What Type Of Analysis Are You Conducting In Your Research ✓ Solved

What type of analysis you are conducting in your research

Our discussion question is as follows: What type of analysis you are conducting in your research studies? What are the advantages and disadvantages of both inferential analysis and qualitative analysis?

Reference: Ruth M. Tappen. (2015). Nursing Research. Advanced Nursing Research: From Theory to Practice. (2nd ed.). Publisher: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

All assignments must be completed and submitted as Microsoft Word documents. All assignments must follow APA 7th edition format. Minimum of 250 words three references needed (one the reference’s book).

Paper For Above Instructions

In the field of research, the choice of analysis method depends significantly on the study's objectives, data type, and the specific questions the researcher seeks to answer. In my research studies, I often conduct both inferential analysis and qualitative analysis to garner a comprehensive understanding of the data.

Inferential Analysis

Inferential analysis is a statistical method that allows researchers to draw conclusions about a population based on sample data. This type of analysis is particularly beneficial in establishing relationships between variables, testing hypotheses, and making predictions (Tappen, 2015). The advantages of inferential analysis include its capacity to handle large datasets and the ability to generalize findings to a broader population. For instance, when estimating the mean effectiveness of a nursing intervention, inferential statistics enable researchers to assert the generalizability of their findings beyond the sample used in their research.

However, inferential analysis has its disadvantages. One significant limitation is the assumption of normality. Many statistical tests require that the data follows a normal distribution. If this assumption is violated, the validity of the results may be compromised (Field, 2018). Additionally, inferential analysis can sometimes overlook the nuances within qualitative data, which may lead to oversimplified conclusions.

Qualitative Analysis

In contrast, qualitative analysis focuses on understanding phenomena through rich, descriptive data rather than numerical data. This type of analysis is beneficial for exploring complex human behaviors, experiences, and social contexts. Qualitative methods, such as interviews, focus groups, and content analysis, provide deep insights that are often lost in quantitative research (Green & Thorogood, 2018).

The advantages of qualitative analysis include its flexibility and its ability to capture the complexity of human experience. Researchers can adapt their questions based on participant responses, leading to more meaningful data collection (Creswell, 2014). However, qualitative analysis also poses challenges. One major disadvantage is the subjective interpretation of data, which can introduce researcher bias. Additionally, qualitative findings are often context-specific and may not be readily generalizable to larger populations (Patton, 2015).

Balancing the Two Methods

To address the limitations inherent in both types of analysis, many researchers opt for a mixed-methods approach, combining both inferential and qualitative analysis in their studies. This methodology allows researchers to leverage the strengths of each approach while mitigating their respective weaknesses. For example, qualitative insights can inform the development of hypotheses tested through inferential methods, thereby enriching the overall research outcomes (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010).

In conclusion, the choice between inferential and qualitative analysis should be dictated by the research question and the nature of the data. While inferential analysis provides powerful tools for generalization and testing, qualitative analysis offers depth and context. Striking a balance between the two can lead to more comprehensive and insightful research outcomes, ultimately enhancing the reliability and validity of the findings.

References

• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE publications.
• Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. SAGE publications.
• Green, J., & Thorogood, N. (2018). Qualitative methods for health research. SAGE publications.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. SAGE publications.
• Tappen, R. M. (2015). Nursing Research: Advanced Nursing Research: From Theory to Practice (2nd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
• Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. SAGE publications.
• Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. Wolters Kluwer.
• Yardley, L. (2008). Demonstrating validity in qualitative psychology. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 256-272). SAGE publications.
• Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research. SAGE publications.
• Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research (4th ed.). Wiley.