Skip to main content

Introduction: Considering Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Enjoying Research in Counselling and Psychotherapy

Abstract

In this introduction we will explore some of the differences and similarities between quantitative and qualitative research, and dispel some of the perceived mysteries within research. We will briefly introduce some of the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches. There will also be an introduction to some of the philosophical assumptions that underpin quantitative and qualitative research methods, with specific mention made of ontological and epistemological considerations. These about the nature of existence (ontology) and how we might gain knowledge about the nature of existence (epistemology). We will explore the difference between positivist and interpretivist research, idiographic versus nomothetic, and inductive and deductive perspectives. Finally, we will also distinguish between qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods research, gaining familiarity with attempts to bridge divides between disciplines and research approaches. Throughout this book, the issue of research-supported practice will remain an underlying theme. This chapter aims to support a research-based practice, aided by considering the multiple routes into research. The chapter encourages you to familiarise yourself with approaches ranging from phenomenological experiences to more nomothetic, generalising and comparing foci like outcome measuring and random control trials (RCTs), understood with a basic knowledge of statistics. The book introduces you to a range of research, guided by interest in separate approaches but also inductive—deductive combinations, as in grounded theory together with pluralistic and mixed methods approaches, all with a shared interest in providing support in the field of mental health and emotional wellbeing. Primarily, we hope that the chapter will encourage you to start considering your own research. Enjoy!

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bager-Charleson, S., McBeath, A. G., & du Plock, S. (2019). The relationship between psychotherapy practice and research: A mixed-methods exploration of practitioners’ views. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 19(3), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bager-Charleson, S. du Plock, S and McBeath, A.G. (2018) Therapists Have a lot to Add to the Field of Research, but Many Don’t Make it There: A Narrative Thematic Inquiry into Counsellors’ and Psychotherapists’ Embodied Engagement with Research. Psychoanalysis and Language, 7 (1), 4–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, R. (1975). A realist theory of science. Hassocks, England: Harvester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, R. (1998). The possibility of naturalism. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M., Jakobsen, L., & Karlsson, J. C. (2002). Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denscombe, M. (1998). The good research for small –Scale social research project. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Health and Social Care (2017). A Framework for mental health research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, D., & Tucker, I. (2015). Social psychology of emotions. London, United Kingdom: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evered, R., & Louis, R. (1981). Alternative Perspectives in the Organizational Sciences: ‘Inquiry from the Inside’ and ‘Inquiry from the Outside. Academy of Management Review, 6(3), 385–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landrum, B., & Garza, G. (2015). Mending fences: Defining the domains and approaches of quantitative and qualitative research. Qualitative Psychology, 2(2), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malterud, K. (2001). The art and science of clinical knowledge: Evidence beyond measures and numbers. The Lancet., 358, 397–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05548-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBeath, A. G. (2019). The motivations of psychotherapists: An in-depth survey. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 19(4), 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBeath, A. G., Bager-Charleson, S., & Abarbanel, A. (2019). Therapists and Academic Writing: ‘Once upon a time psychotherapy practitioners and researchers were the same people. European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy, 19, 103–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEvoy, P., & Richards, D. (2006). A critical realist rationale for using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Journal of Research in Nursing, 11, 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987106060192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rukeyser, M. (1968). The speed of darkness. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandelowski, M. (2001). Real qualitative researchers do not count: The use of numbers in qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health, 24(3), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive and critical research paradigms. English Language Teaching, 5(9), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n9p9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. A., & Osborn, S. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology (pp. 53–80). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ukpabi, D. C., Enyindah, C. W., & Dapper, E. M. (2014). Who is winning the paradigm war? The futility of paradigm inflexibility in Administrative Sciences Research. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 16(7), 13–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alistair McBeath .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

McBeath, A., Bager-Charleson, S. (2020). Introduction: Considering Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Research. In: Bager-Charleson, S., McBeath, A. (eds) Enjoying Research in Counselling and Psychotherapy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55127-8_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics