Compare and Contrast Research Assignment 2022

Running head: COMPARE AND CONTRAST RESEARCH.
COMPARE AND CONTRAST RESEARCH.
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note:

1
COMPARE AND CONTRAST RESEARCH.
Discussion
In this assignment, the chosen non-experimental study is Phenomenological Research as
a qualitative study and randomized control trial as a quantitative or experimental study. The
similarities of both the study design are to gain appropriate results of the research.
Phenomenological Research:
Phenomenological research is referred to as the research where researchers consider the
lived experience of the participants as the central theme of the research (Grove & Gray 2019, p.
317). The common philosophy of the research includes Husserl or Heidegger approach.
Husserl’s approach focuses on the phenomenon itself and captures the lived experience of the
patient without interpreting or explaining the lived experience of the participants (Grove & Gray
2019, p. 96). Hence, it is considered as descriptive phenomenological research. In this case,
researchers must minimize their biases for the research and preconceptions for accurately
capturing the phenomenon. On the other hand, Heidegger's approach is mainly based on the
interpretation of the lived experience as he argued that researchers cannot minimize their own
biases in their own biases. In this context, this research is considered as interpretive
phenomenological research (Larkin, Shaw & Flowers, 2019, p: 190). Compared to the
descriptive approach, the interpretive approach is commonly used by the nursing researchers
where they involve in textual analysis.
Outcome:

2
COMPARE AND CONTRAST RESEARCH.
Unlike a randomized controlled trial, the outcome of the research provides an in-depth
description of the lived experience of the population which is a potential indicator of the future
research by nurse researchers as it enables researchers to capture diverse perspective on the
phenomena (Grove & Gray 2019, p. 96).
Randomized control trial:
The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is considered as the gold standard of the
experimental study to test the efficiency of intervention as it limits the errors and biases (Grove
& Gray 2019, p. 280). RCT was developed by James Lind in 1747 as a randomized experiment
of psychology to test the intervention. Based on the philosophy and study setting, the research is
classified as "explanatory" or "pragmatic. In case of explanatory RCT, the intervention efficacy
is tested in highly controlled research setting with highly selected participants of the research. On
the other hand, pragmatic RCT is conducted in day to day practice under a flexible environment
and randomly selected participants (Van der Velden et al., 2016, p: 100). Compared to the
phenomenological research randomized control trail is used by the nurse researchers to test the
interventions where participants were allocated randomly to minimize selection bias (Grove and
Gray 2019, p. 280). Unlike phenomenological research, it must be conducted in a clinical setting
and nurse researchers must use the study CONSORT guideline to assess the randomized control
trial.
The outcome of RCT:
The primary outcome of RCT is to identify whether tested intervention is effective on the
general population or not, indicating it can be provided as an effective intervention on the
general population or not. In this context, compared to phenomenological research, it can be

3
COMPARE AND CONTRAST RESEARCH.
applied to the general population and specific population according to the demand of the
intervention.
Reference:
Grove, S. K., & Gray, J. R., (2019). Understanding Nursing Research: Building an Evidenced-
Based Practice (7th ed.). St.
Louis, MO: Elsevier Saunders
Larkin, M., Shaw, R., & Flowers, P. (2019). Multiperspectival designs and processes in
interpretative phenomenological analysis research. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 16(2), 182-198.
Van der Velden, J. M., Verkooijen, H. M., Young-Afat, D. A., Burbach, J. P., van Vulpen, M.,
Relton, C., ... & Groenwold, R. H. (2016). The cohort multiple randomized controlled
trial design: a valid and efficient alternative to pragmatic trials?. International journal of
epidemiology, 46(1), 96-102.