Psychology Assignment 代写:定量和定性的研究方法在社会学研究中是非常普遍的。定量方法的目的是通过横向语言描述的目标。定性的方法是通过统计数据来测量。定量方法更科学准确，可能会导致全面和深刻的结论。该方法是基于统计分析的数据和数学模型来分析对象的几个索引和值。定性方法使研究更清晰的目的地，并增加了价值的纯统计数据。它是基于研究人员的直觉和经验来处理对象的属性、特征和变化规律。然而，这两种方法是不完全不同的，应该利用集成和互补的相互。事实上，现代的定性方法是用数学工具计算和定量的定性估计的基础上。不同的分析方法的共同点是，他们都是通过对比分析的手段进行工作的。本文将对青少年性健康和行为的研究两个主题进行综述。研究分别发表在文章的焦点小组法：焦点小组访谈对青少年性健康和“不安全性行为在南非青年”的见解。关键的评估是在四个方面：研究设计，方法，分析和结果报告的方法。通过关键评论，作者将比较和对比的弱点和优势的定量和定性的方法。
Quantitative and qualitative approaches are very common in the research of sociology objects. Quantitative approach aims to describe the objective by lateral language. Qualitative approach is to measure something by statistic data. Quantitative approach are more scientific exact and may lead to comprehensive and deep conclusion. The method is based on statistically analyzing data and mathematics models to analyze the several index and values of object. Qualitative approach makes research more clear destination and adds value to the pure statistic data. It is based on the instinct and experience of researchers to deal with the attribute, characteristic and variation laws of object. However, the two methods are not such total different and should be utilized integrated and complement on each other. In fact, the modern qualitative approach is to be calculated with mathematical tool and quantitative is based on qualitative estimate. The common ground of different methods of analysis is that they all work by the means of contrastive analysis. This essay will review two researches on the topic of sexual health and behavior with adolescents. The researches are separately published on the articles ‘the focus Group method: Insights from focus group interviews on sexual health with adolescents’ and ‘Unsafe sexual behavior in South African youth’. The critical assessment is to be drawn in four aspects: Research Design, Methods used, Approach to Analysis and Results Reported. By critical review, author will compare and contrast the weakness and strengths of quantitative and qualitative approaches.
The theory holds that the design of quantitative research is well defined and structured before conducting research, while the plan of qualitative research is continuously developing during the process of research and could be adjusted or modified according to demands (McLeod, 2009). The paper ‘UNSAFE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN SOUTH AFRICAN YOUTH’ reviewed the research on the topic of sexual behaviour in South African youth and presented the findings of key factors. The reviewed literature, which included published and unpublished reports or works, were dated between 1990 and 2000 concerning the sexual behaviour of pupil between 14 and 35 years. In ‘FOCUS GROUP METHOD’, focus group was designed to gain knowledge about the perspective of youth in Ireland. Though every group was controlled by a moderator, the conversation was natural discussion to large extent. The quantitative in ‘UNSAFE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN SOUTH AFRICAN YOUTH’ have clearer goal and accurate and exact, but may be confined in some aspects which may lead the research invaluable. While the qualitative approach in ‘FOCUS GROUP METHOD’ was flexible and comprehensive, however the natural discussion may face the risk of deviation from original destination.
Referring to the sampling of research, qualitative approach tends to select unrepresentatives forming small sample. On the other hand, quantitative approach often prefers single representative case before research to gain large sample (VanderStoep, 2009). The data to be collected is also deferent that in qualitative research data is unstructured, while the data in quantitative approach is well structured. In ‘UNSAFE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN SOUTH AFRICAN YOUTH’, the reviewed sources are from 75 reports and papers, which were all concerning the subjects about youth between the age of 14 and 35. The ‘FOCUS GROUP METHOD’ explored the perspectives in sexuality of pupils and searched the factors impacting upon their behaviour to develop plans facilitating healthy self growth among youth. The included schools were both of urban and rural areas. Participants were at both senior cycle and junior cycle levels. There were ten schools facilitating focus groups, each of them organized 3 groups. The representative samples and structured data of ‘UNSAFE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN SOUTH AFRICAN YOUTH”s quantitative approach presented more purposeful result but lack in its comprehensiveness, while the unrepresentative samples and unstructured data of ‘FOCUS GROUP METHOD’ was right reversed.
During the process of research design, the role of researchers is quite different. In quantitative approach, researchers should be as objective as possible. Analysis and conclusion should be strictly based on data. In qualitative approach, researchers are part of sources of information for research. Without the positive participation and subjective views of researchers, qualitative research will be meaningless (Amedeo, 2009). In the paper of ‘UNSAFE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN SOUTH AFRICAN YOUTH’, researchers scanned various published and unpublished works for collecting data. In ‘FOCUS GROUP METHOD’, variety of styles of group interviewing was conducted. In an informal situation, participants discussed the topic of sexual health naturally.
In the aspects of research design, quantitative approach of ‘UNSAFE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN SOUTH AFRICAN YOUTH’manifested its strengths of scientific, exact and purposeful; However the weaknesses as confined and invaluable to some extents were inevitable. The qualitative approach in ‘FOCUS GROUP METHOD’ was focus group, which showed obvious advantage in its comprehensive and integrated of data collected. But the interviewing was largely decided by moderators and may be infected by the risk of deviation.
Quantitative approach is based on the method of experiment to control the variety of data. While qualitative approach is often conducted in real-time or natural situation to gain knowledge of the development or transformation of event in normality. In qualitative research, the variety of outside situation is not controlled (Nanz, 2006). A mathematical model was utilized to synthesize and discuss in ‘UNSAFE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN SOUTH AFRICAN YOUTH’ to integrate disparate findings. Hence, a large scale view of the factors relevant to the unsafe sexual behaviour in South African context was derived. To avoid the risk of biasing findings and retain the emphasis on the youth in general, researchers excluded many reports. Participants were self selected to retain the voluntaries of the ‘FOCUS GROUP METHOD’ study. All selected pupils were in the same year. Accessing to sample was quite a delicate process, because there was much field to research in this case. In focus group, researchers should not be too directive and impress too many extra demands on conversation in order to avoid jeopardizing the study. In ‘FOCUS GROUP METHOD’, researchers had little control over how the conversation goes.
The two methods are based on different philosophy of reality. The objects for quantitative research are objective and independent on researchers. It is not necessary for researchers to conduct the work of data collection. For qualitative method, relation between researchers and objects is very close. The subjective view of researchers impresses much upon objects and become the organic component of the whole process. The researchers are the indispensable measurements (Bryman, 2008). Because of the variety of the methods utilized by studies reviewed in ‘UNSAFE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN SOUTH AFRICAN YOUTH’, it was difficult to conduct quantitative analysis. The studies carefully read and compare the key results or conclusions. In terms of sexual attitudes and experiences, it is hard to estimate whether there were difference between those who opted to participate and not. However, the diversity of data suggested that the study has represented a variety of sexual attitudes and experiences. That means the study avoids confined.
Focus group is a very common method for qualitative research. Focus group is often composed by 6 to 9 participants to discussing in depth certain topic or concept based on the theory of group dynamic (Fern, 2001). Before conducting focus group process, a list of relevant issues and all kinds of data to be collected will be prepared. The very important factor for conducting successful focus group is a moderator, who will keep conversation developing along the line of topic but without disturbing the freedom of participants. Meanwhile, moderator should assure everyone positively participating in the conversation in order to avoid dominant concept guide the whole concept of focus group. In ‘FOCUS GROUP METHOD’, the study utilized larger groups, in which participants talked to a greater extent. In the interview, skilled moderators were responsible for maintaining participants’ ease in discussing the sensitive topic. To make situation safe for group members and the participants feel at ease, a guideline regulating details about moderators were prepared. The guideline was used to trig discussion rather than control the perspective (Mason, 2002).
Comparing to quantitative approach as questionnaire survey and data comparison, focus group manifests its own attribution. In short, the advantage of focus group lies on its more convenience implementation and high efficiency in the aspects of time and expeditions. The information collected by mutual communication in focus group is more abundance and display the concept of objects more active. On the other hand, focus group has inherent limitation. Moderator often become the determinants for focus group and will impress uncertainness. The result of research is influenced by domineering and passive participant (Fern, 2001). In ‘FOCUS GROUP METHOD’, the focus group interviews manifested the ethnographic potential and lead the participants to capture each other’s vulnerabilities. A post interview quantitative check can displayed the validity of data collected.
In conclusion, the strengths of focus group interviews in ‘FOCUS GROUP METHOD’ are more comprehensive and integrated. The study has included various possible situations and avoided many risks by appropriate measure. The method utilized by ‘UNSAFE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN SOUTH AFRICAN YOUTH’ maintained the objectivity as possible.
The different purpose of qualitative and quantitative approach makes different approach to analysis. The former aims to gain qualitative explanation for potential reason and concept. The later is to describe objects by data and extend the result of sample to the whole objects (VanderStoep, 2009).
The study of ‘UNSAFE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN SOUTH AFRICAN YOUTH’ has showed large variability between samples in terms of the number of partners. The findings are valuable for researchers concerning adolescent sexual behaviour and HIV prevention. In the study of ‘FOCUS GROUP METHOD’, constant comparative method was used to organizing data into clusters. Data were compared and classified while gathering data and modifying data into agenda of topics.
The researchers of quantitative approach deal with their objects as dissect animals separating objects into several elements and integrating every part to gain comprehensive concept. While qualitative approach believe that objects are organic units which can not be separately analyzed. Hence the analysis of qualitative approach is dealing with the whole topic.
The analysis of data of quantitative and qualitative is separately un-statistics methods and mathematical statistics. For the former one holds that the same kind of samples are similar to large extend, while the later empathizes much on the different of every individual object hence the analysis of qualitative approach do not separate objects into kinds and statistical data. In ‘UNSAFE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN SOUTH AFRICAN YOUTH’, based on the data from closed-ended questions, the properness of condoms used was uncertain. Open ended questions are also used to gain similar levels of knowledge about condoms. Considering the inherited attribution of focus group approach, the issue about validity of data is a challenge of ‘FOCUS GROUP METHOD’. The problem of identifying which claims are invaluable lies and which is the evidence of sub cultural process. (Holliday, 2002)
In conclusion, the data processing in ‘UNSAFE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN SOUTH AFRICAN YOUTH’ quantitative approach is structured and mathematical, but lack of the potential to manifest something actively. On the other hand, the data analysis of ‘FOCUS GROUP METHOD’ is more humanized but subjective.
The result of qualitative approach is to form a primary knowledge of object. Quantitative approach aims to guide final action plan or conclusion (Nanz, 2006). In the study of ‘UNSAFE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN SOUTH AFRICAN YOUTH’, a table lists findings on the ration of sexually experienced youth and the number of their partners as well as the proportions of the use of condoms. The result suggested by the study was that, over 50% of young people in South Africa are sexually experienced before 16. The number of those experienced before 20 was 80%. Boys and black or African are more likely to start sexual activity in teens. The results are accurate and structured enough to guide active dealing with the aiming issue. However, on the other hand, focus group approach in ‘FOCUS GROUP METHOD’, though as qualitative research it is, had provided opportunities for researchers to utilize quantitative approach to check the validity of data. Post interview questionnaire was used for such purpose. A brief questionnaire was disseminated to every participant after interview. The questions were mainly related to the extent to which the information was true. The result reflected that females were mere tend to believe the authenticity of their group mates’ speak. On the contrary, boys tend to distort the information influenced by the dominant versions of masculinity. Post interview questionnaires were used to assure the validity of data in reality.
The result of focus group, which is derived from group dynamics and open discussion, is qualitative data and valuable for exploratory purposes. Group dynamics means the mutual inter-influence of participants. Every concept or point of view will impress infect upon each other and is based on each other. Though the discussion is guided by certain topic and moderated by researchers, open discussion means result of focus group is unstructured and should not be presented in quantitative pattern. In the study of ‘FOCUS GROUP METHOD’, the distinction between acknowledging the claims which are exaggerated as untrue data and treating such claims as a part of sub-cultural manifesting. In the paper of ‘UNSAFE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN SOUTH AFRICAN YOUTH’, the result found by South African researchers showed that low self esteem was of important relation with earlier sexual activity and various sexual partners.
The theory building of qualitative and quantitative research is also different. Quantitative approach is to exam the correctness of theory, the result of which is neither support or oppose of assumption. While, qualitative approach is a part of whole research process, the result is derived from analysis and is data driven. By the analysis of the statistic, the study in ‘UNSAFE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN SOUTH AFRICAN YOUTH’ showed the result that it unprotected sex and early starting age are two main factors put young South Africans at high risk for HIV infection. However, there are many complex issues which can not be explained by pure numbers, just as why the youth do not protect themselves.
The conclusion is that, the result of quantitative research in ‘UNSAFE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN SOUTH AFRICAN YOUTH’ is more guidance for conducting actions but lack in the comprehensiveness. The result derived from focus group in ‘FOCUS GROUP METHOD’ is more lifelike but sometime deviate from aimed topics.
Quantitative research aims to explain the general rules of events or objects and present universe explanation for events in various situations. By contrast, qualitative researchers expect to explain accordingly to certain objects. In conclusion, the purpose of qualitative approach is to extent the width of concept and quantitative approach expect to pierce depth.