In her article, “Quantitative, Qualitative, and Quasitative Inquiries in Human Performance Technology,” Sharon Bender discusses the investigative approaches that HPT professionals use for data collection (2006). She recognizes that each of these techniques are widely used and have been adopted by many professionals, through this article she advocates for using them in together as a system where one approach informs the others rather than using them in isolation. Bender refers to this combination of inquiries and data collection as “Q3” throughout her article and makes the case for the using them as one systemic approach (2006).
Traditionally, quantitative analysis of performance improvement efforts deals with collecting data on efforts that have already happened. Because these efforts are based on past events, this usually means that the initiative is over and this is a post analysis to see whether “it” worked. According to Bender, this type of analysis is often designed before the effort begins and the results are typically numerical leading to generalized conclusions (2006). This approach reminds me of the Understanding by Design format of lesson planning where one begins with the end in mind. Determining what needs to be learned and designing the assessment before any of the activities and interventions occurs helps to create that quantitative data and approach. Bender does insinuate that this approach is efficient but often missed the contextual details that are needed to really be effective in analyzing the data (2006).
By contrast, qualitative analysis deals more with examining observable efforts that are currently in process. These efforts are usually measured through interviews and anecdotes rather than that of the quantitative methods which focus on the numerical (2006). Results of a qualitative inquiry are usually in the form of text and stories that show progress and reflection on the intervention. Bender states that, “this approach is robust but time consuming and less able to be generalized”… than that of the qualitative (2006).
The final inquiry approach that Bender addresses is that of quasitative. I had never heard of a quasitative approach to data collection before so I found it an interesting idea. Quasitative inquiry “has emerged as a means to address a mixed design, encompassing the quantitative and qualitative indices” (2006, p 10). In other words, quasitative inquiry attempts to predict future success based on the data gleaned from the qualitative and quantitative stages. In Bender’s words, “Collectivity is a tenant of quasitative inquiry, whereas objectivity is a tenet of quantitative inquiry, and subjectivity is a tenet of qualitative inquiry” (2006, p. 12). By combining all three of these approaches, objective, collective and subjective paradigms are all used in the evaluative process.
I think the benefits of combining these data collection approaches into one can certainly assist those involved in performance improvement initiatives. When data is collected in these ways, professionals have more opportunity to create analysis and interventions around the actual gap in performance than they would if they were reacting to or designing around one specific set of data. The more data one has, the more opportunity to “get it right” through the actions that arise from that data.
The Q3 approach has the ability to take into account the past, present and potential pieces of the instructional design process and could very well create more effective learning and performance opportunities. Each of these three approaches could happen on their own, but together they seem to take a broader look at the entire picture and can be worked into the systemic approach to performance improvement.
References
Bender, S., (2006). Quantitative, qualitative, and quasitative inquiries in human performance technology. Performance Improvement. 45(9), 640-664.
