There seems to be a general argument whether or not researchers should use a quantitative or qualitative research design when seeking funding for their studies. There is one argument that states that the differences in what makes for a good quantitative or qualitative research design often lead funders to misinformed evaluations of the strengths of exemplary qualitative research.
This article is going to explore reasons why the weaknesses of qualitative research often lead for funders to explore more quantitative research methods. However, the argument is that why the strengths of qualitative are design being overlooked. Michael Ungar explains this within the article and “examines differences in the criteria for good quantitative and qualitative …show more content…
This criteria allows for qualitative research to be judged on its own evidences. Lincoln and Guba (1985) established this criteria in what they termed it as trustworthiness. Trustworthiness was meant to roughly parallel the standards of internal validity, external validity, reliability and objectivity so quintessential to quantitative research (Ungar, 2006).”
Qualitative studies need to pursue credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. Credibility (the parallel to internal validity), Transferability (external validity), Dependability (reliability), and confirmability (objectivity) (Ungar, 2006). Furthermore when we are looking at a qualitative study, the researchers need to make sure they have sufficiently represented their participant’s views in the study. Ungar (2006) lays out some expectations that qualitative researchers need to follow to strengthen their study:
1 Have multiple data sources and theoretical schemes been used to demonstrate congruence of the findings (triangulation of the …show more content…
However, he sees the struggle these studies have over their quantitative study counterpart. Ungar offers some ideas on how to make your qualitative study more noticeable when your funders lack familiarity with criteria for judging qualitative research. Although you are not changing the methods to a qualitative study you are improving the view of your study to your funders. Ungar says you should “Dress It Up” meaning dress up a qualitative study to make it look quantitative. Adding “Contextualizing activities, which proved to be as insightful to the project, were supported but were seen as supplemental to the real work being done (Ungar, 2006).” The second strategy is discussed as “Sleeping with the Elephant”. Ungar (2006) says to make qualitative research more fundable is to acknowledge that funders would prefer to support quantitative research therefore including mixed method designs in your research would increase funders satisfaction. Ungar’s third strategy is to “Seek but Never Find”; a strategy where you voice your study in an exploratory format. Ungar’s fourth strategy to increasing the strength of your qualitative study is known is “Table Scraps”. This strategy is to accept that sometimes qualitative research is fundable when ambitions are small and the monetary commitment inconsequential to funders, or simply part of other research agendas (Ungar, 2006).” The qualitative researcher is not seeking a piece
This article is going to explore reasons why the weaknesses of qualitative research often lead for funders to explore more quantitative research methods. However, the argument is that why the strengths of qualitative are design being overlooked. Michael Ungar explains this within the article and “examines differences in the criteria for good quantitative and qualitative …show more content…
This criteria allows for qualitative research to be judged on its own evidences. Lincoln and Guba (1985) established this criteria in what they termed it as trustworthiness. Trustworthiness was meant to roughly parallel the standards of internal validity, external validity, reliability and objectivity so quintessential to quantitative research (Ungar, 2006).”
Qualitative studies need to pursue credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. Credibility (the parallel to internal validity), Transferability (external validity), Dependability (reliability), and confirmability (objectivity) (Ungar, 2006). Furthermore when we are looking at a qualitative study, the researchers need to make sure they have sufficiently represented their participant’s views in the study. Ungar (2006) lays out some expectations that qualitative researchers need to follow to strengthen their study:
1 Have multiple data sources and theoretical schemes been used to demonstrate congruence of the findings (triangulation of the …show more content…
However, he sees the struggle these studies have over their quantitative study counterpart. Ungar offers some ideas on how to make your qualitative study more noticeable when your funders lack familiarity with criteria for judging qualitative research. Although you are not changing the methods to a qualitative study you are improving the view of your study to your funders. Ungar says you should “Dress It Up” meaning dress up a qualitative study to make it look quantitative. Adding “Contextualizing activities, which proved to be as insightful to the project, were supported but were seen as supplemental to the real work being done (Ungar, 2006).” The second strategy is discussed as “Sleeping with the Elephant”. Ungar (2006) says to make qualitative research more fundable is to acknowledge that funders would prefer to support quantitative research therefore including mixed method designs in your research would increase funders satisfaction. Ungar’s third strategy is to “Seek but Never Find”; a strategy where you voice your study in an exploratory format. Ungar’s fourth strategy to increasing the strength of your qualitative study is known is “Table Scraps”. This strategy is to accept that sometimes qualitative research is fundable when ambitions are small and the monetary commitment inconsequential to funders, or simply part of other research agendas (Ungar, 2006).” The qualitative researcher is not seeking a piece