Quantitative and qualitative research methods

This review is drawn from (Hasan, Sacha. 2012, Civil Society Participation in Urban Development in Syria)

Since the Enlightenment, deductive quantitative research has been the foundation of the advancement of natural science. This basically relies on objectivity in observations, statistical analysis tools and on the numerical measurement of indicators (Smith, 1999).  This was criticized by the constructive view of knowledge especially in relation to social research where “perception, memory, emotion and understanding are human constructs, not objective things. Yet, this construction is not a chaotic process because it takes place within cultural and sub-cultural settings that provide a strong framework for extracting meaning” (McClelland, 2006 p. 8). Therefore, qualitative research methods were introduced in 1920s and 1930s in the areas of sociology and anthropology (Mark, 1996).

Qualitative methods are understood to produce accounts of human thoughts, feelings and actions, recognizing that those accounts do not apply to all people and that they do not allow predictions to be made in the way that they are in the positivist natural sciences. This argument was emphasised by Rubin & Rubin (1995) who characterised qualitative research to be “not looking for principles that are true all the time and in all conditions, like laws of physics; rather the goal is understanding of specific circumstances, how and why things actually happen in a complex world” (Rubin, et al., 1995 p. 38).

Qualitative research methods are understood to overcome the shortcomings of the quantitative ones in relation to social science. This is due to the difficulty of measuring the outcomes of qualitative objectives and outcomes of, for example, the social development projects and programmes funded by international agencies, where neither quantitative nor qualitative measurements are sufficient to give accurate evaluation (Smith, 1999 pp. 69-70). For example, Family Health International (fhi, 2010) introduced an overview of the differences between quantitative and qualitative research approaches. This was an attempt to provide basic knowledge for those involved in proceeding with its development programmes towards the design of proper research methods that can respond to their objectives. Table ‎bellow illustrates the difference between the two approaches in relation to their general framework, analytical objectives, question format, data format and flexibility in study design. It is clear that each approach has several benefits, yet also shortcomings, when considered abstractly, at least in relation to the purpose of this research.

Source: Family Health International (fhi, 2010 p3)

Therefore, it is acceptable to say that both quantitative and qualitative research methods, when considered solely (when confusing data as ends where the emphasis is on data format rather than its outcome and contribution to understanding) have shortcomings in relation to understanding research questions. This raised the consideration of the dichotomy of these two approaches to be false (Smith, 1999). Consequently, there has been “a marked shift away from the dominance of quantitative and experimental methods toward a paradigm of choices emphasising multiple methods, both qualitative and quantitative, and matching evaluation methods to specific evaluation situations and stakeholder questions” (Patton, 1987 p. 18, in Smith, 1999 p. 70). In this, Oakley (1990) suggests that the results of social research can be considered quantitative while the processes are qualitative. In other words, a combination of two types of data collection and analysis methods can be considered when studying a social phenomenon.

Participation and sustainable development

This review is drawn from (Hasan, Sacha. 2012, Civil Society Participation in Urban Development in Syria)

Sustainable development has become a ‘must present’ concept in contemporary planning theory, development studies and international development policy and practice. Development literature has viewed sustainable development to have three dimensions - social, environmental and economic (Campbell, 2003). The social dimension of the concept looks at social justice, economic opportunity, income equality and the provision of services among different social groups. It further concerns levels of social inclusion and exclusion as indicators of sustainable development. The economic dimension looks at issues of production, consumption distribution and innovation with the competitive market. Moreover, this dimension relates to access to adequate income and issues of poverty, while the environmental dimension focuses on natural resources, waste management and possible threats to nature in general (Campbell, 2003 pp. 437-438).

Another dimension has been added to the concept and this concerns the political area in society. This includes issues of administration and institutional capacity, “arguing that sustainability is reflected by the levels an organization is capable to function over the long term, providing services or assuming tasks that lie within its responsibility” (Weber, 2007 p. 37, drawing from Romaya, et al., 2002 p. 4 and Edén, et al., 2000 pp. 260-261). The political dimension further includes issues of procedural equity, participation and public engagement in decision-making processes, arguing that participatory development leads to more sustainable outcomes (Weber, 2007, drawing from Kothari, 2001 and Rydin, 2003 p. 263). In this, and according to Folger et al (1995), “for a society to function effectively, it must keep its membership, engage in efficient and effective production, and sustain the well-being of its members”.

In agreement with this, it is recognised by the international development policies that “good urban governance is characterized by the interdependent principles of sustainability, equity, efficiency, transparency and accountability, security, civic engagement and citizenship” (UN-HABITAT, 2008). Thus, the UN emphasises that “participation is a fundamental prerequisite of sustainable development” (UN, 2011c). Furthermore, UN development experts agree that a non-transparent, closed style of policy making “could threaten the consolidation of the new democracies of the developing world”. In contrast, “a more inclusionary approach involving, at a minimum, consultation with affected groups was thought to affect the sustainability of policies and improve the prospects for their design and implementation” (Bräutigam, 2004 p. 4).