Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 33(5): September 2007 305 Cook and Reichardt (1979) identified 11 differences be- tween quantitative and qualitative research (Table 1). Starting with the research question, quantitative and qualitative re- search begins to diverge. Researcher frames are a function of the research approach and are formed in the assumption about the study question. The qualitative researcher takes an an- thropological world view assuming a holistic approach fo- cusing on inductive reasoning. The quantitative researcher uses a natural science world view assuming a particularistic approach using deductive reasoning. The world view frames of each researcher are all important in understanding the dif- ferences and acceptance of each type of research. Quantita- tive researchers measure, standardize, and replicate observ- able events. Qualitative researchers focus on human experi- ences and perceptions from an in-depth perspective trying to understand the phenomena. This subjective, insider-centered approach is in direct contrast to the objective, outsider hands- off approach of the quantitative researcher. The quantitative researcher frequently argues the qualitative researcher has the potential to be seduced by the subjects and becomes an ad- vocate for their perspective rather than taking a detached objective view using data collection techniques that mini- mally impact on the research subject. In response, the quali- tative researcher argues for the need to understand the phe- nomena contending that only through gaining understanding and insight can knowledge be created. Thus, qualitative re- search is less about proving a hypothesis than it is about understanding phenomena and creating emerging paradigms. Qualitative researchers focus on process rather than out- come. Outcome is a discovery process emerging from the data gathered by the qualitative researcher. Coffey and At- kinson (1996) stated “that one should be looking for patterns, themes, and regularities as well as contrasts, paradoxes, and irregularities” (p. 47) in the data. Such data analysis is con- tinuous and collection methods may vary during the research to explore a particular phenomenon in greater detail. Such an approach sometimes gives the appearance of a lack of re- searcher control. To a quantitative researcher, qualitative re- search appears to be a messy process with the potential to introduce significant bias. To the qualitative researcher, this external appearance is not important, because they view the process as orderly, structured, and emerging. The continual interplay of data, data analysis, refinement, and asking dif- ferent questions are all essential. In an effort to understand the phenomena, the qualitative researcher spends time inves- tigating the detail. This all suggests that qualitative research- ers are discovery-oriented (data emerge from interviews, ob- servations, and the like) and that a dynamic reality or slice of life is assumed. Key to this is the belief that through quali- tative research, an explanatory process is ongoing as opposed to the quantitative researchers’ focus on the belief their re- search will be confirmatory and verification-oriented. Critics of qualitative research have suggested the method- ology is too subjective and researcher biases influence re- sults; results are opinion rather than fact—intuition rather than logic. Qualitative reliability and validity can be demon- strated through careful construction of the study methodol- ogy, including multiple independent assessments of data, ex- tensive use of quotations, using multiple data sources for triangulation purposes, instituting member checks, and hav- ing prolonged interaction with participants. Qualitative research should not be considered the antithesis of quantitative research, but another research tool to gain further and sometimes more intimate understanding and knowledge. If a field is limited to a single conceptual and methodological approach, the questions that can be asked and the resultant outcomes are also limited. FOUR RESEARCH AREAS Four research themes pervade recent urban forestry literature: (1) economic costs and benefits (e.g., Nowak and Crane 2002; Jensen et al. 2003; Laverne and Winson-Geideman 2003; Sydor et al. 2003); (2) ecological and environmental benefits (e.g., Johnson and Gerhold 2001; Streiling and Table 1. Differences between quantitative and qualitative research (Cook and Reichardt, 1979, p. 10). Qualitative paradigm Quantitative paradigm Advocates the use of qualitative methods Concerned with understanding human behavior from the actor’s frame of reference Naturalistic and uncontrolled observation Subjective Close to the data; the “insider” perspective Process-oriented Valid; “real,”“rich,” and “deep” data Ungeneralizable; single case studies Holistic Assumes a dynamic reality Advocates the use of quantitative methods Logical-positivism; seeks the “facts or causes of social phenomena with little regard for subjective states of individual” Obtrusive and controlled measurement Objective Removed from the data; the “outsider” perspective Grounded, discovery-oriented, exploratory, descriptive, inductive Ungrounded, verification-oriented, confirmatory, reductionist, inferential, and hypothetico-deductive Outcome-oriented Reliable; “hard” and replicable data Generalizable; multiple case studies Particularistic Assumes a stable reality ©2007 International Society of Arboriculture
September 2007
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
