As a current graduate student, I’ve been conducting research projects for the past two decades of my life. I’m sure any other academic in their 20s can relate; we’ve practically been raised to run science experiments, think critically, and ask “why” since kindergarten. Research is all we’ve ever known.

Yet, not all research projects are created equal. There is a significant difference between quantitative, numerical research processes and qualitative, narrative-based ones. A statistical analysis will yield widely different results than a one-on-one interview. And it takes careful thought and consideration to determine the best method to use to answer a research question.

An ongoing debate exists between mass communications researchers about which approach is better. On one side of the argument are the positivists, who say that logic, objectivity, and empirical inquiry should serve as the basis of all research if it is to generate valid scientific knowledge. Alternatively, interpretivists maintain that an in-depth understanding of the meaning behind communication is the most valuable outcome of research, regardless of whether causality can be proven.

Below is a short video from Dr. Daniel Davis that examines the differences between the positivist and interpretive paradigms in the context of sociology.

Both quantitative and qualitative research are valid approaches in the right context. Actually, in many instances, they have proven to be stronger when they work together.

To back up this point, let’s examine two different mass communications studies conducted in the past decade that investigated gender roles in the context of television advertising.

The first study, presented in a 2011 article in the International Journal of Advertising, measured gender stereotyping on public and private TV channels in Germany using quantitative content analysis. Five variables were chosen and coded to represent the concept of stereotyping in the ads analyzed: the main character’s age, credibility, location, product type, and role. Categories within each variable were assigned numerical values, and statistical tests were applied to prove that gender stereotyping still exists across many facets of television advertising (Knoll, Eisend, & Steinhagen, 2011).

The findings of the German study were conclusive and contributed significant knowledge to the field of communications. Through a quantitative method, evidence was provided that females in TV ads were portrayed more often as younger characters, product users, and in dependent or domestic settings. The study also uncovered a new part of the issue by highlighting differences between ads on private and public channels.

Despite the study’s strengths, it lacked a certain human element. Although it furthered our understanding of gender stereotypes in advertising, it failed to show why the research mattered and impacted real people. This is where qualitative methods come in.

The second study, taken from a 2020 issue of the Athens Journal of Mass Media and Communications, also used quantitative content analysis to investigate gender roles in TV advertisements (this time in Nigeria rather than Germany). However, this study’s quantitative research was supplemented by qualitative focus group data. Personal stories and opinions were gathered from a discussion with Nigerian schoolgirls about the advertisements, gender roles, and their personal values. In my opinion, the inclusion of the focus group data made all the difference in strengthening the study results.

Not only was the Nigerian study able to numerically show that gender stereotypes are present in advertising, it was able to place a face on the issue and show the real impact of such advertisements on young, female viewers. As the author notes, “data shows that advertisements portray women in the home as homemakers and people who do the shopping…” and “men as the gender that represents workplace, outdoor and leisure environments” (Anweh, 2020, p. 58). The reactions of the children who participated in the focus group confirmed that strong cultural value is placed on the female role as a caregiver in Nigeria.

---

Quantitative and qualitative methods are always better together. Numbers alone fail to represent the human impact of an issue under study. On the flip side, thoughts and opinions alone don’t always provide scientific credibility. But combine the two, and you’ll have a research project that’s robust, credible, and driven by deep human insight.

References:

Anweh, G. I. (2020). Gender roles representation in television advertisements: Implications for the Nigerian girl-child and role modeling. Athens Journal of Mass Media and Communications, 6(1), 43-64. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajmmc.6-1-3

Knoll, S., Eisend, M., & Steinhagen, J. (2011). Gender roles in advertising: Measuring and comparing gender stereotyping on public and private TV channels in Germany. International Journal of Advertising, 30(5), 867-888. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-30-5-867-888