Inscrivez-vous ou connectez-vous pour rejoindre votre communauté professionnelle.
'Which is the best football team in the world?'
Quantitatively, one can look up the team with most number of wins, and trophies, in the past100 years, and conclude that XYZ is the best football team.
Qualitatively, you can take the opinion of a100 people on this topic. All participants apply different variables and parameters to define 'best'. Then they offer you their opinion on the subject. Some might determine the 'best' as the one which plays most attractive football. For others, it might be the skills of players in the team, that make a particular team the best. For some others, it might more important to gauge the current ability of a team, instead of looking at the past performances.
This type of research makes you look at a question in detail from different perspectives. Such phenomenon lead to the creation of new theories and knowledge. This is a major advantage.
Yet, at the end of the day, it is still just the opinion of only100 people. Even if you interview10,000, the sample size will still not be objective enough to generalize the answer (as the football loving community is very huge and diverse). Your answer remains subjective, an opinion of a small number of people, and usually nothing more than that. This is the disadvantage.
