Qualitative research in sport and exercise psychology: observations of a non-qualitative researcher

Abstract

The authors of articles examining quantitative and qualitative research frequently highlight and over-emphasise the differences in these two research paradigms. Differences are typically portrayed as dichotomous vs. differences in emphasis or degree. Additionally, similarities and shared middle ground are often ignored. The above perspective can lead to incomplete, inaccurate and misleading reviews on both types of research. Furthermore, the above commentaries can discourage genuine dialogue among researchers from both areas. In the current paper, I hope to avoid the above approaches and focus on legitimate differences as well as similarities among qualitative and quantitative research. In brief, I discuss areas of legitimate and substantial differences: philosophy of science issues and reality. I then examine areas where differences of a dubious nature are discussed because they are based on inaccuracies and straw men. Finally, I briefly discuss writing style followed by an examination of areas of agreement that are often overlooked.

Keywords:

• qualitative
• quantitative
• research methods
• philosophy of science

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Diane Gill, Alan Smith and Phil Wilson for their help. The manuscript is immeasurably stronger due to their efforts, but of course, all shortcomings are mine alone.

Notes

1. William James engaged in qualitative research in psychology over 100 years ago (Marchel and Owens 2007).

2. Sparkes (2005) on the two ways to ‘write’ about his findings.

3. Case studies of 1–5 people often are quantitative in nature. Case study researchers in sport psychology have also had to overcome inaccurate misperceptions of that type of quantitative research (Hrycaiko and Martin 1996).