One of the most beneficial research types in the case, when it is necessary to gather process-specific data, is a quantitative method. It implies the initiative to collect different facts from a large number of participants for comparing them to statistics and concluding on particular trends (Terrell & Edmonds, 2017). This approach is objective, and it facilitates the interpretation of the conducted examination’s outcomes due to the lack of ambiguity (Terrell & Edmonds, 2017). In other words, it addresses only the matters, which scholars can measure. In this situation, the analysis is performed using tests and questionnaires, which provide explicit information.
When more comprehensive data concerning the assessed phenomena are required, the qualitative method is implemented. It is suitable for considering people’s views regarding specific events and, therefore, is accompanied by the risks of various biases (Terrell & Edmonds, 2017). Meanwhile, as the principal instrument for gathering information, the general questions can provide insight into societal shifts (Terrell & Edmonds, 2017). For this purpose, researchers use interviews, open-ended questionnaires, observations, content analysis, and focus groups (Terrell & Edmonds, 2017). From this perspective, qualitative studies eliminate the limitations of the quantitative techniques described above. Nevertheless, they add uncertainty and result in dubious findings, which can be inapplicable to reality.
Conducting a study based on various types of data can be advantageous for particular cases, and they are frequently referred to as mixed-method examinations. For example, the use of numeric scores combined with open-ended questions can contribute to the proper evaluation of a change and people’s reaction to it (Terrell & Edmonds, 2017). There is more flexibility for assessing the trends in this research design since gathering information is not rigid, and different pieces are viewed as equally important (Terrell & Edmonds, 2017).
However, despite these benefits, this approach is not perfect since it requires the presence of expertise of scholars (Terrell & Edmonds, 2017). It covers the knowledge of quantitative and qualitative tools used separately, analytic procedures applicable to them, methods for interpreting results, and many other aspects.
In the studies conducted in real-life situations with researchers’ intention to reveal the impact of stimuli on participants, evidence-based practice is the best option. It means the acquisition of information for further analysis from people through interviews and the formulation of findings by applying the data to the knowledge of specialists in the field (Wilson & Austria, 2019). This approach is widely used in healthcare research due to its suitability for clinical cases, but its implementation is not limited to this area (Wilson & Austria, 2019). One of its principal characteristics allowing to distinguish it from other types is using available information instead of gathering new facts (Wilson & Austria, 2019). Thus, the people participating in the studies are the ones who already experienced the examined phenomenon.
One of the theoretical methods of studying different issues is a literature review, and it implies the discussion of the previously published sources. It is beneficial for summarizing the information on a particular subject provided by different researchers to reveal the similarities between their outcomes (“Literature reviews,” 2018). In this way, it serves as the grounds for future studies on the topic and confirms the findings’ reliability (“Literature reviews,” 2018). This method’s results are the overview and synthesis of data and the demonstration of their role on a global scale.
Literature reviews. (2018). Unt Dallas Learning Commons. Web.
Terrell, S. T., & Edmonds, A. W. (2017). Mixed-methods research methodologies. NSU Florida. Web.
Wilson, B., & Austria, M.-J. (2019). What is evidence-based practice? The Health University of Utah. Web.