The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 19 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Revisiting the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate: Implications for Mixed-Methods Research
Open accessAbstract
Health care research includes many studies that combine quantitative and qualitative methods. In this paper, we revisit the quantitative-qualitative debate and review the arguments for and against using mixed-methods. In addition, we discuss the implications stemming from our view, that the paradigms upon which the methods are based have a different view of reality and therefore a different view of the phenomenon under study. Because the two paradigms do not study the same phenomena, quantitative and qualitative methods cannot be combined for cross-validation or triangulation purposes. However, they can be combined for complementary purposes. Future standards for mixed-methods research should clearly reflect this recommendation.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This conceptual paper revisits the quantitative–qualitative debate and argues that the two paradigms rest on incompatible ontological and epistemological assumptions, so they do not study the same phenomena. The authors conclude that mixed-methods research cannot legitimately combine the two for cross-validation or triangulation, but can combine them for complementary purposes if the distinct phenomenon examined by each method is explicitly labelled.
Key findings
- Quantitative research is grounded in positivism (one objective reality independent of perception; investigator and investigated are independent), while qualitative research is grounded in interpretivism and constructivism (multiple socially constructed realities; investigator and investigated are interactively linked). Because of these differences, the paradigms are incommensurate — "the one [paradigm] precludes the other just as surely belief in a round world precludes belief in a flat one" (Guba, 1987: 31).
- Although both paradigms may use identical labels for phenomena, the labels refer to different things: for the quantitative researcher a label refers to an external referent, for the qualitative researcher to a personal interpretation or meaning. The authors illustrate with factory records and surgical waiting lists.
- Combining methods for cross-validation/triangulation is therefore not viable, and complementarity aimed at different aspects of the *same* phenomenon is also inadvisable. The authors cite Greene and Caracelli's (1989) review of mixed-method evaluation studies, in which methodological triangulation was used by only 3 of 57 studies.
- Their proposed solution: combine methods for complementary purposes while explicitly labelling the distinct phenomenon each method examines — e.g., "a qualitative study of the lived experience of burnout to inform a quantitative measure of burnout."
Methods
- Design: a conceptual/theoretical paper that revisits the quantitative–qualitative debate of the 1970s and 1980s and reviews arguments for and against mixed-methods, drawing on prior literature rather than collecting new data.
- Analysis: argumentative/philosophical analysis organized around paradigm assumptions (ontology, epistemology, methodology), the arguments advanced for mixing methods, the nature of the phenomenon of study, and further considerations in mixed-method designs.
- No empirical sample, dataset, or statistical analysis is reported.
Limitations
- The paper states no formal limitations section. It acknowledges that its information "is not new" in the sense of making a new case for or against the debate, and that its contribution is a proposed "new" solution for using mixed-methods.
- Evident from the text: the argument is conceptual and rests on the authors' own paradigmatic position (that the qualitative paradigm assumes no external referents for understanding reality), which they assert against opposing views such as Reichardt and Rallis (1994) and Howe (1988, 1992); no empirical test of the proposed solution is offered.
- The paper notes that the extent of disagreement between qualitative and quantitative results is rarely known because it is often not reported, and that the growing trend of quantifying qualitative research may diminish the value of both methods.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
28 Own interpretation · 11 No full text of the sources · 6 No basis given · 3 Sources not found
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the two paradigms do not study the same phenomena, quantitative and qualitative methods cannot be combined for cross-validation or triangulation purposes.”
- Also stated in: § 4. The Phenomenon of Study · plain
“Having taken the position that the quantitative and qualitative paradigms do not study the same phenomena, it follows that combining the two methods for cross-validation/triangulation purposes is not a viable option.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- Also stated in: § 4. The Phenomenon of Study · plain
In the paper
“The different assumptions of the quantitative and qualitative paradigms originated in the positivism-idealism debate of the late 19th century (Smith, 1983).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Smith, 1983 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, they can be combined for complementary purposes.”
- Also stated in: § 6. Our Solution · plain
“However, the fact that the approaches are incommensurate does not mean that multiple methods cannot be combined in a single study if it is done for complementary purposes.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 6. Our Solution · plain
In the paper
“The most frequently used mixed-method designs start with a qualitative pilot study followed by quantitative research (Morgan, 1998).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Morgan, 1998 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the two paradigms do not study the same phenomena, quantitative and qualitative methods cannot be combined for cross-validation or triangulation purposes.”
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · boosted
“In fact, based on their paradigmatic assumptions, the two methods do not study the same phenomena.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · boosted
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Loss of information is a particular risk when attempts are made to unite results from the two paradigms because it often promotes the selective search for similarities in data.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These practices seriously violate the assumptions of the qualitative paradigm(s).”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We argue that methods are shaped by and represent paradigms that reflect a particular belief about reality.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have argued that the qualitative paradigm does assume that there are no external referents for understanding reality.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“Therefore, we propose that in addressing this fundamental assumption, Reichardt and Rallis dismiss their own claim of compatibility between methodological camps.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Reichardt and Rallis, 1994 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 15
- Probably not a substantial claim. 24
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In contrast, the qualitative paradigm is based on interpretivism (Altheide and Johnson, 1994; Kuzel and Like, 1991; Secker et al., 1995) and constructivism (Guba and Lincoln, 1994).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Altheide and Johnson, 1994
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kuzel and Like, 1991
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Secker et al., 1995 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The key issues in the quantitative-qualitative debate are ontological and epistemological.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conducting a frequency count on responses to open-ended questions is not qualitative research.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For research to be valid or reliable in the narrow (quantitative) sense requires that what is studied be independent of the inquirer and be described without distortion by her interests, values, or purposes (Smith and Heshusius, 1986).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Smith and Heshusius, 1986 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“On an epistemological level, there is no access to reality independent of our minds, no external referent by which to compare claims of truth (Smith, 1983).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Smith, 1983 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ontological position of the quantitative paradigm is that there is only one truth, an objective reality that exists independent of human perception.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the quantitative researcher, a label refers to an external referent; to a qualitative researcher, a label refers to a personal interpretation or meaning attached to phenomena.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They are based on the minimum distance between the investigator and the investigated, and seek multiple definitions of reality embedded in various respondents’ experiences.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each method studies different phenomena.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The investigator and the object of study are interactively linked so that findings are mutually created within the context of the situation which shapes the inquiry (Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Denzin and Lincoln, 1994).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Guba and Lincoln, 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Denzin and Lincoln, 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Ontologically speaking, there are multiple realities or multiple truths based on one’s construction of reality. Reality is socially constructed (Berger and Luckmann, 1966) and so is constantly changing.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Berger and Luckmann, 1966
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The truth is we rarely know the extent of disagreement between qualitative and quantitative results because that is often not reported.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This implies an additive outcome for mutual research partners.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because quantitative and qualitative methods represent two different paradigms, they are incommensurate.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: One cannot be both a positivist and an interpretivist or constructivist.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The distinction of phenomena in mixed-methods research is crucial and can be clarified by labelling the phenomenon examined by each method.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the overwhelming predominance of the positivist worldview in health care research, this is not surprising.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The positivist paradigm has become the predominant frame of reference in the physical and social sciences.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The quantitative paradigm is based on positivism.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both paradigms may label phenomena identically, but in keeping with their paradigmatic assumptions, these labels refer to different things.”
- Also stated in: § 4. The Phenomenon of Study · boosted
“These two examples demonstrate that although qualitative and quantitative paradigms may use common labels to refer to phenomena, what the labels refer to is not the same.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4. The Phenomenon of Study · boosted
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In response, qualitative researchers have increasingly tried to defend their work using quantitative criteria, such as validity and reliability, as defined in quantitative studies. They also increasingly use computer programs specifically designed for analysing qualitative data, such as NUD.IST or Ethnograph, in quantitative (counting) ways.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is probably safe to say that certain phenomena lend themselves to quantitative as opposed to qualitative inquiry and vice versa in other instances.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we discuss the implications stemming from our view, that the paradigms upon which the methods are based have a different view of reality and therefore a different view of the phenomenon under study.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the differences in phenomena between the two paradigms are philosophical differences, whereas the difference in phenomena within each paradigm are not.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the fact that the approaches are incommensurate does not mean that multiple methods cannot be combined in a single study if it is done for complementary purposes.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Quantitative researchers perceive truth as something which describes an objective reality, separate from the observer and waiting to be discovered.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Health care research includes many studies that combine quantitative and qualitative methods, as seen in numerous articles and books published in the last decade (Caracelli and Greene, 1993; Caracelli and Riggin, 1994; Casebeer and Verhoef, 1997; Datta, 1997; Droitcour, 1997; Greene and Caracelli, 1997; House, 1994; Morgan, 1998; Morse, 1991; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998).”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Qualitative researchers are concerned with the changing nature of reality created through people’s experiences – an evolving reality in which the researcher and researched are mutually interactive and inseparable (Phillips, 1988b).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Phillips, 1988b source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Combining the two approaches in a complementary fashion is also not advisable if the ultimate goal is to study different aspects of the same phenomenon because, as we argue, mixed-methods research cannot claim to enrich the same phenomenon under study.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This solution lends itself to new standards for mixed-paradigm research.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This promotes the mis-perception that qualitative research is only exploratory, cannot stand on its own, and must be validated by quantitative work because the latter is “scientific” and studies truth.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Epistemologically, the investigator and investigated are independent entities. Therefore, the investigator is capable of studying a phenomenon without influencing it or being influenced by it; “inquiry takes place as through a one way mirror” (Guba and Lincoln, 1994: 110).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Guba and Lincoln, 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both quantitative and qualitative researchers often appear to study the same phenomena. However, these researchers’ definition of what the phenomena are and how they can best be described or known differ.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not only does cross-validation and complementarity in the above context violate paradigmatic assumptions, but it also misrepresents data.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Mixed-methods research is now being adopted uncritically by a new generation of researchers who have overlooked the underlying assumptions behind the qualitative-quantitative debate.
“We believe that mixed-methods research is now being adopted uncritically by a new generation of researchers who have overlooked the underlying assumptions behind the qualitative-quantitative debate.”
The paper relies on this without support.
One cannot be both a positivist and an interpretivist or constructivist.
“We believe, however, that one cannot be both a positivist and an interpretivist or constructivist.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The inherent differences between the quantitative and qualitative paradigms rarely are discussed or acknowledged by those using mixed-method designs.
“The inherent differences rarely are discussed or acknowledged by those using mixed-method designs.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The positivist paradigm has become the predominant frame of reference in the physical and social sciences.
“The reasons why may be because the positivist paradigm has become the predominant frame of reference in the physical and social sciences.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Research methods are presented as not belonging to or reflecting paradigms.
“In addition, research methods are presented as not belonging to or reflecting paradigms.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Pressure is being exerted from the quantitative camp for qualitative research to “measure up” to its standards without understanding the basic premises of qualitative investigations.
“Pressure is being exerted from the quantitative camp for qualitative research to “measure Up” to its standards without understanding the basic premises of qualitative investigations.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In syndemics research, key aspects, such a context, likely attract contrasting conceptualizations and operationalizations across disciplines [ 4 , 12 ].”
From Syndemic contexts: findings from a review of research on non-communicable diseases and interviews with experts (2021) · cites this paper as [12]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 2. The Two Paradigms
“Secker et al., 1995”
§ References
“Seeker J, Wimbush E, Watson J, Milburn K. Qualitative methods in health promotion research: Some criteria for quality. Health Education Journal. 1995;54:74–87.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 1. Introduction
“Smith and Heshius, 1986”
§ References
“Smith JK, Heshusius L. Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquiries. Educational Researcher. 1986;15:4–12.”
Citations
Cites
Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
Ellis, C., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2074814 · Cited by 29,296
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
(1998) · Cited by 18,576
The social construction of reality : a treatise in the sociology of knowledge
Simpson, G., Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2091739 · Cited by 16,462
(1994) · Cited by 13,126
(2014) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781446294406.n148 · Cited by 7,272
Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994) · Princeton University Press · doi:10.1515/9781400821211 · Cited by 7,225
Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/01623737011003255 · Cited by 5,687
Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
Cotten, S. R., Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. B. (1999) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2655606 · Cited by 5,175
The social construction of reality a treatise in the sociology of knowledge
Berger, P. L. 1.-2., & Luckmann, T. (1967) · Cited by 2,956
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Reid, A. J. (1996). What we want: Qualitative research. Canadian Family Physician 42: 387-389.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Methodological fit in management field research
Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2007.26586086 · Cited by 3,493
“Element Stewart and Barrick (2000) Wageman (2001) Chen and Klimoski (2003)”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialParadigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained
Morgan, D. L. (2007) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/2345678906292462 · Cited by 3,254
How to Conduct a Mixed Methods Study: Recent Trends in a Rapidly Growing Literature
Small, M. L. (2011) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102657 · Cited by 829
“Some supporters of complementary approaches have argued that confirmation is a poor motivation of mixed data–collection research, because different types of data produce inherently different types of knowledge and, thus, cannot be used to verify one another (Sale et al. 2002).”
BackgroundTriangulation and integration: processes, claims and implications
Moran‐Ellis, J., Alexander, V. D., Cronin, A., Dickinson, M., Fielding, J., Sleney, J., & Thomas, H. (2006) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794106058870 · Cited by 777
“Sale et al. (2002), for example, take this line.”
Östlund, U., Kidd, L., Wengström, Y., & Rowa‐Dewar, N. (2010) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.10.005 · Cited by 780
“In particular, the different epistemological and ontological assumptions and paradigms associated with qualitative and quantitative research have had a major influence on discussions on whether the integration of the two is feasible, let alone desirable (Morgan, 2007; Sale et al., 2002).”
BackgroundAn overview of mixed methods research
Doyle, L., Brady, A., & Byrne, G. (2009) · Journal of research in nursing · doi:10.1177/1744987108093962 · Cited by 641
Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: A pooled study analysis
Rosas, S. R., & Kane, M. (2011) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.10.003 · Cited by 598
Overview of Contemporary Issues in Mixed Methods Research
Teddlie, C. B., & Tashakkori, A. (2010) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781506335193.n1 · Cited by 396
The “movement” of mixed methods research and the role of educators
Creswell, J. W., & Garrett, A. L. (2008) · South African Journal of Education · doi:10.15700/saje.v28n3a176 · Cited by 402
Wiltshire, G., & Ronkainen, N. J. (2021) · Journal of Critical Realism · doi:10.1080/14767430.2021.1894909 · Cited by 403
Combining Methods in Educational and Social Research
Gorard, S. A. C., & Taylor, C. (2004) · Cited by 368
From Words to Numbers: How to Transform Qualitative Data into Meaningful Quantitative Results
Srnka, K. J., & Koeszegi, S. T. (2007) · Schmalenbach Business Review · doi:10.1007/bf03396741 · Cited by 367
Modell, S. (2005) · Management Accounting Research · doi:10.1016/j.mar.2005.03.001 · Cited by 343
Editorial: Differing Perspectives on Mixed Methods Research
Creswell, J. W., & Tashakkori, A. (2007) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689807306132 · Cited by 442
Complementary Use of Qualitative and Quantitative Cultural Assessment Methods
Yauch, C. A., & Steudel, H. J. (2003) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428103257362 · Cited by 280
“A similar dis tinction between triangulation and complementarity is made by Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil (2002) .”
BackgroundInfluentialToward a Conceptualization of Mixed Methods Phenomenological Research
Mayoh, J., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2013) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689813505358 · Cited by 280
Using mixed methods research in medical education: basic guidelines for researchers
Schifferdecker, K. E., & Reed, V. A. (2009) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03386.x · Cited by 273
Conceptual models to guide integration during analysis in convergent mixed methods studies
Moseholm, E., & Fetters, M. D. (2017) · Methodological Innovations · doi:10.1177/2059799117703118 · Cited by 273
“Some could argue that MMR is unattainable because it is not possible to mix methods that are based on incompatible views of the social world (Plano Clark and Ivankova, 2016; Sale et al., 2002).”
BackgroundAn overview of mixed methods research – revisited
Doyle, L., Brady, A., & Byrne, G. (2016) · Journal of research in nursing · doi:10.1177/1744987116674257 · Cited by 259
“It is beyond the scope of this paper to provide an in-depth discussion of the paradigm wars; readers are directed elsewhere (Howe, 1988; Morgan, 2007; Sale et al., 2002; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2003).”
BackgroundMixed Methods Approaches in Family Science Research
Clark, V. L. P., Huddleston-Casas, C. A., Churchill, S. L., Green, D. O., & Garrett, A. L. (2008) · Journal of Family Issues · doi:10.1177/0192513x08318251 · Cited by 252
Guo, P., East, L. A., & Arthur, A. J. (2011) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.08.008 · Cited by 245
An iconic approach for representing climate change
O’Neill, S. J., & Hulme, M. (2009) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.07.004 · Cited by 237
The distinction between qualitative and quantitative research methods is problematic
Allwood, C. M. (2011) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-011-9455-8 · Cited by 279
“…The qualitative approach is radically interpretivist and constructivist (i.e., it assumes that there is no reality independent of the investigation (Sale et al. 2002, p. 45)) a clearly empirically oriented method is Grounded theory (Glazer and Strauss 1967) and another example is some versions of…”
MethodQualitative Research Method - Phenomenology
Khan, S. N. (2014) · Asian Social Science · doi:10.5539/ass.v10n21p298 · Cited by 326
Raine, R., Fitzpatrick, R. M., Barratt, H., Bevan, G., Black, N. A., Boaden, R., Bower, P., Campbell, M., Denis, J., Devers, K. J., et al. (2016) · Health Services and Delivery Research · doi:10.3310/hsdr04160 · Cited by 197
Mixed methods research: toward new research designs in applied linguistics
Hashemi, M. R., & Babaii, E. (2013) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12049.x · Cited by 183
Gronholm, P. C., Thornicroft, G., Laurens, K. R., & Evans-Lacko, S. (2017) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291717000344 · Cited by 181
“…these separate lines of inquiry, as they are underpinned by distinct epistemological paradigms [generally speaking, a positivist or post-positivist framework for quantitative research, and an interpretivist or constructivist tradition for qualitative research (Sale et al. 2002; Creswell, 2014)].”
BackgroundThe impact on mothers of bringing up a child with intellectual disabilities: A cross-cultural study
McConkey, R., Truesdale‐Kennedy, M., Chang, M., Jarrah, S., & Shukri, R. K. (2006) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.08.007 · Cited by 176
Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies Compared: Ontological and Epistemological Perspectives
Slevitch, L. (2011) · Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism · doi:10.1080/1528008x.2011.541810 · Cited by 176
“Validity, therefore, refers to the degree a description is credible or to the level of agreement with one’s interpretation (Sale et al., 2002).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialYu, C. H. (2008) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428108318066 · Cited by 172
Murgado‐Armenteros, E. M., Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M., Ruíz, F. J. T., & Cobo, M. J. (2014) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1443-z · Cited by 176
“Consequently, mixed method approaches make it possible to employ both, simultaneously or sequentially, and may be considered an appropriate alternative (Lincoln and Guba 2000; Sale et al. 2002; Bryman 2006; Mertens 2005; Creswell 2007; Lawal 2009).”
MethodGhobakhloo, M., Fathi, M., Iranmanesh, M., Vilkas, M., Grybauskas, A., & Amran, A. (2024) · Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management · doi:10.1108/jmtm-12-2023-0530 · Cited by 183
Social Network Analysis: An Example of Fusion Between Quantitative and Qualitative Methods
Nooraie, R. Y., Sale, J. E. M., Marin, A., & Ross, L. E. (2018) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689818804060 · Cited by 198
Self-citationA Strategy to Identify Critical Appraisal Criteria for Primary Mixed-Method Studies
Sale, J. E. M., & Brazil, K. (2004) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1023/b:ququ.0000043126.25329.85 · Cited by 141
“(Transferability/ Fittingness vs. External Validity/ Generalizability) Statement of purpose (Burns, 1989; Cobb and Hagemaster, 1987; Elliott et al., 1999) Statement of research question(s) (Marshall, 1990; Forchuk and Roberts, 1993; Morse, 1991; Cobb and Hagemaster, 1987; Morse, 1991, Inui and Frankel, 1991; Reid, 199…”
BackgroundSelf-citationDIFFERING PERSPECTIVES ON MIXED METHODS RESEARCH
Creswell, J. W., & Tashakkori, A. (2007) · Cited by 142
Pragmatism: A methodological approach to researching strategic alliances in tourism
Pansiri, J. (2005) · Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development · doi:10.1080/14790530500399333 · Cited by 174
“These include information systems (Petter and Gallivan, 2004), education (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004), management (Jick, 1979), nursing and health care (Morse, 1991; Sale et al., 2002) and geography (Winchester, 1999).”
BackgroundGuo, P. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/jocn.12618 · Cited by 136
Philosophy and Paradigm of Scientific Research
Žukauskas, P., Vveinhardt, J., & Andriukaitienė, R. (2018) · InTech eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.70628 · Cited by 135
Grosemans, I., Boon, A., Verclairen, C., Dochy, F. J. R. C., & Kyndt, E. (2015) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.12.011 · Cited by 134
The centrality of communication norm alignment, role clarity, and trust in global project teams
Henderson, L. S., Stackman, R. W., & Lindekilde, R. (2016) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.09.012 · Cited by 157
“A mixed methods model is ideal when one is seeking complementarity between quantitative and qualitative data to more fully explain the results (Sale et al., 2002; Yauch and Steudel, 2003; Vergne, 2012).”
MethodResearch Handbook of Expatriates
Hutchings, K., & Michailova, S. (2017) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781784718183 · Cited by 131
Durham, K., Van Vliet, P. M., Badger, F., & Sackley, C. (2009) · Physiotherapy Research International · doi:10.1002/pri.431 · Cited by 125
International financing for climate change adaptation in small island developing states
Robinson, S., & Dornan, M. (2016) · Regional Environmental Change · doi:10.1007/s10113-016-1085-1 · Cited by 121
“The benefits of a mixed methods approach, discussed by Heyvaert et al. (2013) and Sale et al. (2002), are well suited to the study of emerging policy issues such as climate finance.”
BackgroundKarel, H., Marinelli, E., Scapolo, F., et al. (2012) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.10.002 · Cited by 122
Coding, sorting and sifting of qualitative data analysis: debates and discussion
Chowdhury, M. F. (2014) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-014-0039-2 · Cited by 234
Sustainable food production: Insights of Malaysian halal small and medium sized enterprises
Ali, M. H., & Suleiman, N. (2016) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.06.003 · Cited by 124
Sánchez-Algarra, P., & Anguera, M. T. (2012) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-012-9764-6 · Cited by 118
“For example, for quantitative researchers the expression “observational work” refers to case control, while for their qualitative counterparts it concerns ethnographic immersion in a culture (Sale et al. 2002).”
BackgroundAnalyzing the use of UTAUT model in explaining an online behaviour: Internet banking adoption
AlQeisi, K. (2009) · Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) (Brunel University London) · Cited by 118
The contribution of computer software to integrating qualitative and quantitative data and analyses.
Bazeley, P. (2006) · Research in the schools · Cited by 116
Maarouf, H. (2019) · International Business Research · doi:10.5539/ibr.v12n9p1 · Cited by 114
“2 differing assumptions of the quantitative and qualitative paradigms (e.g., Hall, 2013; Biddle & Schafft, 2015; Sale et al., 2002).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHammersley, M. (2008) · Open Research Online - ORO (The Open University) · Cited by 163
Bazzi, A. R., Garfein, R. S., Wagner, K. D., Mehta, S. R., Magis-Rodríguez, C. L., Cuevas-Mota, J., González‐Zúñiga, P., Strathdee, S. A., & STAHR, P. E. C. I. A., II (2014) · Harm Reduction Journal · doi:10.1186/1477-7517-11-4 · Cited by 111
“The iterative process of using qualitative and quantitative data to inform the methods and interpretations of results from each study component [92,93] contributed toward a more comprehensive understanding of the binational effects of Mexico’s drug policy reforms on the health and wellbeing of PWID.”
BackgroundMethodFeminist Approaches to Triangulation
Hesse‐Biber, S. (2012) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689812437184 · Cited by 137
Strengthening the palm oil biomass Renewable Energy industry in Malaysia
Umar, M. S., Jennings, P., & Urmee, T. (2013) · Renewable Energy · doi:10.1016/j.renene.2013.04.010 · Cited by 104
“The integration of multiple methods helps to eliminate any data bias from early techniques [8,9].”
Quantitative conversations: the importance of developing rapport in standardised interviewing
Bell, K., Fahmy, E., & Gordon, D. (2014) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-014-0144-2 · Cited by 142
“Despite continuing attempts to see the two as paradigmatically different and based on incommensurate ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions (e.g. Sale et al. 2002), such divisions are increasingly seen as a false dichotomy.”
BackgroundIdentifying interesting project phenomena using philosophical and methodological triangulation
Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2016) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.05.005 · Cited by 101
Advancements in Contemporary Physical Therapy Research: Use of Mixed Methods Designs
Rauscher, L., & Greenfield, B. H. (2008) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.2522/ptj.20070236 · Cited by 99
Alternative quality standards in qualitative research?
Poortman, C. L., & Schildkamp, K. (2012) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-011-9555-5 · Cited by 100
Fonseca, D., Domínguez, E. R., & Villagrasa, S. (2014) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-014-0361-4 · Cited by 98
A Unifying Framework for Causal Analysis in Set-Theoretic Multimethod Research
Rohlfing, I., & Schneider, C. Q. (2018) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124115626170 · Cited by 98
“26 See also Sale et al. (2002).”
Place and the experience of air quality
Day, R. (2006) · Health & Place · doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2006.01.002 · Cited by 98
A holistic view of knowledge management strategy
Jasimuddin, S. M. (2008) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/13673270810859514 · Cited by 99
“In qualitative research, samples are not meant to represent large populations (Miles and Huberman, 2003; Sale et al., 2002; Reid, 1996).”
BackgroundResearch into Quality Management and Social Responsibility
Tarı́, J. J. (2011) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0833-x · Cited by 96
When Does a Researcher Choose a Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Research Approach?
Mulisa, F. (2021) · Interchange · doi:10.1007/s10780-021-09447-z · Cited by 93
“Beginning in the early 1990s, many forward-thinking scholars began to challenge the idea that educational researchers should stick to either a quantitative or a qualitative approach (Bruke Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Morgan, 2007; Sale et al., 2002; Shannon-Baker, 2016).”
BackgroundInfluentialMixed methods research in accounting
Grafton, J., Lillis, A. M., & Mahama, H. (2011) · Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management · doi:10.1108/11766091111124676 · Cited by 91
“For Sale et al. (2002), these two different methodological approaches are incommensurate and should therefore not be mixed in any mixed methods studies.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDumont, H., Klinge, D., & Maaz, K. (2019) · Sociology of Education · doi:10.1177/0038040719838223 · Cited by 98
“However, the goal of qualitative samples is not to be representative of large populations; rather, sampling proceeds on theoretical grounds to obtain small, intentionally selected samples that can provide important information (Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil 2002).”
BackgroundAli, O., Shrestha, A., Chatfield, A. T., & Murray, P. (2019) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2019.101419 · Cited by 103
Trusted Sources of COVID-19 Vaccine Information among Hesitant Adopters in the United States
Purvis, R. S., Hallgren, E., Moore, R. A., Willis, D. E., Hall, S., Gurel-Headley, M. P., & McElfish, P. A. (2021) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines9121418 · Cited by 86
The GP's response to pandemic influenza: a qualitative study
Shaw, K. A.-M. (2006) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/cml014 · Cited by 84
Evaluating The Usability And Accessibility Of LMS “Blackboard” At King Saud University
Alturki, U., Aldraiweesh, A., & Kinshuck (2016) · Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER) · doi:10.19030/cier.v9i1.9548 · Cited by 82
Paradigms in project management research: examples from 15 years of IRNOP conferences
Biedenbach, T., & Müller, R. (2011) · International Journal of Managing Projects in Business · doi:10.1108/17538371111096908 · Cited by 91
“In contrast, some researchers argue that methods are formed and represented by paradigms reflecting certain beliefs about reality ( Sale et al. , 2002”
BackgroundBourdieu’s Reflexive Sociology as a Theoretical Basis for Mixed Methods Research
Fries, C. J. (2009) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689809336660 · Cited by 81
“326 allegiance to one paradigm or the other’’ (Guba, 1985, p. 80).4 More recently, drawing on Guba’s dogmatism, Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil (2002) caution, We believe that mixed-methods research is now being adopted uncritically by a new generation of researchers who have overlooked the underlying…”
BackgroundPaul, S., & Islam, M. R. (2015) · Habitat International · doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.03.018 · Cited by 76
Walsh, K., & O’Shea, E. (2008) · Health & Place · doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.12.006 · Cited by 76
“By employing this approach, a cross-reference structure was engineered for the interpretation of the resulting findings (Jick, 1979; Sale et al., 2002).”
MethodGillespie, A., Glăveanu, V. P., & Laurent, C. D. S. (2024) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009031066 · Cited by 120
Fiebelkorn, A. P., Person, B., Quick, R. E., Vindigni, S. M., Jhung, M. A., Bowen, A. B., & Riley, P. L. (2012) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.02.011 · Cited by 77
Etudier des sujets sensibles : les apports d'une approche mixte
Condomines, B., & Hennequin, É. (2013) · RIMHE Revue Interdisciplinaire Management Homme(s) & Entreprise · doi:10.3917/rimhe.005.0012 · Cited by 75
El Enfoque integrador de la metodología mixta en la investigación educativa
Bagur, S., Ramón, M. R. R., Lourido, B. P., & Gelabert, S. V. (2021) · RELIEVE - Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa · doi:10.30827/relieve.v27i1.21053 · Cited by 128
Ruotsalainen, S., Jantunen, S., & Sinervo, T. S. (2020) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-020-05733-1 · Cited by 117
“We chose this approach for complementary purposes, in other words the two methods complemented each other [42].”
MethodThe other side of sustainable innovation: is there a demand for innovative services?
Anttonen, M., Halme, M., Houtbeckers, E., & Nurkka, J. (2011) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.019 · Cited by 81
Staying the distance: students’ perceptions of enablers of transition to higher education
Bowles, A., Fisher, R., McPhail, R., Rosenstreich, D., & Dobson, A. (2013) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/07294360.2013.832157 · Cited by 76
“Triangulation of data collection and analysis enhances the validity and reliability of the research and increases confidence in the results (Sale & Lohfeld, 2002).”
ResultAn overview of Ghana’s educational system and its implication for educational equity
Takyi, S. A., Amponsah, O., Asibey, M. O., et al. (2019) · International Journal of Leadership in Education · doi:10.1080/13603124.2019.1613565 · Cited by 75
Nielsen, G., Mygind, E., Bølling, M., Otte, C. R., Schneller, M. B., Schipperijn, J., Ejbye-Ernst, N., & Bentsen, P. (2016) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3780-8 · Cited by 90
“Some argue that such a mixing of methods and scientific paradigms creates many challenges and some limitations [78], but it may also enable us answer our research question to a fuller extent [79, 80].”
BackgroundClark, V. L. P., Garrett, A. L., & Leslie‐Pelecky, D. L. (2009) · Field Methods · doi:10.1177/1525822x09357174 · Cited by 74
“…(Caracelli and Greene 1993; Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie 2003; Bryman 2006; Creswell and Plano Clark 2007) and examined the challenges and tensions associated with integrating quantitative and qualitative data (Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil 2002; Bryman 2007; Creswell, Plano Clark, and Garrett 2008).”
BackgroundResultDairy farmers’ decision‐making to implement biosecurity measures: A study of psychosocial factors
Moya, S. J., Tirado, F., Espluga, J., et al. (2019) · Transboundary and Emerging Diseases · doi:10.1111/tbed.13387 · Cited by 72
Risks and benefits of web-based patient narratives: systematic review
Drewniak, D., Glässel, A., Hodel, M., & Biller-Andorno, N. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/15772 · Cited by 70
“The foundations of the qualitative paradigm are interpretivism and constructivism, where multiple socially constructed realities are investigated [48,49].”
BackgroundArnold, B. L. (2011) · BMC Palliative Care · doi:10.1186/1472-684x-10-1 · Cited by 71
Reflections and Review on the Audit Procedure
de Kleijn, R. A. M., & van Leeuwen, A. (2018) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/1609406918763214 · Cited by 94
Personal meanings in the construction of need for total knee replacement surgery
Toyé, F., Barlow, J. H., Wright, C. C., & Lamb, S. E. (2006) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.11.054 · Cited by 70
Analyzing Twitter to explore perceptions of Asian restaurants
Park, S. B., Jang, J., & Ok, C. “. (2016) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology · doi:10.1108/jhtt-08-2016-0042 · Cited by 70
Exploring and explaining SME marketing: investigating e-CRM using a mixed methods approach
Harrigan, P., Ramsey, E., & Ibbotson, P. (2012) · Journal of Strategic Marketing · doi:10.1080/0965254x.2011.606911 · Cited by 66
“Qualitative content analysis provides equilibrium between traditional quantitative analytical techniques and the richness that qualitative data hold (Sale, Lohfeld, & Brazil, 2002).”
BackgroundMethodMarco, M. D., Thorburn, S., & Kue, J. (2009) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732309338868 · Cited by 65
Long, C. R., Purvis, R. S., Flood‐Grady, E., Kimminau, K. S., Rhyne, R. L., Burge, M. R., Stewart, M. K., Jenkins, A. J., James, L. P., & McElfish, P. A. (2019) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-019-0422-5 · Cited by 65
Quantification in psychology: Critical analysis of an unreflective practice.
Tafreshi, D., Slaney, K. L., & Neufeld, S. D. (2016) · Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology · doi:10.1037/teo0000048 · Cited by 71
Barker, K. L., Reid, M., & Lowe, C. (2009) · BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · doi:10.1186/1471-2474-10-123 · Cited by 64
Schulenberg, J. L. (2007) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/13645570701334050 · Cited by 67
“One critique of mixed-method studies is the manner in which different or contradictory conclusions from the quantitative and qualitative components are managed and the incoherence that can result when concluding the findings (Sale et al., 2002).”
BackgroundEntrepreneurial marketing in SMEs: the key capabilities of e‐CRM
Harrigan, P., Ramsey, E., & Ibbotson, P. (2012) · Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship · doi:10.1108/14715201211246760 · Cited by 67
Crossing fields: the case of a multi-disciplinary research team
Massey, C. L., Alpass, F., Flett, R. A., Lewis, K. V., Morriss, S. D., & Sligo, F. (2006) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794106062706 · Cited by 64
“As Bryman makes clear, there are a number of perspectives on the relationship between qualitative and quantitative methods, and one possibility is to focus on their ‘complementarity’ (Greene et al., 1989; Sale et al., 2002).”
BackgroundHaskins, A. R., Amorim, M. F. D. C. L., & Mingo, M. (2018) · Sociology Compass · doi:10.1111/soc4.12562 · Cited by 71
Villagrasa, S., Fonseca, D., & Durán, J. (2014) · Ninth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM'21) · doi:10.1145/2669711.2669896 · Cited by 59
“176 empirical indicators that represent reality, quantitative methods are considered objective [22][23].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Sale, J. E. M., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K.
- Affiliations
- Institute for Work & Health (CA)
- St. Joseph's Hospital (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Sale, Joanna E. M.
- Venue
- Quality and Quantity
- Published
- 2002-02
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 43-53
- ISSN
- 0033-5177 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-7845
- PMC
- PMC4623759
- OpenAlex
- W1584545958
- Cited by
- 1,082
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 59 · 2017: 66 · 2016: 68 · 2015: 80 · 2014: 110 · 2013: 89 · 2012: 54
- FWCI
- 40.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- Locations
- Quality & Quantity (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (40723_1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategies and Management Research
- Keywords
- mixed methods, research paradigms, triangulation, cross-validation, health care research, research standards
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-30, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-30 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
