The purpose of the current paper is to identify two journal articles, qualitative and quantitative research, and carry out a comparative critique of the two articles from the perspectives of the authors. There are fundamental differences in quantitative and qualitative research approaches that researchers need to consider when using each of the approaches in research. In most cases, the difference the approach chosen can yield different results (Creswell 2013, p. 10). The paper uses theoretical underpins of evaluating qualitative and quantitative research articles with a view of inferring conclusions made by the respective authors.
Identification of the articles
The first article is Identifying victims of workplace bullying by integrating traditional estimation approaches into a Latent Class Cluster Model authored by Leon-Perez et al in 2013. The quantitative article investigates the impact of workplace bullying to the productivity of employees in an organization. In the article, the authors identify two measurement approaches in the literature. The measurement approaches are discussed within the confines of different categories. The authors also uses latent class cluster to identify target groups of respondents. The model is non-arbitrary and also provides statistical cut-off criteria for the selection of the respondents. The article also defines the aim of the research in a descriptive way. They also outline the expectations of their findings in terms of differences in standard deviation in areas of respondents and measures (Leon-Perez et al 2013, p. 1155).
The authors of the article also describe the methodology of participant selection defining the procedures that were used to select the participants. Questionnaires were used as the primary tool for collecting data on workplace bullying. They also provide the characteristics of the sample which consisted of 1619 employees with different ages and gender. The participants were drawn from public service companies, health care organizations, and private manufacturing companies. Other criterion included the timeline of work experience in the selected companies which was above 2 years. In terms of measures used on the questionnaires, the article provides different measures with controlled socio-demographic elements of age, gender, type of contract, and job tenure. The authors used latent class cluster method described in the literature review to analyze the data collected and also make assumptions to align the findings of the research with the aim of the study.
The results are analyzed quantitatively using statistics and tables to present the responses of the participants. The results are interpreted in terms of percentages which are ascribed meaning in relation to workplace bullying. The results are subjected to the analysis of variance method to analyze the criterion related validity of the results and presented in a tabular format. Interpretation of the results of analysis of variance is done in percentages to assign meaning to the findings. Overall, the authors have used quantitative approach in developing the tools to collect the data for the research in a scientific process. The analysis and discussion of the results is also done within the requirements of the quantitative approach. The article refers to many articles in the literature review which have used quantitative approach drawing from them the model used to develop the research as well as the methodology in the selection of the participants.
The second article for review is the HR Professional Role Tensions: Perceptions and Responses of the Top Management Team by Sheehan et al published in 2013. The qualitative approach research article is focused on understanding the role of HR professionals in top management of a team. The article is aimed at exploring the evidence of human resource management tensions as a result of perceived or actual professional practices in a team of employees. In the review of other works on HR tension roles, the authors identify different conclusions from authors who have researched on the topic previously. The authors make a conclusion from the reviewed articles that HR professionals must be clear first about their roles and responsibilities before delegating these roles to other members of a team. In a similar way, the article highlights on the conflicting interpretation of the role of HR professionals in literature and uses the contradictions as the basis for making assumptions about the possible results of the research (Sheehan 2013, p. 117).
In terms of methodology for selecting the participants, the researchers used random sampling as a qualitative approach of selecting the sample for participation. The interview questions are designed in line with the research questions that the researchers want to achieve as well as the theories identified in the literature. The findings of the research are discussed within the research questions to determine whether the hypotheses generated by the questions are true or false.
They are organized around the themes discussed in the literature on the role of HR professionals in creating tensions in the workplace. Discussions are developed within the framework of the themes in literature and the methodologies used to select the participants and evaluate the results of the study. The results of the study are summarized in the conclusions where answers to the research questions are provided. The authors of the study do not apply statistical analysis to the findings. Instead, they focus on the theoretical analysis of the results in line with the evidence from the interviews (Creswell 2013, p. 21).
Conclusions on the Articles
The two articles seek to evaluate workplace practices. The first article uses the quantitative approach utilizing structured methodology and procedures in selecting the participants of the study. Scientific methods such as analysis of variance are used to make the analysis of the results. In most cases, the article utilizes tables and percentages and other mathematical analysis to present the findings of the research. On the other hand, the second article is entrenched in theoretical analysis drawn from literature review to answer the research questions. The article also uses unstructured questions which are used to collect data from the participants. However, it does not clearly define the characteristics of the participants other than being professional human resource managers. The aspects of gender, sex, position among others are not emphasized like in the quantitative approach.