Quantitative and/or Qualitative Methods in the Scientific Study of Religion

Abstract

Qualitative research methods are essential to provide richness, but they are vulnerable to distortion of data by theory. The quantitative approach is necessary for the precision of hypothesis testing, but, by itself, this method is too critical to be creative. Religious studies should use both methods in alternate phases, with the qualitative approach creating new hypotheses and the quantitative approach critically testing them.

How to Study Religion? Notes on Research Methodology in the Context of Latin American Religions

“…A pertinent question here is: why quantitative data are appropriate and important to the study of religion? Because it provides the quantification of trends and patterns of religious life and collective behavior (Stausberg and Engler 2011 ), moreover, according to Brink ( 1995 ), in general, quantitative data have the advantage of giving relatively precise hypothesis testing and are also less susceptible to the possibility of various interpretations.…”

“…In this specific case, there are three principal theoretical-methodological procedures (Brink 1995 ; Thorton 2022 : (a) phenomenological (the Weberian substantive theory), it concerns of essence, the meaning and nature of religion, and the experiential aspect of the religious phenomenon; (b) the study of religious groups and communities (the Durkheimian functionalism theory); and (c) lived religion/a religion vécue , with a holistic perspective, i.e., the study of all aspects of the beliefs, practices, and daily spiritual experiences of the followers of a particular religion movement.…”

A qualitative investigation of religion and spirituality: Implications for social scientists and psychotherapists

“…With the advem of postmodernism and postpositivism, some of the walls inhibiting and stifling collaboration have begun to come down and some philosophers, Denzin & Lincohi, 1994;Lincoln & Guba, 1985;McMillian & Schumacher, 1989;Strauss & Corbin, 1990, Vidich & Lyman, 1994Wolcott, 1994). Second, qualitative research is emergent and discovery oriented, and has been deemed well suited to study complex human phenomena that are typically not well understood by social scientists (Brink, 1995;Cox-Dzurec & Abraham, 1993;Denzin & Lincohi, 1994;Joanning, Newfield & Quinn, 1987;McMiUian & Schumacher, 1989;Moon, Dillon & Sprenkle, 1990;Newfield, Kuehl, Joanning & Quinn, 1990;Piercy, Moon & Bischof, 1994;Sells, Smith, Coe, Yoshioka & Robbins, 1994;Sells, Smith & Clevenger, 1994;Sells, Smith & Sprenkle, 1995;Strauss & Corbin, 1990;Vidich & Lyman, 1994;Wolcott, 1994).…”

“…Sbah, consumers of qualitative research vicariously participate in respondents' lived experiences (Brink, 1995;Denzin & Lincobi, 1994;Lincoln & Guba, 1985;McMillian & Schumacher, 1989;Vidich & Lyman, 1994;Wolcott, 1994). Seventh, qualitative research tends to be heuristic in character.…”

“…Seventh, qualitative research tends to be heuristic in character. This means that qualitative research fiinctions to reduce the range of possible solutions to a problem or the number of possible answers to a question (Brink, 1995;Denzin & Lincoln, 1994;Lincobi & Guba, 1985;McMillian & Schumacher, 1989;Vidich & Lyman, 1994;Wolcott, 1994).…”