1. Social Research Methods
Alan Bryman
Social Research Methods
Chapter 7: The nature of quantitative research

2. What is a concept? Concepts are: Concepts are useful for:
Building blocks of theory
Labels that we give to elements of the social world
Categories for the organization of ideas and observations (Bulmer, 1984)
Concepts are useful for:
Providing an explanation of a certain aspect of the social world
Standing for things we want to explain
Giving a basis for measuring variation
Page 151

3. Why measure?
To delineate fine differences between people, organizations, or any other unit of analysis
To provide a consistent device for gauging distinctions
To produce precise estimates of the degree of the relationship between concepts
Page 152

4. Indicators of concepts
Produced by the operational definition of a concept
Less directly quantifiable than measures
Common sense understandings of the form a concept might take
Multiple-indicator measures
concept may have different dimensions
Pages 152 and 153 4

5. Why use more than one indicator?
Single indicators may incorrectly classify many individuals
Single indicators may capture only a portion of the underlying concept or be too general
Multiple indicators can make finer distinctions between individuals
Multiple indicators can capture different dimensions of a concept
Pages 153 and 154

6. What does reliability mean?
Stability
is the measure stable over time?
e.g. test–retest method
Internal reliability
are the indicators consistent?
e.g. split-half method
Inter-observer consistency
is the measure consistent between observers?
Key concept 7.3
Page 157

7. What does validity mean?
Does the indicator measure the concept?
It does if it has:
Face validity (right for the concept?)
Concurrent validity (supported by a relevant criterion today?)
Predictive validity (likely to be supported by a relevant criterion tomorrow?)
Construct validity (are useful hypotheses produced?)
Convergent validity (supported by results from other methods?
Pages 158 and 159 7

8. Causality Explanation Direction of causal influence Confidence
why things are the way they are
Direction of causal influence
relationship between dependent & independent variables
Confidence
in the researcher's causal inferences
Page 163

9. Generalization
Can findings be generalized beyond the confines of the particular context?
Can findings be generalized from sample to population?
How representative are samples?
Pages 163 and 164

10. Replication Minimizing contamination from researcher biases or values
Explicit description of procedures
Control of conditions of study
Ability to replicate in differing contexts
Pages 164 to 166

11. Replication a study of tipping
Brewster and Lynn (2014) explored customer racial discrimination in tipping
Replicated previous study by Lynn which found black restaurant workers were tipped less
Limitations of previous study – a measure of service quality
New study – service quality not a mediating variable – race of the diner was not significant in tipping behaviour
The findings were similar
Page 165

12. The process of quantitative research
Figure 7.1, Page 150 12

13. Criticisms of quantitative research
Failure to distinguish between objects in the natural world and social phenomena
Artificial and spurious sense of precision and accuracy
Lack of ecological validity
reliance on instruments and measurements
Static view of social life
Pages 166 and 167 13

14. Is it always like this?
Quantitative research design is an ideal-typical approach
Useful as a guide of good practice
But discrepancy between ideal type and actual practice of social research
Pragmatic concerns mean that researchers may not adhere rigidly to these principles
Page 167 14

15. One reason for the discrepancy between the ideal and typical approaches
Quantitative research is usually deductive (operational definition of concepts)
But measurements can sometimes lead to inductive theorising
And this means the factors give rise to the concepts, rather than making them operational
Bryman (1988:28) calls this ‘reverse operationism’
Page 167 15

16. …and another reason
Published accounts of quantitative research rarely report evidence of reliability and validity (Podsakoff & Dalton, 1987)
Researchers are primarily interested in the substantive content and findings of their research
Running tests of reliability and validity may seem an unappealing alternative!
But researchers remain committed to the principles of good practice
Page 167 16