Summarization of the papers

These two papers investigate the quantitative and qualitative approaches applied in intercultural communication study from a comparative perspective. The main points of each paper will be stated below.

The first paper named Quantitative approaches: an overview is supposed to focus on quantitative approaches, but it is interesting that the authors of this paper argue the distinction between quantitative and qualitative approaches to study intercultural communication processes is artificial and useless (Korzenny, F. & Korzenny, B., p85). The authors think quantitative approaches are inevitable to invade the realm of qualitative researches, because quantitative and qualitative data are, to some extent, virtually inseparable. They are going hand in hand. On one hand, all quantitative compassion in communication study is based on qualitative judgment, quantitative numbers can't be interpreted without understanding the quality assumptions which underlie them; on the other hand, quality is relative and only makes sense as a comparison, qualitative judgment need quantification allows researchers to make some relatively definite statements about quality. So the authors think the quantitative approaches and qualitative approaches should be used jointly to study intercultural communication. But in contemporary communication research, there is a lack of mutual interaction by adherents of both method traditions. Why this happens? The authors point out this is because the different philosophical assumptions of each tradition: the advocates of qualitative approaches start with a premise of human freedom and lack of determinism, and quantitative researchers more apparently base their work on deterministic assumptions.( Korzenny, F. & Korzenny,B.,p86). Qualitative researchers seem to disdain measurement and statistical techniques applied by quantitative researchers; while quantitative researchers criticize that qualitative researchers could not make research qualitative enough because they cannot describe "qualities" precisely enough.. To ease the conflict between the adherents of each tradition, the authors advocate the so-called qualitative and quantitative researchers should commence a dialogue to learn from each other and help each other develop the communication science (Korzenny, F. & Korzenny, B., p92). To interpret this argument, they also cited some examples to illustrate quantitative researchers could learn many things from qualitative research to overcome the shortcoming of quantitative research. For example, the qualitative methods could help to give a more in-depth interpretation of the quantitative results coming from surveys or experiments.

In the second paper Qualitative research: An overview, the authors compare the difference of quantitative and qualitative approaches from a philosophical perspective. They think the difference between quantitative and qualitative research is rooted in the ontological or metaphorical orientations that guide each research endeavor (Ting, p171). In this paper, the authors connect qualitative approach with interpretive paradigm (Similar to the Human-action paradigm presented in Paradigms and communication theory), and connect quantitative approach with functional paradigm (Similar to the Covering laws paradigm presented in Paradigms and communication theory). The basic assumptions of each research are generalized in table 1.

Table 1:

Basic philosophical assumptions of Qualitative and Quantitative Research

These different philosophical assumptions of two paradigms determine the different characteristics of qualitative and quantitative research. Their respective characteristics are generalized in table 2.

Table 2: the different characteristics of Qualitative and Quantitative Research

A short commentary on the paper

The Qualitative-Quantitative debate is a long time existing methodological topic in social science, especially in communication study. In my opinion, this debate in communication study probably couldn’t be settled forever. Because the basic philosophical assumptions behind these two approaches are tit for tat and contradict with each other, plus the reality that both two approaches based on rich and varied academic traditions that come from multiple disciplines; both have been applied to study almost any research topic we can think of.; both have a lot of adherents that disdain the other approach’s adherents. These factors determined the co-existing and conflicting of these two approaches would be a long-term situation in communication research.

But I don’t think this is a bad thing, as today’s situation of “methodological pluralism” maybe better for the development of communication research when compared with “one methodology dominant” situation of other disciplines, because all methodologies have their specific strengths and weaknesses. For example, when we compare quantitative and qualitative approaches, we could find quantitative tend to be more objective when it is compared with qualitative research methods, but quantitative research also be criticized for "forces" responses or people into categories that might not "fit" in order to make some results. And while qualitative research could provide us with more in-depth interpretation of specific people or phenomena than quantitative research, it’s also criticized for too much emphasis on individual results and it fails to generalize the results to other people or other settings as quantitative research does. Maybe just as Geertz noted, both two approaches are intrinsically incomplete, the more deeply it goes the less complete it is. So communication questions have need of diverse tools for reaching their answers.

Ideally, maybe we should show no clear preference for the methodology per se but for the appropriate means for testing our concerns. Just as the authors of Investigating communication stated, the choice of one or the other depends on the purpose of the research, the type of research question or hypothesis posed, the ways in which concepts are conceived and operationalized, and the methodology thought to produce the best results.( (Frey, Botan& Kreps, p84).

But when we encounter with specific research objects or problems, we probably don’t know which approach is better to conduct this research, which approach will produce better results. Thus in my opinion, to conduct good research we need to use both the qualitative and the quantitative approaches, because the two quantitative and qualitative approaches provide researchers with different but potentially complementary ways to investigate the communication phenomena. For instance, in intercultural communication research, as above-mentioned two papers pointed out, maybe we could use quantitative methods to enhance the precision of the data gathered, then use qualitative methods to evaluation the cultural context influences on those data.

Of course, integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches in communication research is a very tough task, which put forward higher requirements to the researchers than adhering to only one methodology. In our own research, our knowledge backgrounds, interests and instincts probably lead ourselves towards one approach rather than the other. To integrate qualitative and quantitative approaches, we need to overcome our instinctive tendency of methodology, force ourselves to learn the methods that we may not interested in, and think carefully how to use these two approaches in our research appropriately. This would be a difficult process, but for the further development of communication research, it is so valuable that deserve efforts.

Reference

Korzenny, F., & Korzenny, B. A. G. (1984). Quantitative approaches: An overview. In W. B. Gudykunst & Y. Y. Kim (Eds.), Methods for intercultural communication research (pp. 85-94). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1984). Qualitative Research: An overview. In W. B. Gudykunst & Y. Y. Kim (Eds.), Methods for intercultural communication research (pp. 169-184). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Frey, L. R., Botan, C. H., & Kreps, G. L. (2000). Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.