empirical research qualitative methods

Canvas | University | Ask a Librarian

Library Homepage
Arrendale Library

Empirical & Non-Empirical Research

Quantitative vs. Qualitative
Empirical Research

What's the Difference Between Qualitative and Quantitative?

Distinguishing quantitative & qualitative methods, word clues to identify methods.

Reference Works for Social Sciences Research
What is Non-Empirical Research?
Contact Us!

Call us at 706-776-0111

Chat with a Librarian

Send Us Email

Library Hours

What’s the Difference Between Qualitative and Quantitative Methods?

From: Suter, W. N. (2012). Qualitative Data, Analysis, and Design. In Introduction to educational research: A critical thinking approach . SAGE Publications, Inc., www.galileo.usg.edu/redirect?inst=pie1&url=https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483384443

The words in this table can be used to evaluate whether an article tends more toward the quantitative or qualitative domain. Well-written article abstracts will contain words like these to succinctly characterize the article's content.

Adapted from: McMillan, J. H. (2012). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Search SAGE Research Methods for resources about qualitative methods

Search SAGE Research Methods for resources about quantitative methods

<< Previous: Empirical Research
Next: Reference Works for Social Sciences Research >>
Last Updated: Dec 17, 2024 10:08 AM
URL: https://library.piedmont.edu/empirical-research
Ebooks & Online Video
New Materials
Renew Checkouts
Faculty Resources
Friends of the Library
Library Services
Our Mission
Library History
Ask a Librarian!
Making Citations
Working Online

Arrendale Library Piedmont University 706-776-0111

No internet connection.

All search filters on the page have been cleared., your search has been saved..

Reader's guide

Entries a-z, subject index.

Empirical Research
Edited by: Lisa M. Given
In: The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods
Chapter DOI: https:// doi. org/10.4135/9781412963909.n133
Subject: Anthropology , Business and Management , Criminology and Criminal Justice , Communication and Media Studies , Counseling and Psychotherapy , Economics , Education , Geography , Health , History , Marketing , Nursing , Political Science and International Relations , Psychology , Social Policy and Public Policy , Social Work , Sociology
Show page numbers Hide page numbers

Empirical research, following the tenets of empiricism, is grounded in the belief that direct observation of phenomena is an appropriate way to measure reality and generate truth about the world. Within the realm of qualitative research, then, empirical research has been redefined to challenge traditional notions of “truth” and “evidence” while still maintaining the basic premises of acknowledging the materials under study as “empirical.” This entry reviews the development of empirical research in the social sciences, describes the role of qualitative methods in the field, and considers ways in which qualitative researchers have sought to redefine rigor and find new criteria for evaluating research.

Empirical Research and Logical Positivism

Empirical research in the social sciences has been shaped by logical positivism, an ontological framework that assumes social phenomena can be studied scientifically when modeled along the objective, experimental, verifiable, and generalizable methods of the natural sciences. The philosophical assumption in positivist research is that of foundationalism—that all knowledge has a secure foundation and that following the right procedures leads us to “truth.” From its origins, social science has been enmeshed with the Enlightenment ideas about human reason. From Francis Bacon to David Hume, to Auguste Comte, to Émile Durkheim and several others after that, the focus has been on facts (defined as an observable reality “out there” that is independent of the researcher and that the researcher can capture by being objective and following certain methods) and the causal explanation of facts. Logical positivism insists that value is not a part of science, primarily because it cannot be observed and is not part of an “objective” philosophy. Human subjectivity in knowledge creation is typically sealed off. Only observations are important, and methods are designed to control biases and prejudices. The main goal of this kind of research is to generate universal explanations and predictions of social phenomena. It is assumed that there is always a causal explanation for phenomena. In traditional empirical research, human action is constrained and shaped by factors and forces (including external stimuli) that must be observed correctly and objectively if knowledge is to be created. Positivist and much postpositivist practice defines knowledge as a product of something we use (techne/method).

However, contemporary naturalism accepts that no unequivocal procedures/criteria for choosing among different competing knowledge claims is possible. Also, facts and values are no longer entirely separated, and it is now accepted that observation is theory laden, thereby creating more similarities with the anti-naturalist stand.

Empirical Research within Qualitative Research

Qualitative methods texts outline various approaches to conducting empirical research within this paradigm. For example, John Creswell outlined five methodological approaches to qualitative empirical research: narrative research, phenomenological research, grounded theory research, ethnographic research, and case study research. Similarly, Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln discussed several sources of, and techniques for, gathering empirical data: observation, interviews, analysis of cultural and archival records, visual methods, autoethnography, data management and analysis techniques, computer-assisted analysis, focus groups, applied ethnography, and conversation and cultural analyses. All of these approaches address the central goal of empirical research—to observe phenomena in the social world so as to generate knowledge about these phenomena.

Rigor in Empirical Qualitative Research

Empirical research is based on ideals of credibility, confirmability, and other core tenets of rigor, all of which are interconnected and engaged with the researcher's own objective or subjective stance. In qualitative research, traditional notions of objectivity, reliability, generalizability, and validity (central to rigor in quantitative projects) have been challenged and redefined. Unfortunately, many scholars in the quantitative realm misunderstand the nature of rigor in qualitative research, and this has led several empiricists to question whether qualitative research and qualitative methods can be truly considered “empirical” and, therefore, adequately scientific. What warrants subjectively mediated meanings? This issue is discussed greatly by qualitative empirical researchers, both in defense of their underlying philosophy and in improving their practice of research, by making clear that an “anything goes” approach to knowledge is not acceptable.

Qualitative researchers have proposed several approaches that offer alternative ways of achieving validity. These include contextualized (“thick”) description, catalytic (validity) criteria, and triangulation.

In contextualized thick description (formulated mainly along Clifford Geertz's ideas and in ethnographic research), the goal is to understand what “goes into” the phenomena in question by “searching out” and analyzing symbolic forms, such as words, images, institutions, and behaviors, in terms of how people actually represent themselves publicly. The main issue here is how the context is described and taken into account through the research. Thus, descriptive validity can be achieved by keeping the data linked to issues of interpretive validity.

Catalytic validity directs us to the possibility of the research moving to help those researched so as to transform their world and experiences. Therefore, as has been argued by many, the criterion for this kind of validity will focus primarily on the effect of the inquiry process in changing reality. Triangulation refers mainly to the multimethod focus of qualitative research. The use of multiple methods helps in gaining greater rigor and more in-depth understanding of the issues or phenomena in question. It adds to the overall richness of the research and provides a much more varied set of data as compared with the use of one single method.

Challenges to Positivism

Thomas Schwandt described the “crisis of legitimation” that has emerged through the challenges to claims that a text is an authoritative account of experience. From a positivist empirical perspective, the knower and the known are separate and distinct, and knowledge claims are warranted by the appeal to the use of proper methods. Proper methods ensure that claims depict the world accurately and objectively without the biases of the observer/knower. In contrast, a constructionist empirical stance is grounded in the belief that observations are theory, value, and perspective laden and that the knower and the known are inextricably intertwined. No particular set of methods is epistemically privileged.

Critical theory, feminist stances, and some social constructionist stances would state largely that issues of epistemological criteria must be considered within a larger political framework where power relations, in particular, are addressed. In postmodern qualitative work, for example, rhetorical and aesthetic persuasion and coherence may play a key role in shaping the work, leading to a shift in dissemination toward literature and performance as representational forms.

A strong postmodern stance and radical skepticism/nihilism would state that understanding and meaning-making are relative constructions, rendering definitive notions of “validity” obsolete. According to Ian [Page 255] Stronach, for example, one can only engage in the endless play of difference rather than locating and reflecting common experiences. Some qualitative researchers would say that we need to bring open-ended, constantly evolving lists to the project of judgment—lists of characteristics relevant to that text—and that we must be intentionally polyvocal. Criteria, then, must be context specific.

According to a Gadamerian hermeneutic position, research is not about epistemic criteria but rather about dialogically engaging in open, morally relevant conversations about understandings of appropriate practice. We need to offer our reasons for analyzing and making research determinations based on our knowledge claims and engage in conversations about them, for judgment is inherently social and shared.

The Politics of Empirical Research

Scholars working in areas such as feminist research, Indigenous research, African American studies, South Asian studies, queer studies, cultural studies, and a number of other disciplines have tried to redefine traditional understandings of what constitutes “valid evidence” by questioning what and how knowledge is re-produced and re-presented and for whose benefit. Empirical research in this context, then, is politicized by these critical qualitative groups of scholars across the globe and by other “scientific” scholars who continue to claim to be proponents of truth and the ways of achieving it through empirical research.

Indeed, traditional patterns of exclusion (e.g., of lived experiences of marginalized communities) can be further supported by the state through funding, supporting, and setting standards for research. The concept of empiricism is often politicized in this manner when the state defines standards by which to determine what scientific interventions are “working.” In the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as in parts of Europe, a global movement toward an audit accountability culture shaped by state funding of scientific research tends to emphasize evidence-based social science research projects modeled along the biomedical sciences. This approach raises new questions for qualitative scholars in the debate around what constitutes “valid,” and therefore “fundable,” research.