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
Items 901–1,000 of 1,084
Bidart, C., Bozouls, L., Joubert, L., et al. (2025) · Revue Française de Sociologie · doi:10.3917/rfs.651.0091
Molina, E. C., Plá, J., & Derteano, P. M. (2011)
Strong is the new slim: a study of the body and gender amongst female free weights users
Spice, R. C. (2016) · Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling)
Sagar, K. A. (2021) · Queensland University of Technology · doi:10.5204/thesis.eprints.214186
Fagerdahl, A. (2013) · Figshare
Rigorous Integrated Generalized (RIG) Qualitative AssessmentPreprint
Naithani, M. (2010) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics
Researching Inclusive Education in Albania: Using Mixed Methods in School/Educational Psychology
Cara, M. (2013) · Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies · doi:10.5901/ajis.2013.v2n8p39
Majzoub, N. E. (2013) · UKnowledge (University of Kentucky)
The influence of corporate social responsibility on an employee's sense of belonging
Weerasundara, N. (2015) · Open Access Victoria University of Wellington | Te Herenga Waka (Figshare) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.17012726 · Cited by 1
Introducing a rule-based architecture for workflow systems in retail supply chain management
Li, S. (2012) · Borås Academic Digital Archive (University of Borås)
The embedding of precarious employment in Ireland: stories of workers from the South-East
Moran, J. (2016) · Maynooth University ePrints and eTheses Archive (Maynooth University)
Clarke, P. M. (2012) · Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology)
Managing the Chronic : Investigating chronic disease management in the Netherlands
Walters, B. J. H. (2015) · EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam)
Thoukidides, E., Calandra, D., Gay, P., et al. (2026) · Strategic Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.sbr.2026.100152
The effects of a specialist reading intervention on children's literacy and behaviour.
Robinson, S. C. R. (2014) · PubMed · doi:10.26021/4145
Cultural activities in mental health care : ordinary participation to be in and of the Community
Karpusheff, J. (2019) · Research Explorer (The University of Manchester)
Key Outcomes and Ingredients of an Adolescent Day Treatment Program
Colvin, S. A. G. (2020) · doi:10.11575/prism/37796
Roberts, T. A. (2017) · TSpace (University of Toronto)
Influences of situated cognition on tracheal intubation skill acquisition in paramedic education
Villers, L. C. (2009) · OakTrust (Texas A&M University Libraries)
Understanding the Elements of Research
Alhassan, E. (2023) · Noyam Publishers eBooks · doi:10.38159/npub.eb2023103
Leadership and service delivery in Diepsloot
Siphumeze, M. (2015) · University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg Institutional Repository on DSpace (University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg)
van Staveren, D., Arkesteijn, M. H., & den Heijer, A. C. (2024) · Journal of Corporate Real Estate · doi:10.1108/jcre-08-2023-0031
Rowe, N. (2015) · University of Birmingham Institutional Research Archive (University of Birmingham)
Kousar, S. (2019) · Aston Publications Explorer (Aston University) · doi:10.48780/publications.aston.ac.uk.00039120
Hwang, S. (2008) · D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh)
L'importanza dei mixed methods nella ricerca valutativa, le ragioni di un numero monografico
Decataldo, A., Fiore, B., & Novello, M. (2021) · RIV Rassegna Italiana di Valutazione · doi:10.3280/riv2020-076001
User acceptance of systems for archiving and securing degree certificates and related documents.
Myeza, P. J. (2019) · ResearchSpace (University of KwaZulu-Natal)
Założenia umiarkowanie pluralistycznej metodologii
Kawalec, P. (2013) · Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa
Qualitative methods and mixed-methods
Grace, H., Banson, K., & Saraf, A. (2023) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-88423-5.00064-9
Criteria for workplace-effective mobility of employees with disabilities in South Africa
Kasonkola, K. W. (2011) · UpSpace Institutional Repository (University of Pretoria)
Giving Young Mothers a Voice about their own care
Vilneff, S. (2008) · MacSphere (McMaster University) · doi:10.71548/12500
Studying the willingness to participate in acute stroke research trials
McCormack, J. (2016) · University of Birmingham Institutional Research Archive (University of Birmingham)
Stress in managers in the hotel industry in Mauritius
Gobin, K. (2016) · Bradford Scholars (University of Bradford)
JONES, H. (2020) · Cronfa (Swansea University) · doi:10.23889/suthesis.56849
La cherté de la vie du point de vue du consommateur : définition, antécédents et conséquences
Pothin, G. (2017) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/e078ad16z4a15z423azaf4czc08d2fa4df1e
New Exploration of Framework in Psychological Research Methods
卢, 志. (2015) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.12677/ap.2015.53025
Alefjord, P., & Tortorici, A. (2020) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)
Schulz, R., Marquart, L., Beck, E. J., Haslinger, V., & Sluyter, C. (2026) · Food and Humanity · doi:10.1016/j.foohum.2026.101511
Mixed Methods Research in Criminology
Brent, J. J., Kraska, P. B., & Skeen, J. (2023) · doi:10.1093/obo/9780195396607-0330
Russell, J. (2011) · JMU Scholoraly Commons (James Madison University)
Examination of Organisational Culture: Case Study of an Irish SME
Feeney, M. (2016) · TRAP@NCI (National College of Ireland)
Stokes, P. (2013) · Anglia Ruskin Research Online (Anglia Ruskin University)
Huang, K.-P. (2014) · UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney)
Walton, T. (2018) · University of Limerick Institutional Repository (University of Limerick) · doi:10.34961/8040
Challenges facing women living with HIV in Upper Egypt
Abdeldaim, A. H. A. (2015)
Garner, J. M., McClenaghan, S., Holmes, S., Melling, A., Mallen, E., & Tayya, R. (2025) · Journal of Participatory Research Methods · doi:10.35844/001c.128301
Complexity and communities: The application of complexity to community studies
Large, D. W. (2015) · Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University)
Åbyholm, E. (2016) · European Journal of Workplace Innovation · doi:10.46364/ejwi.v2i2.388
Perceptions of Students Taking Media Literacy Course on Content of 6-7 February 2023 Earthquakes
(2024) · Media Literacy and Academic Research · doi:10.34135/mlar-24-02-09
Pasipamire, N. (2021) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-3881-7.ch016
Conscience, institutions, and knowledge
Brown, S. R. (2016)
Adiguna, R., & Sharif, A. (2013) · Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg)
A Framework to Manage Sensitive Information during its Migration between Software Platforms
Ajigini, O. A., van der Poll, J. A., & Kroeze, J. H. (2016) · DigitalCommons - Kennesaw State University (Kennesaw State University)
Smith, B. J. (2016) · UC Research Repository (University of Canterbury) · doi:10.26021/9415
Teacher and student factors related to the use of ICT in upper primary school
Cooke, A. (2012) · eSpace (Curtin University)
Hunter, A. E. (2018) · White Rose eTheses Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York)
Screening for diabetes in dental settings
(2014) · Dental Abstracts · doi:10.1016/j.denabs.2014.03.039
Al-Manasia, M. (2017) · UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney)
A mother's eternal role within the family unit
Brill, E. (2019) · City Research Online (City University London)
Rouah, I., Khoulji, S., & Kerkeb, M. L. (2023) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-29857-8_39
Tita, D. N. (2013) · Anglia Ruskin Research Online (Anglia Ruskin University)
Tourists' visual perceptions of forests and forest management in Vancouver Island and Tasmania
Hilsendager, K. W. (2014) · cIRcle (University of British Columbia) · doi:10.14288/1.0167314
Self-stigma, loneliness and culture among older adults with mental illness residing in nursing homes
Tzouvara, V. (2015) · University of Bedfordshire Repository (University of Bedfordshire)
Jahangir-Tafreshi, N. (2018) · Summit (Simon Fraser University)
The education engagement, coping and well-being of teenagers with cancer
Pini, S. A. (2014) · White Rose eTheses Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York)
Amoah, E. K. (2020) · E-Journal of Humanities Arts and Social Sciences · doi:10.38159/ehass.2020101
An Evaluation of Open Source Software Adoption by UK SMEs in the IT Industry
Kabiru, A. M. (2010)
Ghiron, M. (2017) · City Research Online (City University London)
Seeking treatment for symptomatic malaria in
Guinea, P. N., Davy, C. P., Sicuri, E., et al. (2010)
Effect of Neighborhood Features on BMI of African American adolescents in South Los Angeles
Obiora-Ike, F. O. (2015)
Alienation and Information Communications Technology
Healy, M. (2014) · DMU Open Research Archive (De Montfort University) · doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.20506.64968
Cui, J. F. (2020) · Research Online (University of Wollongong)
The origins of student misunderstanding of undergraduate electrical machine theory
Kockelbergh, D. N. (2014) · Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University)
Kaur, N., & Ahmad, Y. (2020) · Journal of Physics Conference Series · doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1529/3/032076
Phillips, A. (2009) · IOE EPrints
Albert, S. (2014) · LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)
EFL student teacher anaxiety in online and in-person practicums: A Turkish perspective
Yetkin, R., & Alagözlü, N. (2025) · Moderna Språk · doi:10.58221/mosp.v119i3.48808
Minstrell, M. (2012) · eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) · doi:10.25959/23205854
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
