TOPIC: Discuss the differences and similarities between quantitative, qualitative and mix methods research studies.

Rubric

Please include a 200 words in 2 (two )answers to your peers ( TOTAL 400 hundred words for this assignment . 1 reference each

Peer and professor Responses: examples learned from the material provided during the weekly reading or other relevant examples from the clinical practice; the student is showing applied knowledge and understanding of the topic. Also, the posting offers original and thoughtful insight, synthesis, or observation that demonstrates a strong understanding of the concepts and ideas pertaining to the discussion topic (use of examples). The student’s initial thread response is rich in critical thinking and full of thought, insight, and analysis; the argument is clear and concise.
Quality Wrtten communication: The student uses a style and voice that are not only appropriate to the given audience and purpose, but that also shows originality and creativity. Word choice is specific, purposeful, dynamic, and varied. Free of mechanical and typographical errors. A variety of sentence structures are used. The student is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English

First Peer posted:
The discussion seeks to establish the similarities and differences between quantitative, qualitative, and mix methods research studies. An important point to note is that quantitative and qualitative research studies shall be the main focus. This is because mix methods involve a combination of qualitative and quantitative study designs, which makes it difficult to compare against the two since they are (mix methods’) building blocks.
Similarities
Both quantitative and qualitative research studies record research and statistical analysis results (Leavy, 2017). For example, a qualitative design could be designated to establish and report the overall income of an organization as a statement, whereas a quantitative design could be deliberated to establish the income of the same organization but to report in terms of numeric intervals. The two methods thus achieve the same result but utilize different approaches.
Both research studies can be used to record numeric values. The only difference is that qualitative research studies do not feature arithmetic operations on the collected values. Also, in both methods, collection tools such as questionnaires and interviews could be used to collect data (Leavy, 2017). In both studies, studies from the past are used as the basis of evidence to support the research question(s).
Differences
The main difference between qualitative and quantitative research studies is evidenced in the uses of the individual studies. Quantitative studies are used to:
Conduct and replicate scientific research results. Quantitative studies are compatible with almost all methods used to analyze data and statistics since they deal with numbers and arithmetic operations (Leavy, 2017). Quantitative research is also used when research includes large data samples because it allows for generalization after the quantification of the collected data. Quantitative studies are also used in laboratories where precision is considered a key aspect and when collecting sensitive data where bias is a likelihood.
On the other hand, qualitative studies are mainly used when research is tied around an individual or a small group of individuals. They mainly record people’s feelings, opinions, behaviors, and thoughts (Flick, 2018). As a result, generalization in qualitative studies is not possible because the studies are mostly subjective.
As mentioned earlier, mix methods studies utilize both qualitative and quantitative research designs. Hence, establishing the differences and/or similarities to either qualitative or quantitative research designs would not be practical because it is made from the two (Leavy, 2017).
Both qualitative and quantitative research studies can be used to record numerical data, but it is only in quantitative studies where arithmetic operations are performed. While quantitative studies are mostly used in scientific research, qualitative studies record people’s thoughts, feelings, and opinions. However, in both studies, a solid basis of information, most likely from previous research, has to be provided for the study to be considered convincing.
References
Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research. sage.
Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. Guilford Publications.

Second Peer posted:
There are various ways to collect and present information necessary for research studies in research. The type of information and measures used creates quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Quantitative research uses numerical values to create, test hypotheses, and make predictions. Qualitative research uses non-numerical information for the same purpose, while mixed-methods combine the two in their research. Mixed methods focus on collecting, analyzing, and mixing qualitative and quantitative data in one study.
Though the three are used for data collection and presentation, they differ in their methodologies, but mixed-methods combine the qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Qualitative methodologies include analyzing texts in narratives, case studies, and grounded theory. Data collection methods include surveys, administration of questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, observation, and other methods that involve non-numerical data.
The quantitative, on the other hand, uses experimental methodologies often conducted in a laboratory, non-experimental can be done through surveys or observation but has a particular, measurable value that is being experimented or observed. For example, when investigating riots in universities, qualitative studies will investigate the reasons, while quantitative studies may seek to understand the frequency of the riots (Panda et al, 2018). Quantitative research is considered unbiased because of numbers, and it is hard to argue with numbers compared to people’s words from their perspectives.
However, Panda et al., (2018) argues that the process of choosing one numerical variable and justifying the reason for it may be biased, but it proves that quantitative, to some degree, is qualitative research. This makes mixed methods a more effective research methodology. Quantitative and qualitative further differ in that the former uses a statistical process to make conclusions while the latter uses coding methods and processes to draw conclusions.
Mixed methods provide the researcher with more space and platform to include both types of data, making it among the most effective research methods, especially in addressing bias. This is because mixed methods provide an in-depth understanding of quantitative variables resulting in quantitative numerical findings. Rouleau et al., (2019) identifies that mixed methods have to systematically use “quantitative and qualitative methods in a complementary relationship to reinforce each other.”
Furthermore, mixed methods answer questions that neither solely qualitative nor qualitative methods can answer. Mixed methods have more validity; this is how accurately a research method measures the intended measure and hypotheses. However, mixed research methods may be complex for a single researcher and compared to the other two because of the information required and the expertise required to present the information.
References
Panda, S., Begley, C., & Daly, D. (2018). Clinicians’ views of factors influencing decision-making for caesarean section: A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. PloS one, 13(7), e0200941. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200941
Rouleau, G., Gagnon, M. P., Côté, J., Payne-Gagnon, J., Hudson, E., Dubois, C. A., & Bouix-Picasso, J. (2019). Effects of e-learning in a continuing education context on nursing care: systematic review of systematic qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-studies reviews. Journal of medical Internet research, 21(10), e15118. https://www.jmir.org/2019/10/e15118/