Implications and Critiques of Quantitative Research: A Systematic Review

Mahendra Sapkota

doi:10.17309/jltm.2024.5.3.09

Authors

Mahendra Sapkota Tribhuvan University https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7854-6554

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17309/jltm.2024.5.3.09

Keywords:

reseach, quantitative methodology, positivism, critique and implications

Abstract

Objectives. The study aimed to critically examine challenging notions and attributes embedded with quantitative research from a social science perspective.

Materials and methods. Following a systematic review, this study assessed key gaps and contestations revealed in scientific readings published by highly indexed journals and more cited referred texts. The primary analytical question included conceptualizing quantitative methods and highlighting different dimensions of ontology, validity, reliability, generalizability, and ethical implications.

Results. The quantitative method is widely used in most scientific fields, translating the research findings into strategic analysis through statistical and experimental frameworks. Despite this scope, the results of this study indicate that the quantitative method has some limitations and dilemmas, which could limit our appreciation and understanding of human behaviour and social phenomena in the subjective world. While adding to the base of empirical knowledge, quantitative research has been criticized for an inadequate approach to capturing complex social phenomena, dependence on rigid assumptions, and vulnerability to contextual factors. Reflecting on these limitations of current quantitative methods informs both directions for advancing existing measurement approaches and integrating alternative strategies.

Conclusions. This study concludes that the quantitative method’s implications are rational, though not universal. The deterministic approach of quantitative methodology can dilute the understanding of the subjective world due to its inclination towards absolute realities. Therefore, the study underscores the need for methodological pluralism, encouraging scholars, researchers, and students in social sciences and related fields to be open-minded and receptive to alternative research approaches and multi-method strategies for a more comprehensive understanding of human behaviour and social phenomena.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Mahendra Sapkota, Tribhuvan University

Kathmandu 46000, Nepal
sapkota.mahendra27@gmail.com

References

Jamieson, M. K., Govaart, G. H., & Pownall, M. (2023). Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner’s guide. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(4), e12735. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12735 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12735

Sapkota, M. (2024). Academic writing and scientific publication: Proposal, Thesis and Article (Masters, MPhil and PhD). New Hira Books, Kathmandu, Nepal. https://www.academia.edu/125787701/Academic_writing_and_scientific_publication_Proposal_Thesis_and_Article_Masters_MPhil_and_PhD_

Rudd, G., Meissel, K., & Meyer, F. (2021). Measuring academic resilience in quantitative research: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 34, 100402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100402 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100402

Sardana, N., Shekoohi, S., Cornett, E. M., & Kaye, A. D. (2023). Qualitative and quantitative research methods. In Substance use and addiction research (pp. 65-69). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-98814-8.00008-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-98814-8.00008-1

Strunk, K. K. (2023). Critical approaches to quantitative research: Review, critique, and applications. Handbook of Critical Education Research, 56-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003141464-5

Fischer, H. E., Boone, W. J., & Neumann, K. (2023). Quantitative research designs and approaches. In Handbook of research on science education (pp. 28-59). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367855758-3

Saldaña, J. (2021). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Zyphur, M. J., & Pierides, D. C. (2020). Making quantitative research work: From positivist dogma to actual social scientific inquiry. Journal of Business Ethics, 167, 49-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04189-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04189-6

Zyphur, M. J., & Pierides, D. C. (2020). Statistics and probability have always been value-laden: An historical ontology of quantitative research methods. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04187-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04187-8

Tabron, L. A., & Thomas, A. K. (2023). Deeper than wordplay: A systematic review of critical quantitative approaches in education research (2007–2021). Review of Educational Research, 93(5), 756-786. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221130017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221130017

Duckett, L. J. (2021). Quantitative research excellence: Study design and reliable and valid measurement of variables. Journal of Human Lactation, 37(3), 456-463. https://doi.org/10.1177/08903344211019285 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/08903344211019285

Sürücü, L., & Maslakci, A. (2020). Validity and reliability in quantitative research. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(3), 2694-2726. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i3.1540 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i3.1540

Maxwell, J. A. (2016). Expanding the history and range of mixed methods research. Journal of mixed methods research, 10(1), 12-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815571132 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815571132

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105–117). Sage Publications.

Hodge, S. R. (2020). Quantitative research. In Routledge Handbook of Adapted Physical Education (pp. 147-162). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429052675-12

Verschuren, P. J. (2001). Holism versus reductionism in modern social science research. Quality and Quantity, 35, 389-405. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012242620544 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012242620544

Keysers, D., Schärli, N., Scales, N., Buisman, H., Furrer, D., Kashubin, S., ... & Bousquet, O. (2019). Measuring compositional generalization: A comprehensive method on realistic data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.09713. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1912.09713

Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Queirós, A., Faria, D., & Almeida, F. (2017). Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. European journal of education studies, 3(9). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.887089

Zyphur, M. J., & Pierides, D. C. (2017). Is quantitative research ethical? Tools for ethically practicing, evaluating, and using quantitative research. Journal of Business Ethics, 143, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3549-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3549-8

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Morse, J. M. (2016). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315424538 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315424538

Park, Y. S., Konge, L., & Artino Jr, A. R. (2020). The positivism paradigm of research. Academic medicine, 95(5), 690-694. 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003093 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003093

Şahin, M. D., & Ozturk, G. (2019). Mixed method research: Theoretical foundations, designs and its use in educational research. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 6(2), 301-310. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/880619 DOI: https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.574002

Schreier, M. (2018). Sampling and generalization. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection, 84-97. https://www.torrossa.com/gs/resourceProxy?an=5018779&publisher=FZ7200#page=113 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526416070.n6

Bauer, G. R., Churchill, S. M., Mahendran, M., Walwyn, C., Lizotte, D., & Villa-Rueda, A. A. (2021). Intersectionality in quantitative research: A systematic review of its emergence and applications of theory and methods. SSM-population health, 14, 100798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100798 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100798

Timans, R., Wouters, P., & Heilbron, J. (2019). Mixed methods research: what it is and what it could be. Theory and society, 48, 193-216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-019-09345-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-019-09345-5

Hammersley, M. (2017). Deconstructing the qualitative-quantitative divide 1. In Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research (pp. 39-55). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1177/08903344211019285 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315248813-2