A key question that should come up when reading communication research, or any research for that matter, is: How does one know that the findings being presented and discussed are valid? According to Boster (473-490) the answer to this question is that the findings are valid to the extent that the researcher conducting the study used sound and well-accepted empirical methods (e.g., control of variables, operational definitions, significant tests, collection of numerical data, and so forth).
However, others would disagree with Boster's claim. Instead, they would state that the use of strictly empirical methods may indeed provide a valid glimpse of a given phenomena, but this glimpse is a very tiny slice of the phenomena with none of the contextual detail that is part and parcel of the phenomena occurring in the real-life setting. Therefore it is validity with little meaning and less practical utility.
In fact, the foregoing point was made by Hayhow and Stewart (475-493) who pointed out that in order to produce truly valid findings in research, what is needed is not strictly empirical methods, but findings that are rich in detail, nuances, and context. Only in this way, can a holistically valid observation be made because phenomena exist within a contextual framework.
In brief, the foregoing differences in perspective about research methods that do or do not yield valid data symbolizes what has become know as "the classic qualitative vs. quantitative debate" (Neil 1). The purpose of this study is to examine this classic debate, discussing the various claims and the arguments made on both sides. The paper ends with a brief conclusion based on the material reviewed.
According to Creswell (153-178) quantitative research is research that uses empirical methods; this means that the phenomenon or variables observed are represented in objective and measurable ways such as through the collection of numeric data and stati...