Chemistry - Quantitative or Qualitative Science???

Question

Anyone?

Thanks in advance.

Answer 1

Both, most definitely. The Quantitative results lead to qualitative conclusions.

Answer 2

Quantitative uses numbers or is based on the amount or number of something in describing while qualitative relates to the character of something often opposed to its size or quantity....

Chemistry is both quantitative and qualitative... Quantitative because it has the concept of stoichiometry which is based on the proportions of elements. Therefore, we use numbers or the quantitative concept here... It is qualitative because it studies about matter that concerns more on the properties

Answer 3

Take both, take qualitative first. It is true that there are many machines now days that can do the qualitative, but there are machines that can do the quantitative too. There is more math needed for the quant. Qual gives you a better picture of how chemistry works.

Answer 4

the two one in each and every of them mandatory in Chemistry. each and every thing that would desire to be touched, felt, and look might desire to be measurable (Quantitative). And all issues in Chemistry that were invented, researched, and evaluated might desire to be smart for making qualified existence (Qualitative).

Answer 5

In terms of analytical chemistry, qualitative analysis is working out WHICH materials (elements, oxides, compounds) are in a substance; wheras quanititative analysis determines the RATIOS of the materials. Generally, qualitative comes first, because you have to find out WHAT is there before being able to work out what PROPORTION.

Answer 6

Quantitative because the data can be measured and graphed

Answer 7

for me chemist take qualitative and qualitaive cos when you take a experiment you must find the qualitative result first afther that you can statiticak the result, this way we use for analysis unkwon sample in this world. but in this century we use machine can analysis sample quickly depend this method

Answer 8

General definitions of "qualitative" and "quantitative" are linked closely to method. The applicable Oxford English Dictionary definitions of "quantitative" are:


- That is, or may be, considered with respect to the quantity or quantities involved; estimated or estimable by quantity.
- a Relating to, concerned with, quantity or its measurement; ascertaining or expressing quantity. (OX2)
These definitions indicate possibilities of data gathering, whether measuring or estimating. The definition of "qualitative" cites "quantitative" as its implied opposite, therefore, also implying its links to data gathering:

a Relating to, connected or concerned with, quality or qualities. Now usually in implied or expressed opposition to QUANTITATIVE. (OX2)
The LIS literature on qualitative research methodologically follows this approach of defining qualitative in opposition to quantitative. Jack Glazier's discussion epitomizes the dichotomous and vague nature of definitions of qualitative research in LIS by suggesting that it be defined by what it is not, quantitative. "It is not ... It is not ... It is not ..." (1992, 6) He lists as qualitative methods ethnographic and naturalistic and, most curiously, unobtrusive measures.

The one characteristic that all these terms share is that they tend to obscure rather than clarify the concept. The concept seems to be confusing not only because of the number of terms applied, but also because it carries different connotations for different people. (Glazier 1992, 6)
Jana Bradley includes a similar range of methodologies adding "grounded theory" and "hermeneutic approaches to the interpretation of texts." (1993, 433) Elfreda Chatman also defines qualitative research by what it is not. "... unlike other methods, field work does not use tightly controlled variables or the creation of structured situations." (1984, 436) These definitions echo the OED definitions by defining "qualitative" vaguely except in its opposition to "quantitative."
Raya Fidel (1993) lists characteristics of qualitative research, only one of which, its nonmanipulative or noncontrolling nature is in the negative. Positive definitions of qualitative research collectively include its being holistic, environmental, or contextual; inductive or dialectical; pluralistic or relative; and its involvement of the object of the research. (Bradley 1993; Fidel 1993; Sutton 1993; Mellon 1990; Grover and Glazier 1985) These defining characteristics differ from the negative definitions in that they are more ontological or epistemological than methodological.

Ontological and epistemological considerations

Some LIS writers suggest that the distinction is really one of epistemology. Lynn Westbrook suggests that it is a different research "paradigm" rather than a method. Barbara Wildemuth further suggests that the difference is between positivist and interpretive paradigms is that the former recognizes an objective reality not dependent on the researcher and the latter views reality as subjective and socially constructed. However, Wildemuth still links epistemic assumption to method although she sees method determined by the epistemology, not vice versa:


It is true that the positivist approach, with its goal of discerning the statistical regularities of behavior, is oriented toward counting the occurrences and measuring the extent of the behaviors being studied. By contrast, the interpretive approach, with its goal of understanding the social world from the viewpoint of the actors within it, is oriented toward detailed description of the actors' cognitive and symbolic actions, that is, the meanings associated with observable behaviors. (1993, 451)
Bradley agrees that the methodology and epistemology are wedded to each other. She presents:

... the internal rationale of qualitative research traditions as methodological issues and practices that arise from assumptions about reality and what we can know about it. (1993, 432)
That is, methodology develops from the researcher's ontological and epistemological stance.
Gareth Morgan and Linda Smircich (1980) suggest that this ontological and epistemological difference is crucial. They devised a spectrum from subjectivist to objectivist which embodies ontological stances of reality as a project of human imagination/socially constructed to reality as a concrete process or structure; and the epistemic stances of knowledge for the purpose of revelation and for understanding of social construction to knowledge for construction of a positivist science. The manifestation of these two sets of assumptions is the relation between the knowing subject and the studied object.

Answer 9

both, but you rely on quantitative more often in a classroom.

Answer 10

both...

you need to calculate to get the chemicals....!