Business and Method Research Proposal Social Research

Question: Discuss about the Business Research Method Research Proposal forSocial Research? Answer: Introduction Individual accept the clear knowledge of the truth that provides the level of evidence that not only withstands but also accepts challenge even. On the other hand, widespread knowledge has been provided by non-empirical approaches that that has accepted the realm of philosophical for knowledge creation. The fundamental principles of former knowledge are the notional foundations to qualitative and quantitative research methods (Williams 2011). Each research method follows a combination of several factors example the task of research that is to explore the nature and field settings or the theoretical model. Every research method follows a reflection on the reliability and validity of the research methodology. However, in this report, the research approaches will be analyzed in quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods (Brymen and Bell 2015). The significance of the research is to be applied in any setting whether business or economy as a whole. The research even solves various problems about planning and marketing. However, the research will provide with the basic knowledge and skills that are required to meet the challenges faced in the fast-paced environment of decision-making. Nonetheless, the stimulated interest in decision-making needs to interest the scientific approach that can be performed to solve complex decision-making, meets the availability of research techniques and results in employment of discipline in the research process (Saunders 2011). Literature Review of Research Methodologies In social science research, the basic choices are to be made between the qualitative and quantitative research methods or mixed methods involving the two. However, on a general note, the qualitative research methods consists of experimental intervention or survey interviewing whereas in the case of quantitative research methods involve the real difference in which the method is used (Babbie 2015). Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Quantitative and Qualitative Research can be explained individually, but the best way to study them is to perform side by side investigation. The two forms can be differentiated based on the three fundamental differences. The Qualitative research model is classically based on Subjective, Contextual and Inductive distinctions whereas the Quantitative research model is typically based on Objectivity, General and Deductive distinctions (Venkatesh, Brown and Bala 2013). Table 1 gives a brief description of the three distinctions on each research method. Table 1 Contrasting the Qualitative and Quantitative Research Source: (Creswell 2013) Deduction and Induction - Quantitative approach is based on the deductive method that is highly structured and data is collected to ensure the validity of the data. The casual relationships are established between variables to ensure the clarity of definitions. The structure of the study is followed from theory to data that leads to results that support the theory. However, the research is independent of the research process. On the other hand, quantitative approach follows the inductive approach that involves more flexibility in a subjective manner and the findings are not generalized. At last, the researcher's attachment is to be perceived as a part of the research process (Dudovskiy 2016). As compared to relate between, the inductive and deductive logic, the deductive study follows a hypothesis based literature review whereas inductive logic follows an ethnography based literature review. The study of both can be explained in Table 2 below. Table 2 Inductive and Deductive Logic Source: (van Wyk 2012) Objectivity and Subjectivity - The procedural dimension distinguishes theses two dimensions on the two approaches. Qualitative Approach is subjective in nature because it involves interpretation and meaning that the researcher uses as the measure of recording observations. However, the Quantitative approach is opposite of qualitative as it involves objectivity that measures standardized protocols in which the researcher cannot add the interpretation to it, only the simple and straightforward observations are recorded. Nonetheless, the researcher has to be detached from the study whereas that is not the case with the qualitative approach (Matthews and Ross 2014). Generality and Contextual - The third set that differentiates the two is based on the general principle that is adopted by the quantitative approach. Generalized principle helps to get the values of variables interpreted in the same design of calculation between the dependent and independent sample. However, this is not the case with the qualitative approach as it involves the new structures and new insights that the researcher can develop. The effective model identifies the purposeful use of the model in a natural setting or a field setting. Thus, the conceptual dimension is broad as compared to generalized principle (Williams 2011). The structure of both the qualitative and quantitative approach can be explained by the summary of each approach in Table 3. Table 3 Summary of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches Source: (Zaborek 2010) Strengths of the Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches The strengths of qualitative and quantitative approach form the mixed methods to yield the maximum result on the approaches. However, the study can be further elaborated on the inductive-contextual-subjective qualitative approach and deductive-generalized-objective quantitative approach. The mixed approach though it combines the two approaches but can be best suited to be called pragmatic approach to research (Ragin 2014). Pragmatic researchers, as a result, allow themselves the liberty to use any of the methods applied in quantitative and qualitative approaches, techniques and procedures typically associated with quantitative or qualitative research. However, all methods and techniques applied have limitations, but certainly different approaches can be complementary (Alzheimer-europe.org 2010). Table 4 describes the strengths of both the approaches that can formulate in a mixed approach. Table 4 Strengths of Qualitative Quantitative Approach Source: (Morgan 2013) However, mixed approaches are to provide a justification that goes asserting the value of each separate method. In addition, a mixed approach takes into consideration the strengths of both the qualitative and quantitative approaches to integrating the research design. Mixed methods not only offer less practice but also design the alternatives that are available to evaluate the criteria (Morgan 2013). The ability to design research study from data collection and data methods will result in testing theories. The one combined study within the principle of research investigates, predicts, explores, describes and understands the phenomenon as a whole (Brown 2014). Discussion, Analysis, and Evaluation Qualitative approach Although, this approach deals with richness and precision, but the detailed precision does not identify any data analysis. Qualitative analysis agrees to fine distinctions that can be drawn, as it is not essential to shoehorn the data into a fixed number of categorizations (Gale et al. 2013). However, the human language involves a lot of uncertainties that can be recognized in the study. For example, a color "red" can be used for a corpse, blood or a political categorization, which is not signified in the qualitative approach. The approach is even limited to a small population of the sample and cannot be generalized to large samples of the population because the finding is not statistically significant (Punch 2013). The problem associated with this approach that it is subjective nature brings inadequacy of validity and reliability, the anonymity and confidentiality effects the findings, the interpretation is too long, and the issue of bias for new insights adds to the shortcomings (Dapar 2012). Quantitative approach On the other hand, this approach does meet the requirement of large sample of the population by giving generalized results that can be made between two criteria's. However, as the approach emerges, it lacks in richness because it is merely an idealization of the data in some cases. In addition, it tries to omit the rare occurrences of any events. For example, a "red" color could not differentiate the variability of responses to the qualitative approach whereas in a quantitative approach; it can be seen that many phenomena and terms do not fit into a common and single group. However, the color is more reliable with the new view of "fuzzy sets" of the "red" example (Bernard and Bernard 2012). The disadvantages that can further explain the problems associated with this method are that this approach produces banal and trivial findings leads to the assumption of facts that re true, quantification becomes an end, rules out the control variables and not takes in account the people's unique ability (Davies 2012). Mixed approach - A recent trend highlights that that there has been a recent shift in social science towards multi-method approaches which tend to decline the narrow analytical paradigms, which use more than one method. Nevertheless, the mixed method should address the strengthening of the advancement of agenda that is developed as a result of the research. As per Boswell and Cannon (2012) notes, a stage of qualitative research is repeatedly a forerunner for quantitative analysis, while before linguistic phenomena could be counted or classified. However, identification is important for the categories for classification. Blending of Qualitative and Quantitative Findings Assimilation and configuration can be viewed as confirming each other and converging the nature of the aggregative approaches of qualitative and quantitative findings. The repetitiveness of approaches is pooled together to signify more or less the same evidence for its findings. Regardless of the understanding and the meaning of outcome, the researcher should review that the approach should meet its original research purpose (Coughlan, Cronin and Ryan 2013). However, the combining of the two approaches should not subordinate the different approaches founded by various methods. The product of different traditions that are adopted to obtain the full picture whether subjective or objective should not be considered as competing theories. If methodological integration is going to process in the recent times, then the intervention or non-intervention of study should be more refined. No single solution of any approach can define the complex method (McLeroy 2014). Therefore, all the health educators, researchers, and evaluators should be trained in both the paradigms such that the mutual acceptance of both that is qualitative and quantitative approach can advance. Likewise, different methods draw different epistemology of future research that should be located in the future study. References Babbie, E., 2015.The practice of social research. Nelson Education. Bernard, H.R. and Bernard, H.R., 2012.Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage. Boswell, C. and Cannon, S., 2012.Introduction to nursing research. Jones Bartlett Publishers. Brown, J., 2014.Mixed methods research for TESOL. Edinburgh University Press. Bryman, A. and Bell, E., 2015.Business research methods. Oxford University Press, USA. Coughlan, M., Cronin, P. and Ryan, F., 2013.Doing a Literature Review in Nursing, Health and Social Care: SAGE Publications. Sage. Alzheimer-europe.org.2010).Alzheimer Europe - Research - Understanding dementia research - Types of research - The four main approaches. Available from: https://www.alzheimer-europe.org/Research/Understanding-dementia-research/Types-of-research/The-four-main-approaches [Accessed 11 Mar. 2016]. Creswell, J.W., 2013.Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications. Dapar, M.P., 2012. An investigation of the structures and processes of pharmacist prescribing in Great Britain: a mixed methods approach. Davies, M., 2012.Oppositions and ideology in news discourse. AC Black. Dudovskiy, J. 2016.Research Approach - Research-Methodology. Research Methodology. Available from: https://research-methodology.net/research-methodology/research-approach/ [Accessed 11 Mar. 2016]. Gale, N.K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S. and Redwood, S., 2013. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research.BMC medical research methodology,13(1), p.117. Matthews, B. and Ross, L., 2014.Research methods. Pearson Higher Ed. McLeroy, K. 2014.Towards Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Academia.edu. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/174290/Towards_Integrating_Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Methods [Accessed 11 Mar. 2016]. Morgan, D.L., 2013.Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. Sage publications. Punch, K.F., 2013.Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Sage. Ragin, C.C., 2014.The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Univ of California Press. Saunders, M.N., 2011.Research methods for business students, 5/e. Pearson Education India. van Wyk, B., 2012. Research design and methods Part I. Venkatesh, V., Brown, S.A. and Bala, H., 2013. Bridging the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide: Guidelines for Conducting Mixed Methods Research in Information Systems.MIS quarterly,37(1), pp.21-54. Williams, C. 2011. Research Methods.Journal of Business Economics Research (JBER), 5(3). Zaborek, P. 2010.Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods in Management Science. Academia.edu. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/11514133/Qualitative_and_Quantitative_Research_Methods_in_Management_Science [Accessed 11 Mar. 2016].