Neil, J. Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research: Key Points in a Classic Debate. (2007). Retrieved 1 December 2007 Document available at: http://wilderdom.com/research/QualitativeVersusQuantitativeResearch.html.
On the other hand, Bostrom (275-294) states that advocates of quantitative research hold that the problem with qualitative research is that it is fundamentally subjective while empirical methods are objective. The findings of empirical studies do not depend on what the researcher thinks or supposes or desires to occur; rather, the findings are completely independent of the researcher. Thus empirical findings are more objective and the proof of this is that quantitative studies can be 'double checked' for validity by replicating the study. This typically cannot be done with qualitative research.
Hayhow, R., & Stewart, T. "Introduction to Qualitative Research and its Application to Stuttering." International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 41.5 (2006): 475-493.
Another argument in favor of qualitative research, according to Siegle (1) is that qualitative methods are more valid because quantitative methods study phenomena in artificial laboratory conditions; these conditions themselves influence and affect the phenomena (e.g., subjects who lie, poorly designed questionnaires, etc.). The result of this artificiality is that it produces little more than findings that are methodological artifacts. However, when out in the real-world conducting research, the phenomena is unrestricted in its occurrences and thereby provides the research with not only an observation of it but also an observation of the general framework within which it really occurs.
Bostrom, R. N. "Theories, Data, and Communication Research." Communication Monographs 70.4 (2003): 275-294.
This paper examined the claims and arguments associated with the classic debate as to whether qualitative or quantitative research produces more valid findings. What can