I have a question about terminology - I referred to data collected via interviews as empirical/qualitative data and a colleague disputed this use and said this type of data was better described as primary. Is there an actual difference or is it just same difference?
The other issue is, I have heard qualitative is more useful than quantitative in legal studies - and I understand statistics is in the latter. Is this true - or would it depend on what it is being used for?
Or is my current knowledge totally incorrect?
Yeah.. I think there is a confusion here:
Empirical refers to the use of concrete data (not just theoretical). It may be quantitative or qualitative in nature.
Primary/Secondary data refers to the way that data is collected or how the researcher obtained it, that is, if you are using a database from the US Bureau of Statistics..you are using secondary data, because as a researcher you did not generate/produce/collect (this is a disputed term) it yourself, but you are using another source. It goes to considerations such reliability of data, the methodology previously used by whoever collected the data, etc.
Therefore, interviews are definately empirical, qualitative data and may or may not be primary (usually they are).
Usefulness of quantitativeXqualitative data in social sciences is a debate started in the 19th century that is still alive, up to date and tiresome to me personally LOL. In my opinion, you got the right view on it: it depends on what you are doing.
You don't need interviews to find out the percentage of black, male, young americans who are incarcerated or to verify what kind of bias the criminal Justice System has overall. But if you are tryin' to analyze qualitative trends on that matter, perception of Judges, for example, they won't be accessible by numbers. Gzz I just wrote too much..LOL
<blockquote>I have a question about terminology - I referred to data collected via interviews as empirical/qualitative data and a colleague disputed this use and said this type of data was better described as primary. Is there an actual difference or is it just same difference?
The other issue is, I have heard qualitative is more useful than quantitative in legal studies - and I understand statistics is in the latter. Is this true - or would it depend on what it is being used for?
Or is my current knowledge totally incorrect?</blockquote>
Yeah.. I think there is a confusion here:
Empirical refers to the use of concrete data (not just theoretical). It may be quantitative or qualitative in nature.
Primary/Secondary data refers to the way that data is collected or how the researcher obtained it, that is, if you are using a database from the US Bureau of Statistics..you are using secondary data, because as a researcher you did not generate/produce/collect (this is a disputed term) it yourself, but you are using another source. It goes to considerations such reliability of data, the methodology previously used by whoever collected the data, etc.
Therefore, interviews are definately empirical, qualitative data and may or may not be primary (usually they are).
Usefulness of quantitativeXqualitative data in social sciences is a debate started in the 19th century that is still alive, up to date and tiresome to me personally LOL. In my opinion, you got the right view on it: it depends on what you are doing.
You don't need interviews to find out the percentage of black, male, young americans who are incarcerated or to verify what kind of bias the criminal Justice System has overall. But if you are tryin' to analyze qualitative trends on that matter, perception of Judges, for example, they won't be accessible by numbers. Gzz I just wrote too much..LOL