Order your essay today — written by real experts, guaranteed plagiarism-free, and ready to impress your professor!
Critique on Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Methods
Introduction
Nurses need to participate in research studies to widen their knowledge, broaden their experience, and be a position to solve problems by generating evidence-based solutions. As posited by Polit and Beck (2017) the main purpose of research in nursing is to get answers to questions or attain solutions nursing matters. The main types of research methods or techniques are qualitative and quantitative. In the assignment, the paper assesses and critiques two research studies; one qualitative and other quantitative. The paper then contrasts the information from both articles and offers insight into the two respective techniques.
Contrasting the Type of Information from the Two Different Research Approaches
Quantitative research is conducted based on an established procedure or strategy and uses designed ways to get information and data. Data collected in quantitative studies is numeric with precise measurement and is analyzed from a statistical perspective (Polit & Beck, 2017). On its part, the qualitative study focuses on comprehending human experience and is presented in a narrative manner. Further, qualitative research is subjective as it expresses how human experience is lived by those under the study. Imperatively, it does not make generalities or use a standardize strategy like the quantitative research. In this assignment, two articles were reviewed where the first article was a quantitative study by Maria Parisi and others (2016) and a qualitative study conducted by Emma Browne and others (2014). The quantitative study by Parisi et al. (2016) that uses the before and after study design examines incidences of intensive care unit’s ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). The study also observes the impacts of executing ventilator bundles and if the health providers understand its occurrence. The sample population or participants were 362 patients. The second article by Brown et al. (2016) utilizes the qualitative survey technique on ventilator-associated pneumonia in the UK and seeks opinions from physicians concerning its diagnosis and management practices. The study samples opinions from 339 physicians who belong to the Intensive Care Society (ICS) in the UK. The two studies all note that VAP is a common hospital-associated infection among patients in the United Kingdom, especially for patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for periods longer than 2 days.
Based on the information gathered from the two articles, it is evident that they use different methods to collect and analyze their data. The quantitative survey by Parisi et al. (2016) used an online survey while the qualitative study was carried out for 24 months and included having before and after approach. The qualitative study by Browne et al. was divided into intervention, baseline, and post-intervention durations. This shows that the qualitative study was subjective and used a narrative approach to the research. The data in this study was analyzed using content analysis which categorizes information into different themes. Data in the quantitative study by Parisi et al. (2016) was analyzed using different tools like diagnostic procedure, microbiological sampling, chest X-ray (CXR) antibiotic treatment, and bronchoscopy. Imperatively, each study follows the provisions of its designs. Further, the authors also note some of the limitations of their study and both research projects are relevant to the nursing practice because of their informative findings.
Advantages and Disadvantage of the Two Research Designs
The two research designs have merits and demerits. For instance, the quantitative study by Parisi et al. (2016) is about the VAP incident rates and how these can be reduced while the Browne et al. study’s focus is on the opinions expressed by physicians concerning how they diagnose and treat VAP and its variations from printed and accepted guidelines.
The quantitative approach allows researchers to analyze the credibility and reliability of their study outcomes or results. The quantitative approach also utilizes short durations in conducting surveys while the utilization of numerical information enables respondents to agree or disagree. Further, the association between independent and dependent variables is ascertained and studied. For instance, the Parisi et al. (2016) study implemented ventilator bundles and observed a decrease in the incidents in 24 months. The ventilator bundle rate dropped from 21.6 per 1,000 to 11.6 per 1,000 ventilator days. A disadvantage of the approach is that it requires a large sample size to obtain accurate outcomes. The study used a sample size of 362. Further, it does not incorporate human perception and beliefs.
The qualitative research technique uses the homogenous exploration perspective and enables researchers to raise related issues through wide and open-ended investigation. The studies enable one to understand human perceptions, beliefs, assumptions, and values (Choy, 2014). However, the approach cannot offer objectively verifiable outcomes and interviewers need skills to propagate the results. The qualitative studies are also time-consuming because of content analysis and interview process. The qualitative study by Browne et al. (2014) uses online surveys to understand the opinions of physicians on their diagnostic approaches and treatment interventions for patients with VAP. While the research study is flexible, it needs more involvement and offers a subjective view thus leading to biased opinions that affect the credibility of the outcomes and data (Choy, 2014).
Qualitative Research is not Real Science
Qualitative research is a gold standard whose aim is to explore the meaning and uncover the different realities. Qualitative research does not generalize its target population. Imperatively, without it, it would be difficult to understand the human experience (Polit & Beck, 2017). Therefore, it is a real science.
Conclusion
Based on the two studies, it is evident that nurses require knowledge of various types of research methods and how these approaches are executed. The studies used in this paper are on a similar subject but executed in different ways to gather essential knowledge on the subject for healthcare practitioners, especially nurses.
