The paper "Quantitative Design Analysis: Disaster Preparedness in Turkey" is a perfect example of a research paper on environmental studies. Inelmen, Iseri Say and Kabasakal (2004) have carried out mix methods research on the issue of disaster preparedness in the context of Turkey in general and Istanbul in particular. The research has relied on quantitative methods in large part after pursuing qualitative methods first. The quantitative methods used for research cannot be labelled as a case study by any given means since individual cases were not studied in order to extract quantitative data.
Instead, quantitative data regarding the research was gathered using distributed surveys that relied on non-probability sampling based on the judgement of the researchers. On another note, the current research’ s quantitative methods cannot be labelled as ethnography since the research is looking at one particular ethnic group for research. If the research had relied on more than one ethnic group, it would have been possible to label the research as an ethnographic study[Lee101]. However, the current research has limited its scope to the study of disaster preparedness for ethnic Turkish populations alone.
The current research can be seen better as a phenomenological study since it tends to incorporate the various perspectives on disaster preparedness by different members of the same community. The basic contention behind the current research is to discover the shortcomings of disaster preparedness organisations including government machinery as well as local volunteer groups. This has been made possible in the current research by surveying different levels of the same community to assess disaster preparedness by relying on the perceptions of the involved members of the community.
Given the interplay between members of the community and their perspectives as to disaster preparedness, the quantitative section of the research can be labelled as a phenomenological study [Cre09]. The current research’ s quantitative sections cannot be designated as a grounded theory study since a small sample size has been used and no generalisations could be developed from the gathered data. A grounded theory study requires that the collected data provides a large enough plane to provide for a theory that applies without distinction to different social groups. However, the scope of the current research has been limited by the use of a certain ethnic population combined with the study of a particular phenomenon that precludes the formation of grounded theory[Wil07].
The lack of basic precepts for a grounded theory in the current research proves that the current research cannot be classed as a grounded theory study. The current research cannot be classed as content analysis either since it does not involve the examination of content such as laws, written materials etc. as the primary methods of research. If the current research had relied primarily on the investigation of disaster preparedness using little more than already available materials, it could have been classed as a content analysis but this is not the case since quantitative data collection is the primary research method[Lee101].
The current methods used for quantitative research have been effective in addressing the aims and objectives of the research. It is suitable to say that there are no modifications required in the current research framework.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd Edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Inelmen, K., Iseri Say, A., & Kabasakal, H. (2004). Participation lethargy in disaster preparedness organizations within the framework of a Turkish CBO. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 24(10/11) , 130-158.
Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Practical Research: Planning and Design, Ninth Edition. New York: Merrill.
Williams, C. (2007). Research Methods. Journal of Business and Economics Research 5(3) , 65-72.