The qualitative research contradiction dwells on the dispute between the supporters and the opposing forces of the study design implementation.
Thus, due to its non-scientific nature, many experts regard a qualitative research as a description model and state that it is unacceptable to employ the findings of such studies in the scholarly settings. The argument stems from the idea that qualitative research works are not dwelling on the facts that pertain to the objective reality but merely recounts them.
However, some scientists, primarily the ones, who specialize in social or philological studies, claim that the investigation design depends heavily on the task that is initially set. Accordingly, the qualitative research has the right to exist if it is employed with an intention of describing certain conceptions in the natural environment.
Though the reviewed type of the analysis is based on subjective assumptions, it has to follow the basic pattern of investigation structuring. Thus, a research specialist has to be able to provide a consistent grounding for the design selection. The argument must be supported by a representation of data collection methods, questionnaire designs, sampling techniques, etc.
Moreover, it is vital to follow the order of primary research development. It reiterates the model of quantitative investigation, except for the numbers and statistics presenting part. Finally, the efficient qualitative research must be finished with a multilevel interpretation of the study results as well as making some considerate conclusions and further research recommendations (Naresh 71).
Therefore, one can deduce that a qualitative research that is based on an elaborate development model serves as an optimal method of objective reality description. According to the experts, the ultimate advantage of such study design lies in the fact that except being methodologically reliable, it is highly autonomous at the same time (Seale 465). In other words, it possesses a power of free interpretation
. The investigators, who employ this type of research in their professional activities, do not have to rely on the standard formulas and quantification standards but rather on some resilient social and political paradigms that can be evaluated in contrastive ways. Besides, it is acknowledged that qualitative researching provides much deeper insights into the particular subject matters than its famous counterpart.
For instance, this model of investigation is frequently based on the interviews and focus groups observations. Since the processes of assessment are often based on a verbal interaction, it is claimed that these techniques provide the efficient overview of the members’ ideas, without imposing any limitations on the procedure of communication. It provides vast possibilities for a complete evaluation of particular concept or problem.
The model of qualitative researching is quite non-laborious in its design since the outcomes and the study framework are simply stated in the text and rarely require any background knowledge of the subject matter. Moreover, this type of scientific investigation provides progressing results, for its outcomes are primarily based on interactional practices that reflect the feelings and ideas of contemporary society.
In contrast to it, the platforms of quantification scientific study tend to enter the category of unreliable and outdated methods. Due to the simple resources application, the type of research is cost-efficient since it can be conducted without any expenditure. On the opposite, it is not characteristic of the quantitative study development usually requires the usage of the elaborate technological devices and machinery.
The idea of the qualitative research implementation as a dominating method of research culture seems quite unrealistic, though. The modern world of a rush lifestyle and highly technological devices directs the area of scientific research. Consequently, the descriptive model of research development possesses some considerate demerits as well.
Specifically, one dwells on the fact that qualitative researching is bias-prone, for the findings of such studies often stand in correlation with the personal persuasions of the scientists, which accomplish the investigation. The tendency may be explained through the subjectivity of the data collection, which fully relies on a human factor.
Second, the model may appear quite time-inefficient in some situations since the materials for the study initially appear as the sporadic compilation of individual reports and interview records. Thus, the process of data processing can be extremely prolonged. Third, the reliability of the qualitative research findings is frequently questioned by both the experienced research specialists and the global community.
People tend to adopt a prejudiced attitude towards the ideas and conclusions, which can not be supported by the facts or evidence. Nevertheless, the history of research development reveals multiple examples of the greatest world discoveries being made through the qualitative evaluations.
Fourth, it may be argued that qualitative research studies may be based on the wrong evidence since the interviews are always conducted in the presence of the project managers, which can influence the objectivity of the participants’ responses.
Finally, the results of multiple qualitative studies are frequently exposed to public scandals, for some scientists use some confidential data about the participants, which can hurt the reputation of the experiment members and make them the victims of social biases (“Advantages and Disadvantages of Qualitative Research” par. 5).
Naresh, Malhotra. Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2010. Print.
Seale, Cleave. “Quality in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 5.4 (2006): 465- 478. Print.