Sociology Report: Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methodologies

This report provides a detailed comparison of quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. It begins with an introduction that highlights the importance of choosing appropriate research methods. The main body of the report is divided into two parts. Part I discusses the theoretical foundations of quantitative and qualitative research, including positivism and interpretivism, and explores the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning. Part II applies these methods to research studies in criminology, analyzing sample sizes and data collection strategies in selected articles. The report examines studies on topics such as gender and delinquency, compliance with the law, perceptions of antisocial behavior, and the experiences of unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors in the UK. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of selecting the correct methodology based on the research question and highlights the strengths and limitations of both quantitative and qualitative approaches. The report underscores the significance of understanding both methodologies to conduct effective research.

REPORT

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................4
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................4
Part I, Section 1 .....................................................................................................................4
Part I , Section 2.....................................................................................................................5
Part II......................................................................................................................................6
Title: Gendering Delinquent Networks.........................................................................6
Title: Do people comply with the law because they fear getting caught?....................7
Title: Perceptions of antisocial behaviour and negative attitudes towards young people:
Focus group evidence from adult residents of disadvantaged urban neighbourhoods. 7
Title: What are the experiences of education for unaccompanied asylum‐seeking minors in
the UK?.........................................................................................................................7
General Comment.........................................................................................................8
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................9
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................10

INTRODUCTION
We live in a fast paced world. Some of us seek solace in nature while some others find
peace with people. By the virtue of being a part of a larger social system we are constantly
interacting with our physical environment. This interaction is bound to lead to certain queries
and issues due to the inherent quality of being rational and wise ; being Homo sapiens.
These questions push one to explore the dimensions of the relevant environment and seek
answers. These explorations can take varied approaches. One can either choose to look at a
broader picture from the peculiar observations made or in alternative, can try to further break
down the observations and study specific effects. Success of either of the ways depends on the
suitable choice being made. A research process can be statistic – intensive or may be full with
subjective experiences. Research Methodologies have been debated since centuries and only a
suitable choice of method ensures prevention from absurd conclusions. This essay focuses on
delineating the differences between the two most popular research methodologies. It would
discuss the theoretical basis behind each in the first part along with a discussion of key
distinctions in the other section of Part I. Part II of the essay would then reflect upon the
application of these methods in research studies.

MAIN BODY
Part I, Section 1
When one talks about research methodologies , two prominent categories that flash in our
mind are Quantitative and qualitative methods. The rudimentary understanding of them based in
the usage of data follows. There is a general trend to distinguish between the two on the basis of
statistics (Wood, 2010). Quantitative methodology does involve statistical analysis but
qualitative studies are not totally devoid of data. Most data is textual based on observations
recorded from experiences.
It is crucial to understand the theoretical basis behind each one of them to not confuse
the notion of methodologies with their underlying theoretical aspects. Quantitative research is
based in the objective world view and its core is to take the reality as it is posited in the natural
domain. This understanding is known as Positivism (Alharahsheh, 2020). Qualitative methods
would take a subjective view of the world because of the underlying rational that supports reality
to be a a social construct and thus different for each person. This is known as an interpretivist
approach where in a researcher shall look at the observations singularly with due value to each
of them and interpret the way one looks at the social reality on which the research is based
(Wood, 2010).
Inducing or deducing by way of reason are the ways we use to seek answers. One often
fails to actually gain an understanding of the etymological difference between induction and
deduction. While the former is used to understand specific issues and impute reason as a basis to
generalise after due analysis ; the latter is the process to observe at a stretch the application of a
general theory and then subsequently apply it to the array of observations objectively. These
ideas also are linked to the differences in the positivist and interpretivist thoughts (Pham, L.T.M.,
2018).
Part I , Section 2
To a positivist the method of deduction is suitable for analysis and application as the have
an objective view point and thus apply general theories to specific aspects in an 'all alike'
fashion. Once a theory is put in place it is hypothesised to be applicable to a certain set of
observations collected by way of suitable sampling. This application is done to deduce if the
theoretical understanding is applicable in a different environment so as to extend its domain.

Usage of a wide array of observations all aligned in a certain manner is the most suitable to
confirm the universality of the application so hypothesised.
An inductive approach on the other hand makes a marked shift and puts the individual
reasons of the subject at the forefront. The idea is to look for common grounds based on
empirical interpretation of causes and thus it is suitable to go for specific observations which
match the threshold of a certain quality. This helps in inducing a theory that is applicable to a
finite set of people that are linked in a specific way as participants of the research. Generalisation
of results is the plan behind such research that leads to emergence of common themes in a
differently experienced social reality (Hayes, 2018).
While employing quantitative means the researcher is supposed to maintain objectivity
which can only happen through the way of an independent environment not affected by the
presence of the researcher. This leaves only impersonal ways to the researcher to carry out one's
inquiry. Resultantly, the tools are survey or questionnaires to be answered independent of an
explanation. Suitable explanations can be provided to streamline the understanding process.
These ways are always criticised to be of monotonous nature , boring and large at times. The
sense of impersonality might cause the participant to leave real truth behind covers and end up
giving only the most close answer choice available.
On the other hand , one can observe several different modes of inquiry. The reason is that
as an interpretivist one needs textual observation to interpret the social thread as understood by
the people who participated. The methods vary from focus group discussion, interviews, call
based discussion . These methods are to understand the secrets or opinions one holds in
language. Thus, the obvious criticism is that interpretivists might totally fail to determine what
the participant was intending to say (Armat, 2018).
Quantitative methods are not flexible in their approach. The rigid process along with a
predefined structure for surveys and questionnaire is followed. Qualitative methods on the other
hand are descriptive in approach to easily devolve the understanding of the small-group sampled
for the purpose. There is lot of flexibility in ways : from simple narration to ethnography.
Textual analysis is difficult and is largely a manual process based on recognition of key words
and then a development of a singular thread of reason. Quantitative ways may present a horrible
amount of data which is at times difficult to be interpreted. Several big data tools have evolved
and are a popular means in the modern world to support research methods.

Part II
In this part we shall note down the key arguments of certain articles pertaining to
criminology and comment upon usage of sample size and research methods.
Qualitative Research Papers:
Title: Gendering Delinquent Networks
This particular piece tries to understand the individual relevance of violent crimes for
both genders being the aggressor or suspected to be. Arguments are built upon criminological
research in the field and the hypothesis is to see if the significance is similar or not. Key
arguments used to understand the similarity of significance rely on cited research work
conceptualising “violent crime as a resource in connection with the performance of gender”; and
claim that the significance is similar as there is an underlying notion of feminine behaviour as an
unacceptable trait. Suspects of both genders look down on the same, and the treatment of girl
against other girls is either based in gender crossing or disparaging the good girl.
Title: Do people comply with the law because they fear getting caught?
The aim of this paper was to test an assumption based on situational action theory to
understand specific behaviour of individuals to deterrence. An individual’s generalized
deterrence perception on individual involvement in a crime as a factor of their propensity to
commit a crime. Questionnaire was used to test the aversive nature of individuals, their
propensity to commit a crime and suitable question to test their value to deterrence. Their main
argument was that people can be crime averse or prone and secondly, individual deterrence
perception based on objective classification as prone or averse would influence crime
involvement.
Qualitative Research Papers:

Title: Perceptions of antisocial behaviour and negative attitudes towards young people: Focus
group evidence from adult residents of disadvantaged urban neighbourhoods
It studied the perception of antisocial behaviour as a specific reason for general aversive
or negative stance of disadvantaged urban people towards young people. The argument was that
antisocial behaviours are a marker of intolerance towards youth due to their reduced
understanding of the widespread social reality. The results though, based on discussions,
highlighted the acceptance of heterogeneity of youth and their behaviours. Poor environments,
poor parenting and poor adult behaviour were though cited as reasons for anti – social stance.
Title: What are the experiences of education for unaccompanied asylum‐seeking minors in the
UK?
The specific issue of rise in number of refugees creates issues of education, which is
definitely a medium to emancipate certain issues in their lives. This research pertained to
understand the review of UASMs towards education. The specific idea was that it is well
accepted but how and what special needs are there or possibly not any exist was to be analysed to
gain a critical view of the education structure for UASMs. The paper focussed more on the needs
and the textual analysis chalking out the general concerns on the specific groundwork of a
positive behaviour of UASMs towards education.
General Comment
While the qualitative researches looked at the scheme of affairs in numbers exceeding
1200 and 700 respectively, the sample size in the qualitative work was merely limited to 83 and
6 in number. These numbers are well suited to the needs and structure to the topics as well as the
general understanding of qualitative and quantitative memories. Looking at the strategies of data
collection it was highlighted that the modes were police reports and small-group questionnaires
plus one-to-one psychometric tests (the ways were impersonal mostly) respectively in the
qualitative papers highly in contrast to focus group discussions and ideas sought by way of one
to one discussion and then analysed by IPA method. Detailed accounts with subjective
understanding made the data received suitable to the purpose.

CONCLUSION
This essay presents to the reader a brief discussion about different aspects of the two
most prominent methodologies of research. A choice between Qualitative and Quantitative
methodologies is a key part of preliminary choices to be made before initiating research. They
not only differ in ways of data collection and analysis tools but at the core is the distinction of
interpersonal interaction. While the former is all about a subjective view of the social realities ;
the latter is more keen to observe from an objective purview. The difference in understanding of
the world view is the core idea behind the different approaches.
The issue then is which one to choose. An answer to this is never simple but a good
analysis of the pertinent needs of the subject matter shall resolve the tussle generally. From the
reflection of selected articles in Part II it can be concluded that both the methodologies have their
own significant tools and objective/subjective methods to reach to a conclusion. The theoretical
paradigm and the etymological understanding of the terms deduction and induction can be
employed to understand the intricacies between the two. One should not be blinded by prejudices
of one's own while choosing an answer to this pertinent question and shall always rely on the real
needs while selecting a suitable methodology.

REFERENCES
Alharahsheh, H. and Pius, A., 2020. A review of key paradigms: Positivism VS interpretivism.
Global Academic Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(3), pp.39-43.
Armat, M.R., Assarroudi, A., Rad, M., Sharifi, H. and Heydari, A., 2018. Inductive and
deductive: Ambiguous labels in qualitative content analysis. The Qualitative Report, 23(1),
pp.219-221.
Egan, M., Neary, J., Keenan, P.J. and Bond, L., 2013. Perceptions of antisocial behaviour and
negative attitudes towards young people: Focus group evidence from adult residents of
disadvantaged urban neighbourhoods (Glasgow, UK). Journal of Youth Studies, 16(5),
pp.612-627.
Fuller, M. and Hayes, B., 2020. What are the experiences of education for unaccompanied
asylum‐seeking minors in the UK?. Child: Care, Health and Development.
Hayes, B.K., Stephens, R.G., Ngo, J. and Dunn, J.C., 2018. The dimensionality of reasoning:
Inductive and deductive inference can be explained by a single process. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(9), p.1333.
Pettersson, T., 2005. Gendering delinquent networks: A gendered analysis of violent crimes and
the structure of boys’ and girls’ co-offending networks.Young, 13(3), pp.247-267.
Pham, L.T.M., 2018. Qualitative Approach to Research, A review of Advantages and
Disadvantages of three paradigms: Positivism, Interpretivism and Critical Inquiry.
University of Adelaide.
Wikström, P.O.H., Tseloni, A. and Karlis, D., 2011. Do people comply with the law because
they fear getting caught?. European Journal of Criminology,8(5), pp.401-420.
Wood, M. and Welch, C., 2010. Are ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’ useful terms for describing
research?. Methodological innovations online, 5(1), pp.56-71.