Last Updated on October 10, 2026 by Karl Thompson
Bryman (2016) identifies four criticisms of quantitative research:
- Quantitative researchers fail to distinguish people and social institutions from the world of nature
- The measurement process possesses an artificial and spurious sense of precision and accuracy
- The reliance on instruments and procedures hinders the connection between research and everyday life
- The analysis of relationships between variables creates a static view of social life that is independent of people’s lives
These criticisms come mainly from interpretivist sociologists, and they are the main reasons interpretivists prefer qualitative methods. Further down this post I also outline what quantitative researchers are actually trying to achieve, because the criticisms make most sense once you know what they are criticising.
This material is part of the research methods module. For the basic distinction between quantitative and qualitative research, see Types of Research Methods in Sociology.
Quantitative researchers fail to distinguish people and social institutions from the world of nature
Schutz (1962) is the main critique here.
Schutz and other phenomenologists accuse quantitative social researchers of treating the social world as if it were no different from the natural world. In so doing, quantitative researchers tend to ignore the fact that people interpret the world around them, whereas this capacity for self-reflection cannot be found among the objects of the natural sciences.
The measurement process possesses an artificial and spurious sense of precision and accuracy
Cicourel (1964) is the main critique here.
He argues that the connection between the measures developed by social scientists and the concepts they are supposed to be revealing is assumed rather than real. Basically, measures and concepts are both effectively “made up” by the researchers, rather than being “out there” in reality.
A further problem is that quantitative researchers assume that everyone who answers a survey interprets the questions in the same way. In reality, this simply may not be the case.
The reliance on instruments and procedures hinders the connection between research and everyday life
This issue relates to the question of ecological validity.
Many methods of quantitative research rely heavily on administering research instruments to participants (such as structured interviews or self-completion questionnaires), or controlling situations to determine effects.
However, these instruments simply do not “tap into” people’s real-life experiences. For example, many of the well-known lab experiments on the A-level sociology syllabus clearly do not reflect real life, while surveys which ask people about their attitudes towards immigration, or the environment, do not necessarily tell us about how people act towards migrants or the environment on a day-to-day basis.
The analysis of relationships between variables creates a static view of social life that is independent of people’s lives
The main critique here is Blumer (1956).
Blumer (1956) argued that studies that seek to bring out the relationships between variables omit “the process of interpretation or definition that goes on in human groups”.
This is a combination of criticisms 1 and 3 above, but adds an additional problem: in isolating out variables, quantitative research creates an artificial, fixed and frozen social (un)reality, whereas social reality is (really) alive and constantly being created through processes of interaction by its various members.
In other words, the criticism here is that quantitative research is seen as carrying an objective ontology that reifies the social world.
The above criticisms have led interpretivists to prefer more qualitative research methods. However, these too have their limitations!
What quantitative researchers are trying to achieve: the four main concerns
Quantitative researchers generally have four main preoccupations: they want their research to be measurable, to focus on causation, to be generalisable, and to be replicable (Bryman 2016).
These preoccupations reflect beliefs about what counts as acceptable knowledge, and can be contrasted with the preoccupations of researchers who prefer a qualitative approach. They also map closely onto the criticisms above: each criticism is an attack on one or more of these aims.
Measurement
It may sound like it’s stating the obvious, but quantitative researchers are primarily interested in collecting numerical data. This means they are essentially concerned with counting social phenomena, which will often require concepts to be operationalised (turned into something that can be measured).
This is the aim Cicourel’s criticism targets: the measures may not really capture the concepts.
Causality
In most quantitative research there is a strong concern with explanation: quantitative researchers are more concerned with explaining why things are as they are, rather than merely describing them, which tends to be more the focus of qualitative research.
It follows that it is crucial for quantitative researchers to effectively isolate variables in order to establish causal relationships.
This is the aim Blumer’s criticism targets: isolating variables freezes a social world that is constantly changing.
Generalisation
Quantitative researchers tend to want their findings to be representative of wider populations, rather than just the sample involved in the study. There is therefore a concern with making sure appropriate sampling techniques are used.
Replication
If a study is repeatable, then it is possible to check that the original researchers’ own personal biases or characteristics have not influenced the findings. In other words, replication is necessary to test the objectivity of an original piece of research, and it is closely linked to reliability.
Quantitative researchers tend to be keen on making sure studies are repeatable, although most studies are never repeated because there is a lack of status attached to doing so.
Ethical issues in quantitative research
Quantitative methods are often seen as raising fewer ethical problems than qualitative ones, because the researcher is more detached from participants and data is usually anonymised. However, the standard ethical issues still apply: participants in surveys and experiments should give informed consent, their responses should be kept confidential and anonymous, and data should be stored securely. Laboratory experiments raise the most serious ethical problems, especially where participants are deceived or put under stress.
Criticisms of quantitative research in the exam
These criticisms are most useful in questions about the relationship between theory and methods. In June 2023, Paper 3 asked students to “Outline and explain two reasons why interpretivists prefer to use qualitative methods of research” (10 marks). Each of the criticisms above can be turned into one of those reasons: interpretivists reject quantitative methods because they believe these methods treat people like objects, impose the researcher’s categories, and miss the meanings people give to their actions.
They are also useful for evaluating positivism in essay questions. See Positivism and Interpretivism in Sociology for the wider debate.
Sources
Bryman, A. (2016) Social Research Methods. 5th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Theory and Methods A Level Sociology Revision Bundle
If you like this sort of thing, then you might like my Theory and Methods Revision Bundle – specifically designed to get students through the theory and methods sections of A-level sociology Papers 3 and 1.
Contents include:
- 74 pages of revision notes
- 15 mind maps on various topics within theory and methods
- Five theory and methods essays
- “How to write methods in context essays”
Signposting and Related Posts
This post has been written primarily for students studying research methods as part of the AQA’s A-level sociology course. Some of the material, especially the four criticisms from Bryman, is more advanced and also useful for undergraduates.
The Steps of Quantitative Research outlines the process quantitative researchers follow, from theory to publishing results.
Scientific Quantitative Methodology in Sociology explains the positivist approach these criticisms are aimed at.
Official Statistics in Sociology applies many of the same criticisms to one specific type of quantitative data.
Return to the Research Methods hub.
Please click here to return to the homepage – ReviseSociology.com