Prompt
Introduction to Qualitative Research for Public Administration
Within the public administration field, using quantitative data is the methodology of choice for most researchers (Ospina et al., 2017). While they collect data and evaluate numbers and trends, the lack of qualitative data leaves the research incomplete. The limited use of qualitative data and the often narrow scope of the methodology when it is employed have led to an underutilized and undervalued resource (Ospina et al., 2017). Qualitative data provides a glimpse of the makeup and composition of things, whereas quantitative provides a picture through numerical or statistical information (Lune & Berg, 2016). Public administrators who seek to find information to address problems, develop plans for the future or validate decisions should use a research methodology that allows them to measure the quality of information over quantity (Ospina et al., 2017). Quantitative researchers use deductive methods or approaches, while qualitative researchers use inductive approaches (Barczak, 2015).
Unlike quantitative research which evaluates statistical information, qualitative research focuses on determining the quality and value of information and its relationships to the subject being evaluated through systematic approaches (Barczak, 2015; Lune & Berg, 2016). The use of data to test hypotheses and determine the validity of an idea is replaced in qualitative research with specific observations and identification of patterns. This research type evaluates social interactions, behaviors, and other influences to measure their effects on people. While quantitative data looks for statistical significance, qualitative looks for patterns and relationships between the various factors (Lune & Berg, 2016). For researchers in public administration, these relationships and influences can provide information on not only the specific issue being evaluated but also provide a clearer picture of why the issue exists and what factors could potentially impact it. Quantitative methodology drives theoretical innovation and creates opportunities for the researcher to identify relationships outside a narrow or specific dataset (Hendren et al., 2022).
Qualitative data provides the researcher with understanding and information that could not be quantified numerically or through some other means (Queirós et al., 2017). These understandings provide explanations of the various social relationships and how they are intertwined and affect each other. Another advantage of qualitative methodologies is the immersion of the researchers themselves (Ospina et al., 2017; Queirós et al., 2017). In quantitative, the researcher is outside the problem or area of study looking inward to evaluate data gathered through some measurement instrument. Within qualitative studies, the researcher is more often immersed in the study in order to evaluate and closely examine the relationships and interactions of the area of study. While it may start with focus groups and external examinations, the nature of evaluation pulls the researcher into the study to fully grasp the problem and evaluate what influences the other behaviors have upon it (Queirós et al., 2017).
Within scripture, Jesus used parables to provide lessons on human behaviors and attitudes. These parables used qualitative evaluations to focus on those behaviors, emotions, and experiences. Quantitative methods do not provide an avenue to evaluate those basic human factors but leave the researcher only the opportunity to identify trends. Qualitative evaluations provided glimpses of how, what, and why people acted like they did, providing lessons in human behavior and the effects of sin on the heart. In Matthew chapter 13, Jesus is telling the story of the sower and scattering of seeds. When questioned why He uses parables to talk to the people, He explains in verse 14 that people hear without understanding and see without perceiving (Bible, 2021). He goes on to explain that people must understand within their hearts to gain understanding and knowledge, not simply rely on what they have heard and seen. The correlation exists within qualitative and quantitative studies, where the quantitative allows researchers to see and hear, but not fully understand. The qualitative methods allow the researcher to fully understand the heart.
Traditional use of qualitative research has focused primarily on case studies, leaving many to believe that this methodology is inferior to the quantitative methods (Barczak, 2015). Ospina, Esteve, and Lee (2017) evaluated qualitative studies and found that researchers often failed to be transparent about how the data was collected and analyzed, and failed to tie both epistemological and theoretical assumptions back to the correct methodologies. These failures, coupled with errors in the proper selection of methodology often limited the scope and outcomes of qualitative studies, which created some negative attitudes toward the method. The use of qualitative research provides opportunities to understand relationships and behavioral influences on factors being studied. This replaces the more traditional mindset of numerical significance and creates opportunities to determine what effect the variables have on one another, and more importantly, provides a glimpse into why those relationships exist.
References
Barczak, G. (2015). Publishing qualitative versus quantitative research. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(5), 658–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12277Links to an external site.
Bible, T. (2021). King James Bible. Trinitarian Bible Society.
Hendren, K., Newcomer, K., Pandey, S. K., Smith, M., & Sumner, N. (2022). How qualitative research methods can be leveraged to strengthen mixed methods research in public policy and public administration? Public Administration Review, 83(3), 468–485. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13528Links to an external site.
Lune, H., & Berg, B. (2016). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences, books a la carte (9th ed.). Pearson.
Ospina, S. M., Esteve, M., & Lee, S. (2017). Assessing qualitative studies in public administration research. Public Administration Review, 78(4), 593–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12837Links to an external site.
Queirós, A., Faria, D., & Almeida, F. (2017). Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.887089