Methods in Development Research

Qualitative studies are gaining their credibility after a period of being misinterpreted as "not being quantitative." Qualitative method is a broad umbrella term for research methodologies that describe and explain individuals' experiences, behaviors, interactions, and social contexts. In-depth interview, focus groups, and participant observation are among the qualitative methods of inquiry commonly used in psychiatry. Researchers measure the frequency of occurring events using quantitative methods; however, qualitative methods provide a broader understanding and a more thorough reasoning behind the event. Hence, it is considered to be of special importance in psychiatry. Besides hypothesis generation in earlier phases of the research, qualitative methods can be employed in questionnaire design, diagnostic criteria establishment, feasibility studies, as well as studies of attitude and beliefs. Animal models are another area that qualitative methods can be employed, especially when naturalistic observation of animal behavior is important. However, since qualitative results can be researcher's own view, they need to be statistically confirmed, quantitative methods. The tendency to combine both qualitative and quantitative methods as complementary methods has emerged over recent years. By applying both methods of research, scientists can take advantage of interpretative characteristics of qualitative methods as well as experimental dimensions of quantitative methods.

Best practice in speech-language pathology should be informed by current research findings. Traditional research methods are not always geared to address some of the complex, individual questions that arise in clinical intervention, however. Qualitative research methods may provide useful tools for bridging the gap from research to practice. Combinations of qualitative and quantitative procedures may be particularly helpful in sorting out some of the important issues surrounding language intervention in both clinical and research contexts. Examples of research blending qualitative and quantitative methods, as well as the case study of Sid, an 11-year-old boy with specific language impairment, are presented to illustrate how a combination of procedures can be used to enhance language research and intervention.

This article examines how the attention which media scholarship gives to only thequantitative research method impacts on journalism practice in Nigeria. Firstly, typicalmass media texts were purposively selected and presented on a titled table. SecondlyCritical Discourse Analysis (CDA) methods were used to analyse selected texts. Thirdlye-mailing and audio recording were used to elicit comments from a reporter and aneditor. The editor and the reporter who commented wrote the stories from which theselected newspaper texts were drawn. Lastly, elicited comments were used to buttressarguments as the analysis progressed. In Nigeria journalists report news withoutimputation. Reporting news without imputations flaws news presentation. In this articleflaws in news presentation are attributed to the attention which media scholarship inNigeria gives to only the quantitative research method. The article proposes that as thequalitative research method, more so than the quantitative method, imparts better criticalskills to journalists, the qualitative method should be emphasised more in mass mediaresearch.

A useful framework for understanding methods is to think of them as being on a continuum of holistic and pattern focused to particularistic and specific. This paper argues for this conceptualization rather than thinking of quantitative and qualitative methods as oppositional and potentially contradictory. A case study provides an example of using both quantitative and qualitative methods in a holistic and pattern-focused study, while also attending to the values and goals of community psychology. The substantive research goal is to understand a child's experience of places related to school. Methods include ethnographic long-term participation and observation, interviews, multidimensional scaling, and social network analysis. Most quantitative method variables are generated from study participants; no outside structure is imposed. The quantitative methods extend and inform the qualitative methods, just as the qualitative methods extend and inform the quantitative methods. The quantitative and qualitative methods work reciprocally to extend and inform each other.

Despite significant initiatives to improve education globally, policy makers and researchers are concerned about literacy outcomes in developing countries, as students lack basic literacy skills even after many years in schooling. Educational technology has been championed as a potential solution to low‐quality education in developing countries, yet little rigorous research on this topic exists. Since Covid‐19 has caused enormous global disruption and teachers have been forced to adopt technology globally, research into the effectiveness of using technology for teaching literacy in low‐income contexts is vital. This systematic review of the literature analyses and synthesises the range of international research available on educational technology to improve reading in developing countries. This review includes primary qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, which were analysed using thematic synthesis. The review concludes that there is some suggestive evidence that reasons for the success of educational technology literacy interventions may include ongoing teacher professional development, interactive multimedia features, and a focus on phonics and progressive reading skills. The current limited research base supports technology designs that are adaptive, engaging, and child‐centred, utilising software that can differentiate for students' levels. Engaging the community using context‐specific resources and incorporating the technology into a broader literacy programme and pedagogy, were also features highlighted in multiple studies. However, with a limited number of studies the strength of the evidence is weak; therefore, definitive conclusions cannot be made. The findings provide some suggestive evidence that could guide future research. Context and implications Rationale for this study This systematic review addresses the gap in current research into which types of educational technology are effective for the teaching of reading in developing countries. By synthesising the findings of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies, this review presents tentative recommendations for policy makers and future research. Why the new findings matter The findings present specific features of effective educational technologies that could be used by policy makers to improve literacy outcomes. This is directly relevant for the millions of students in developing countries who lack literacy skills even after many years in school. Educational technology is widely used and promoted as a solution for improving educational or literacy outcomes in developing countries, yet little rigorous research exists. This systematic review addresses this by synthesising existing research and highlighting areas for future research. Since Covid‐19 caused teachers to adopt technology globally, research into the effectiveness of using technology for teaching literacy in low‐income contexts is vital. Implications for research and practice This systematic review synthesises current research so that policy makers have guidelines when designing interventions. The review provides a comprehensive map of existing literature and gaps for researchers. Based on the findings from this systematic review, policy makers are encouraged to consider how technology engages students through multimedia and interactive features, is adapted to the local context and language, and is differentiated to students' different ability levels. Policy makers should also consider how technology supports student learning through the scaffolding of specific reading skills with a holistic connection to a broader literacy programme, teacher training and the local curriculum. Since little quality data exists in this area, these recommendations for policy are tentative, and it is recommended future research further explore some of the promising features that were found in numerous successful interventions.

This paper will discuss the theoretical design considerations and the practical integration of quantitative and qualitative methods in disability and rehabilitation research, which have gained recent popularity among researchers of various disciplines. Whereas quantitative experimental and survey approaches allow researchers to draw generalizable conclusions that apply to a particular population as a whole, qualitative methods capture the depth of respondents' experiences in their own words. Qualitative methods may be used to explore new topical areas prior to implementing a population-based survey, or they may follow quantitative approaches to explain findings in greater detail. We will discuss research findings from two recent studies of rehabilitation industry professionals and people with physical disabilities to exemplify the utility of mixed-method designs in disability and rehabilitation research. The article will conclude with recommendations for rehabilitation nursing researchers to apply both qualitative and quantitative methods in their research practice.

<div class="WordSection1"><p>I am honored for being an alumnus of KEMC, and am delighted to write this editorial for the Annals. I have, ever since done my research and taught qualitative methods, felt that clinical methods are quite akin to qualitative research. Then, why only few clinical researchers use qualitative methods? A witness to this assumption is the research published in the Annals. In this treatise, I try to identify some parallels between the two types of methods and argue for the clinicians to invest in learning qualitative research methods to practice clinical methods well.</p><p> Qualitative research is to identify and interpret issues from the perspective of participants, their experience of: illness or disability, using health service, and to appreciate the meanings they give to the behaviour, events or objects in the context of their social and cultural norms. In this type of research, the emphasis is on exploring the associations and understanding the phenomenon in its holism; and not, like in quantitative research, from an outsider’s perspective and for certain specific aspects.<sup>1</sup> It requires participants with specific characteristics, selected purposely that can best inform the research topic. More participants, identified inductively during data collection, are added to develop full and multiple perspectives about the cases.<sup>2</sup></p><p> No preset data collection tool is used, instead qualitative researcher guided by a research question acts as an instrument, since the line of enquiry he changes during data collection as new understanding is gained and/or the situation changes.<sup>3</sup> The data for research is derived from the observation, interviews or verbal interactions, focus group discussions, document reviews, life histories etc. and the researcher asks why, how and under what circumstances things occur; and not just what, where and when. It is recorded in words or pictures and log book is used to record notes arising from interviews, observations, extracts from documents etc.</p><p> In health care settings patients are the subjects for clinical methods. The clinician, even prior to any verbal communication, observes the patient, e.g. for his gait and appearance. If in a bed or examination couch, his posture could give some clue to the illness. Inspection, a clinical method, is like systematic observation, which is qualitative method, should be holistic. In my third year during bedside teaching, Professor (late) Rashid Ahmed Qureshi said, <em>“patient has come to you as a whole and not his stomach in a tray”</em>, when a student straight went to examine abdomen of a patient with acute abdomen. History taking, another clinical method, is like conducting semi structured in depth interview – a qualitative research method. In both disciplines, we are told, <em>“not to ask leading, but follow up and probing questions”; </em>and Professor (late) Alamgir Khan, while teaching clinical methods, would add, <em>“if a good history is taken, you will establish diagnosis in over 65% of cases”. </em>Likewise, as part of history taking, documents related to patient’s illness history and treatment are reviewed similar to document review in qualitative research.</p><p> The two approaches however differ in how the data is analysed. In clinical practice, diagnosis is established based on the pathophysiological knowledge or patient’s clinical condition is discussed in clinicopathological conference.<sup>4</sup> On the other hand, qualitative research employs meaning based data analysis, whereby the qualitative data is transformed into some form of explanation, understanding or interpretation of people and situation that is investigated.<sup>5,6</sup></p><p> In conclusion, the history, the observation and the review of document related to patient are since obtainned using qualitative methods, the clinician trained in these methods could not only conduct these methods well but also interpret the data to identify and detect obstacles to the change in clinical condition and the reasons why improvement does or does not occur.<sup>7</sup> Finally, while it is heartening that research forums are organised in the institutions affiliated with KEMU, in order the research is richer, the researchers’ skills in qualitative research methods should be built.</p></div>

Blending quantitative and qualitative methods is an approach to studying organizational phenomena that seeks to leverage the strengths and compensate for the weaknesses of each method that is used separately. Notably, quantitative data offer greater objectivity and precision but lack richness, while qualitative data provide insight about mechanisms but bring subjectivity. Selecting the appropriate method for a given research question is an essential skill for organizational researchers. High-quality research involves a good fit between the methods used and the nature of the contribution to the literature. This article describes a contingency framework that relates the state of prior theory and research to the design of a current research project, paying particular attention to when to mix qualitative and quantitative data. Whereas contributions to mature literatures are best made with quantitative methods, and contribute to nascent literature’s call for qualitative data, intermediate research is best served by a mix of both approaches.

The aim of this paper is twofold. First, we describe two important dimensions of patient care information systems (PCIS) evaluation: the domain of evaluation and the different phases of the PCIS implementation. Second, we claim that, though Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are often still seen as the standard approach, this type of design hardly generates relevant information for the organizational decision maker. Interpretive study of evaluation literature. The field of evaluation is scattered and the types of questions that can be asked and methods that can be used seem infinite and badly demarcated. Different stakeholders, moreover, often have different priorities in evaluating ICT. The most important reason for the lack of relevance of RCTs is that they are ill suited for investigating why and how a PCIS is being used, or not, and what the (often unplanned) effects and consequences are. Subsequently, our aim is to contribute to the discussion about the viability of qualitative versus quantitative methods in PCIS evaluation, by arguing for a specific integration of quantitative and qualitative research methods. The joint utilization of these methods, we claim, yields the richest results.

The purpose of this focused issue is to advance understanding of qualitative research methods in the international business context. Debates on qualitative research methods in the key international business (IB) journals have been rare. There has been no focused issue on this topic previously, either in mir or in other journals in the field, making this a 'special' issue. During the process of editing a recent handbook on qualitative research methods (Marschan-Piekkari/Welch 2004), we realized that while this collection covered many topics, often for the first time in the IB field, there were many others still outstanding. There was thus scope for continuing a dialogue about qualitative methods in the IB research community. The challenge of making qualitative research count in the quantitative world of IB remains. Qualitative research is difficult to define, since the term encompasses many different research traditions, research strategies and methods for data collection and analysis (Prasad 2005). A typical definition is that everything non-numerical is qualitative research (Marschan-Piekkari/Welch 2004, p. 19). However, even this very simplistic definition soon breaks down, since research strategies which are typically considered to be qualitative, such as case studies, can combine numerical with non-numerical data (Hurmerinta-Peltomaki/Nummela 2004). There is also no clear divide between qualitative and quantitative research in terms of research traditions, with much qualitative research in management and IB sharing the positivist assumptions of quantitative research (Prasad/Prasad 2002). This focused issue is not about reporting the empirical findings of IB studies applying qualitative methods; rather it is about the process of undertaking qualitative research in the IB field. Of course, there is a large volume of literature on qualitative research methods already. However, we would argue that the IB context warrants special treatment. As the authors of this focused issue discuss, the distinctiveness of the field stems from its multiple linguistic and cultural settings; organizational complexity; and its intellectual roots in post-War academic institutions in the USA. These issues receive little treatment in general texts on qualitative methodology. There has been some methodological debate in previous issues of mir. Earlier articles in mircan be grouped into three categories: first, reviews of existing methodological practices in IB publications (e.g., Cavusgil/Das 1997, Nasif et al. 1991); second, proposals for new quantitative techniques (e.g., the use of key informants in cross-cultural studies, as proposed by Lenartowicz and Roth 2004 and a linguistic-based measure of cultural distance as developed by West and Graham 2004); and third, calls for new methodological approaches (Boddewyn/Iyer 1999). The absence of qualitative research methods in this debate perhaps reflects the limited amount of empirical qualitative research published in this journal. A recent analysis of mir issues between 1990 and 1999 revealed that only 5 percent of articles published in this period used qualitative methods (Welch/Welch 2004). This focused issue is therefore a response to those, such as Boddewyn and Iyer (1999) in this journal, who have called for alternatives to surveys and secondary data analysis. This focused issue attracted 39 submissions from more than 15 countries. Given that there have been limited outlets for methodological articles in IB, this is a considerable number. It perhaps suggests a level of interest to which IB journals have not responded to date. Of the total number of submissions, 11 were selected for review. On the basis of reviewers' comments, six of these papers were ultimately rejected. The final five papers underwent two and, in some cases, up to four rounds of revisions. In selecting the articles, we used the following criteria: appropriateness of the topic for the focused issue; demonstrated knowledge of IB and methodological literature; quality of argument; originality and innovativeness of the contribution to IB methodology; organization and clarity of the paper; and potential application to research practice in IB. …

Improving interviewers’ skills is especially critical in the field of clinical psychology for the psychological support of clients. Although post-interview reflections are important for improving skills, most are conducted qualitatively. To prove the concept of visualization and punctuation of psychological counseling through the quantitative method in addition to the conventional qualitative method, this study attempted to combine a semi-quantitative method—Motivational Interviewing Skill Code (MISC)—and quantitative methods—natural language processing and Motion Energy Analysis (MEA)—with qualitative evaluations. We visualized the data of a case and examined whether this contributed to reflections of psychological interviews. The results of the analyses were almost consistent at the turning point of the interview and showed agreement between the results of MISC and MEA. The approaches were found to be complementary despite the differences in the type of information (verbal or nonverbal) and evaluation methods utilized. These outcomes suggest that visualization and punctuation of communication using both quantitative and qualitative methods may be useful for reflections of interview and improving interviewing skills. Employing quantitative methods will increase the reproducibility of evaluation results and provide further insight than that gained by conventional methods. These approaches can be applied for improving the skills of interviewers (e.g., post-interview reflecting) and enhancing diverse communication-related studies and practices.

PurposeThe central purpose of the research presented in this paper is to synthesize the current state of the field in qualitative methods in international organizational change research and to provide a call to researchers to use this type of methodology more frequently. The intent is to provide readers with an overview of how and when qualitative research methods should be used for investigating important theoretical and empirical questions in management research.Design/methodology/approachThe authors developed several working hypotheses based on their own experiences in using an extensive array of qualitative methods in organizational change research. They coupled this with an extensive literature search to understand how these methodologies have been used to date. The findings from the literature search were analysed to uncover where there are gaps in the work and how organizational change and other management scholars can effectively use qualitative methods to advance their understanding of international change phenomena, given the unique questions and situations confronted in various contexts. The authors include an array of examples to show how qualitative research has been used to successfully test theories, uncover new phenomena, find connections between various situations, and provide a deep understanding of contextual influences on organizational change.FindingsThe authors' findings include several examples and ideas of how and when scholars can use qualitative methods to advance understanding of international change phenomena. This provides a much richer, deeper, and more nuanced understanding of many of the phenomena and issues under investigation by employing the more observational and human‐centric techniques available through the use of qualitative methods. Several of the implications of context are only observable through some of the qualitative methods discussed, such as ethnography, case studies, interviews, observations, and their respective analysis methods. Qualitative research can be employed successfully and fruitfully in organization studies' contexts to: help uncover new organizational phenomena; build and test theories of change; and create new methods that researchers can use specifically in international change studies.Originality/valueThe paper is the only one of its kind, bringing a cohesive and focused review of qualitative methods studies in international organizational change research. It provides readers and the field with a menu of ways to effectively use qualitative methods and a description of where and how to bring in these methods to answer questions and uncover new themes that are not effectively dealt with through the use of more commonly employed quantitative methods and analyses.

Bu çalışmada, turizm alanında yazılmış lisansüstü tezlerin bilimsel araştırma yöntemlerinde nicel
\nyöntemlerden nitel yöntemlere geçişteki paradigmatik dönüşüm incelenmiştir. Çalışma amacına
\nbağlı olarak YÖK ulusal tez merkezi veri tabanında ‘turizm ve işletme’, ‘gastronomi’, ‘rekreasyon
\nve yönetim’ ‘seyahat ve acente’, ‘turizm ve rehberlik’ anahtar kelimeleri kullanılarak tarama
\nyapılmış ve ulaşılan 107 adet tez değerlendirmeye tabi tutulmuştur. Araştırma kapsamında nitel
\nve nicel araştırma yöntemleri bir arada kullanılmış, nitel kapsamda doküman incelemesi ve nicel
\naraştırma kapsamında ise çoklu uyum analizinden faydalanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda
\npozitivist paradigmanın turizmde yazılan lisansüstü tezlerde egemen olduğu sonucuna
\nulaşılmıştır. Ayrıca, 2010 yılından itibaren yazılan tezlerde nitel yöntemlerde artış yaşandığı,
\nrekreasyon yönetimi alanındaki tezlerde ağırlıklı olarak nitel yöntemler kullanılırken, turizm
\nişletmeciliği, seyahat işletmeciliği ve turizm rehberliği ile gastronomi ve mutfak sanatları
\nalanlarında daha çok nicel ve karma yöntemlerin kullanıldığı tespit edilmiştir.

Background Qualitative research has made great strides in recent years and it now makes an important contribution to our understanding of health and illness. But there are still many practitioners, academics and researchers who are totally bemused by its principles and practices. Content In the first of a series of three articles exploring qualitative research philosophies, methodologies and methods, I attempt to unravel some of its complexities and peculiarities, in the hope that those readers new to qualitative research will study it further and consider using it in the future. This article deals with broad questions of philosophy; most especially the fundamental difference between a quantitative and qualitative worldview. Conclusions This article explores the difference between a belief in a single objective reality and multiple realities, and relates these to quantitative and qualitative research methods. It also considers the role of theory, focusing on the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. These concepts are the basis for the second article in the series on qualitative methodologies, to appear in the next issue.

Background: Case studies are core constructs used in information management research. A persistent challenge for business, information management and social science researchers is how to select a representative sample of cases among a population with diverse characteristics when convenient or purposive sampling is not considered rigorous enough. The context of the study is post-school education, and it involves an investigation of quantitative methods of clustering the population of public technical and vocational education and training (TVET) colleges in South Africa into groups with a similar level of maturity in terms of their information systems.Objectives: The aim of the study was to propose an evidence-based quantitative method for the selection of cases for case study research and to demonstrate the use and usefulness thereof by clustering public TVET colleges.Method: The clustering method was based on the use of a representative characteristic of the context, as a proxy. In this context of management information systems (MISs), website maturity was used as a proxy and website maturity model theory was used in the development of an evaluation questionnaire. The questionnaire was used for capturing data on website characteristics, which was used to determine website maturity. The websites of the 50 public TVET colleges were evaluated by nine evaluators. Multiple statistical techniques were applied to establish inter-rater reliability and to produce clusters of colleges.Results: The analyses revealed three clusters of public TVET colleges based on their website maturity levels. The first cluster includes three colleges with no websites or websites at a low maturity level. The second cluster consists of 30 colleges with websites at an average maturity level. The third cluster contains 17 colleges with websites at a high maturity level.Conclusion: The main contribution to the knowledge domain is an innovative quantitative method employing a characteristic (in this case website maturity) as a proxy for MIS maturity. The method can be applied in quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research, to group a population and thereby simplify the process of sample selection of cases for further in-depth investigation.