This what
their post it about
·        
Begin the discussion by explaining the strengths, differences,
and limitations of both qualitative and quantitative proposal and evaluation
approaches.
·        
Create an argument for which types of data and conclusions based
on that information among the mixed methods approach best serves a research
proposal for examining a criminal justice program.
·        
Support your opinions with research from the text and through independent
research.
Guided Response: Review several posts in this discussion forum
and respond to at least two of your peers. Decide why you agree with them and
explain. Utilize the research skills you have acquired thus far and support
your position with credible, scholarly sources utilizing APA sourcing. It doesn’t
have to be a long respond.  
Peer 1.
When we say that qualitative
and quantitative data are mixed, it could suggest that they are genuinely
blended on one end of the continuum, maintained separately on the other, or
mingled in some way in the middle (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).
Begin the discussion by explaining the strengths,
differences, and limitations of both qualitative and quantitative proposal and
evaluation approaches.
There are benefits, drawbacks, and nuances to
both qualitative and quantitative methods.
Understanding things from a close, detailed
perspective is the goal of qualitative research, which is frequently
inquisitive. It excels at giving in-depth knowledge on a specific situation,
problem, or case by way of extensive, rich information. Nevertheless, there are
several drawbacks to consider, such as the fact that data collecting and
analysis can be time-consuming, there is a chance of researcher bias, and it is
difficult to generalize results to bigger populations.
Conversely, quantitative research is usually
employed to verify theories and derive findings that can be applied to broader
groups of people. It excels at producing statistically valid numerical data,
which is necessary for making fair comparisons and measurements. The danger of
oversimplification and a lack of finesse in comprehending complicated
situations are two of its shortcomings.
Just to clarify:
Researchers frequently employ qualitative
methods when they wish to delve deeply into a topic, get insight into many
viewpoints, and discover prevailing trends in thought and opinion. The capacity
to provide data context and depth is one of its strongest points. It can be
useful for getting a deep and comprehensive grasp of difficult topics. Findings
may be open to interpretation and methods may be less structured than in
quantitative research due to the subjective character of qualitative research.
In contrast, quantitative research is employed
when the researcher aims to put a numerical value on an issue and collect
numerical data that can be turned into useful statistics. The frequency of
different points of view in a selected sample can be determined using this
method. Statistically analyzing data is a strength of quantitative research,
and it also provides a broader perspective than qualitative research.
Nevertheless, it frequently neglects to delve into the background or rationale
behind specific patterns or trends, which can lead to a lack of depth.
Qualitative research relies more on subjective
interpretation and less on objective deductive reasoning than quantitative
research. While larger, randomly selected populations are used in quantitative
research, smaller, non-randomly selected groups are typically used in
qualitative research. Quantitative research relies on numerical and statistical
data, whereas qualitative research relies on words, images, or physical things.
Create an argument for which types of
data and conclusions based on that information among the mixed methods approach
best serves a research proposal for examining a criminal justice program.
A research proposal that aims to examine a
criminal justice program would benefit most from a mixed methods approach,
which incorporates both quantitative and qualitative data. As a third research
paradigm, mixed-methods studies can unite quantitative and qualitative
approaches (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). By capturing both numerical
trends and nuanced perspectives, this approach provides a more thorough
assessment of the program’s effectiveness.
Just to clarify:
Obtaining quantitative data is essential for
drawing general conclusions about the program’s performance. Statistical proof
of KPIs like response times, recidivism rates, and crime rates can be provided.
The ability to compare results over time or between programs, as well as to
spot trends or patterns, makes this data very useful, but it can miss some of
the intricacies of the program and the people’s experiences therein.
However, qualitative information can provide
light on the program’s inner workings and results to a greater extent. Police
officers, program participants, and community members are just a few of the
individuals whose viewpoints might be illuminated by qualitative data gathered
through techniques including focus groups, case studies, and interviews. The
‘why’ behind quantitative trends can be better understood with this kind of
data, and it can also reveal improvement opportunities that were not apparent
from the statistics alone.
Finally, a criminal justice program can be
better understood with a mixed methods approach. This technique can provide
valuable insights for program evaluation and policy-making by combining
quantitative and qualitative data.
Create an argument for which types of
data and conclusions based on that information among the mixed methods approach
best serves a research proposal for examining a criminal justice program.
Research proposals that aim to analyze
criminal justice programs are better served by mixed-methods approaches, which
integrate qualitative and quantitative data. Because it can record both
quantitative trends and nuanced viewpoints, this method provides a fuller
picture of the program’s efficacy.
Let me explain:
To give a general picture of the program’s
success, quantitative data is essential. Key performance measures including
crime rates, recidivism rates, and reaction times can be provided with
statistical evidence. If you want to see trends or patterns or compare programs
across time, this is the data for you. On the other hand, it might leave out
important details about the program and the participants’ experiences.
The program’s functioning and impacts can be
better understood with qualitative data. The viewpoints of different
stakeholders, such as community residents, program participants, and law
enforcement officials, might be uncovered using qualitative data collection
approaches like focus groups, case studies, or interviews. The ‘why’ behind
quantitative trends can be better understood with this kind of data, and it can
also reveal improvement opportunities that weren’t necessarily apparent from the
numbers.
Ultimately, a criminal justice program can be
better understood through a mixed methods approach, which offers a more
sophisticated and comprehensive view. Program assessment and policy-making can
both benefit from this approach’s ability to combine quantitative and
qualitative data.
References
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell,
J. D. (2017). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. SAGE Publications. Retrieved from: www.ceil-conicet.gov.ar/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Creswell-Cap-10.pdfLinks to an external site.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie,
A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has
come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3700093?origin=JSTOR-pdfLinks to an external site.
Peer 2.
Qualitative
and quantitative analyses are essential components of research, each offering
unique strengths, differences, and limitations in proposal and evaluation
approaches. Qualitative research methods, such as interviews, observations, and
focus groups, are valuable for exploring complex phenomena, capturing rich,
detailed data, and gaining insights into individuals’ experiences and
perspectives (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Qualitative approaches allow
researchers to delve deep into understanding the why and how behind behaviors
and phenomena, uncovering nuances and complexities that may be missed with
quantitative methods. However, qualitative research is often criticized for its
subjectivity, potential for researcher bias, and limited generalizability due
to small sample sizes (Maxwell, 2013).
On the other
hand, quantitative research involves the collection and analysis of numerical
data through surveys, experiments, and statistical analyses, providing
measurable and standardized information for comparison and generalization
(Babbie, 2016). Quantitative methods are known for their objectivity,
reliability, and ability to produce statistical evidence to support
conclusions. They are particularly useful in establishing relationships between
variables, identifying trends, and making predictions. However, quantitative
research may lack the depth and context provided by qualitative methods,
potentially oversimplifying complex phenomena and human experiences (Bryman,
2012).
For examining a
criminal justice program, a mixed methods approach that combines qualitative
and quantitative data is ideal for providing a comprehensive evaluation.
Qualitative data can offer insights into the experiences of program participants,
stakeholders’ perspectives, and the social dynamics within the criminal justice
system (Bachman & Schutt, 2017). Additionally, qualitative methods can
capture the nuances and complexities of the program’s implementation and
impact, shedding light on factors that quantitative data alone may not reveal.
On the other hand, quantitative data can provide numerical indicators of
program effectiveness, such as crime rates, recidivism statistics, or cost
analysis. By using a mixed methods approach, researchers can triangulate data
sources, validate findings, and offer a more holistic understanding of the
criminal justice program’s outcomes and processes.
Research by
Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010) supports the use of mixed methods in program
evaluation, highlighting the synergistic benefits of combining qualitative and
quantitative data. By integrating both types of data, researchers can gain a
more comprehensive understanding of the program’s impact, effectiveness, and
underlying mechanisms. This integrated approach allows for a more nuanced
evaluation that considers both the quantitative outcomes and qualitative
insights, leading to more informed conclusions and recommendations for
improving the criminal justice program.
References
Babbie, E.
(2016). The practice of social research. Cengage Learning .
Bachman, R.,
& Schutt, R. K. (2017). The practice of research in criminology and
criminal justice. SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W.,
& Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five approaches. SAGE Publications.
Maxwell, J. A.
(2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. SAGE
Publications.
McDavid, J. C.,
Huse, I., & Hawthorn, L. R. L. (2019). Program evaluation and performance
measurement: An introduction to practice (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Tashakkori, A.,
& Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social &
behavioral research. SAGE Publications.