Content uploaded by Daniel J Kruger
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daniel J Kruger on Feb 05, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Daniel J. Kruger, Ph.D.
kruger@umich.edu
www-personal.umich.edu/~kruger
Kruger, D. J. (2003). Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods in community
research. The Community Psychologist, 36, 18-19.
Practitioners of community research hail from a number of academic fields with diverse
theoretical orientations and training in research methodologies. The variety of perspectives has
the potential to strengthen community research by providing broad approaches to issues and
multiple forms of analysis. As community researchers, we are challenged to integrate this
diversity into both a coherent theoretical framework and effective research and dissemination
strategies.
One of the current debates in the social sciences involves the evaluation of quantitative
and qualitative research. All of the articles in the December 2002 issue of the American Journal
of Community Psychology present quantitative analyses, ranging from frequency tables to
hierarchical multiple regression and factor analysis. I found this surprising, considering both the
abundance of qualitative methodologies in the conference presentations of community
collaborations I have attended, and the presence of examples of qualitative works in previous
AJCP issues (e.g., Rappaport, 2000).
Each type of methodology has advantages and disadvantages. Quantitative methods allow
us to summarize vast sources of information and facilitate comparisons across categories and over
time. Comparisons are necessary to evaluate improvement, a critical criterion for community
interventions and funding agencies. However, quantitative methodologies can be quite complex
and require considerable investment for proper understanding and use. Community members (and
undergraduates, etc.) may “tune out” elaborate statistics, creating difficulties in the utilization of
the products of research.
Critics of quantitative methods have also commented that it is difficult to get the “real
meaning” of an issue by looking at numbers. Aggregate statistics are a relatively recent arrival in
human history, which might explain our difficulties in comprehending probabilities and other
statistical phenomena (Gigerenzer, 2000). It is apparent that we must devise ways of translating
statistical information into a form comprehensible to our target audiences.
Qualitative description provides a rich flavor for issues and circumstances. Some
psychologists have suggested that people organize their experiences in the form of narratives. It
certainly seems reasonable to suggest that one may have a better understanding of a community
member’s situation by reading a descriptive passage than just looking at demographic statistics.
However, it may be difficult to generate substantial project funding or otherwise convince others
of the value of an intervention based on a few anecdotes.
Unfortunately, the conference presenters I have encountered appeared to fall into two
methodological camps, each extolling the benefits of one approach and deriding the other. These
are not mutually exclusive techniques. Not only can one use multiple methodologies in the same
research project, one may even be able to synthesize quantitative and qualitative approaches to
gain the benefits of both techniques and reduce the drawbacks.
There are several ways to combine quantitative and qualitative techniques, ranging in
ease and complexity. One basic approach would be to generate areas of concern from a focus
group. For example, neighborhood residents could respond to quantitative items on how well
public transportation operates in their neighborhood and how important this issue is to them.
Residents could also describe some of their experiences with public transportation. The research
team could then examine the distribution of responses and select a few passages representative of
various viewpoints across the spectrum.
For a more sophisticated approach, one could code the frequency of each type of
statements and create a few prototypical responses with statements in proportion to their
occurrence in the larger sample. This would enable readers to gain an understanding of the variety
of perspectives without having to read hundreds of passages. This technique could also be used to
sort evaluative statements along the dimensions of positivity and negativity. One may also create
a correlation matrix for the appearance of statements, to determine how beliefs are interrelated.
There is a false dichotomy between using either quantitative or qualitative methods. Our
research projects would be strengthened by making use of the range of available methods.
Quantitative methods facilitate an understanding of the distribution of views in the population,
which would be quite useful in a needs assessment of a community. These techniques are
invaluable in evaluations of interventions and other types of comparisons. Qualitative methods
allow one to capture the subtle nuances of a situation and present information in a way that the
general population can relate to. Combining quantitative and qualitative techniques would
provide a comprehensive description of an issue in a format that can easily be digested by a
diverse body of stakeholders.
References
Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Adaptive thinking: Rationality in the real world. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Rappaport, J. (2000). Community Narratives: Tales of Terror and Joy. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 28, 1-24.
