the phenomena under study. Knowledge of the two methodologies is critical in the development of research strategies. A research is able to understand if they need statistical data or opinion-based quantitative data, including which option is viable under the context of study. Nevertheless, it is imperative to point out that in an era off evidence-based practice, both methodologies play a critical role because of their suitability to different study settings and phenomena. However, it is also important to point out that qualitative methods form a critical foundation in research for their effectiveness in initial study of phenomena. Researchers need to understand that where knowledge of the phenomenon being studied is limited, qualitative research is necessary to build clear understanding before statistically corroborating the evidence via quantitative studies.
References
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods . Oxford University Press, USA.
Chaboyer, W., Bucknall, T., Webster, J., McInnes, E., Gillespie, B. M., Banks, M., ... & Cullum, N. (2016). The effect of a patient centred care bundle intervention on pressure ulcer incidence (INTACT): a cluster randomised trial. International journal of nursing studies , 64 , 63-71.
Clissett, P., Porock, D., Harwood, R. H., & Gladman, J. R. (2013). The challenges of achieving person-centred care in acute hospitals: a qualitative study of people with dementia and their families. International Journal of Nursing Studies , 50 (11), 1495-1503.
Olsen, W. (2004). Triangulation in social research: Qualitative and quantitative methods can really be mixed. Developments in sociology , 20 , 103-118.
Rahman, M. S. (2016). The Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches and Methods in Language “Testing and Assessment” Research: A Literature Review. Journal of Education and Learning , 6 (1), 102.
