An A–Z of Applied Linguistics Research Methods
Abstract
It is often difficult to reconcile, for example, the distinct epistemological stances of quantitative and qualitative approaches (see findings of Hashemi & Babaii's, 2013, systematic review of mixed methods research in applied linguistics).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the first annotation phase, no formal interrater reliability metrics were computed; instead, agreement was reached through negotiation.
“At this stage, no formal interrater reliability metrics were computed; instead, agreement was reached through negotiation ( consensus through negotiation , see Loewen and Plonski, 2016: 90).”
From ChatGPT for President! Presupposed content in politicians versus GPT-generated texts (2025) · cites this paper as Loewen and Plonski, 2016
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 328 · Cited by 156
- Authors
- Loewen, S., & Plonsky, L.
- Publisher
- Macmillan Education UK
- Published
- 2016
- OpenAlex
- W2341924338
- Cited by
- 156
- References
- 328
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 18.41
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Keywords
- quantitative methods, qualitative research, mixed methods, epistemology, research methodology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
