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 101–200 of 1,084
European Consumers' Perceptions of Time–Temperature Indicators in Food Packaging
Pennanen, K., Focas, C., Kumpusalo‐Sanna, V., Keskitalo‐Vuokko, K., Matullat, I., Ellouze, M., Pentikäinen, S. P., Smolander, M. H., Korhonen, V., & Ollila, M. (2014) · Packaging Technology and Science · doi:10.1002/pts.2105 · Cited by 64
Owiti, J. A., Greenhalgh, T., Sweeney, L., Foster, G. R., & Bhui, K. S. (2015) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1476-0 · Cited by 60
“All data (from quantitative and qualitative sources) were integrated for complementarity [43,44] and to improve on depth of understanding of the level, and type, of knowledge of HBV and HCV infections.”
BackgroundPositivism and post-positivism as the basis of quantitative research in pedagogy
Maksimović, J., & Evtimov, J. (2023) · Research in Pedagogy · doi:10.5937/istrped2301208m · Cited by 60
Nöjd, S., Trischler, J. W., Otterbring, T., Andersson, P. K., & Wästlund, E. (2020) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102161 · Cited by 65
Phenomenology as a methodology for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning research
Webb, A. S., & Welsh, A. (2019) · Teaching & Learning Inquiry The ISSOTL Journal · doi:10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.1.11 · Cited by 88
“This can be particularly challenging for scholars exploring questions or topics that differ from the epistemologies and methodologies practiced in their field of study (Sale et al., 2002).”
BackgroundMixing Methods for Full-Strength Results
Sosulski, M. R., & Lawrence, C. (2008) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689807312375 · Cited by 57
“That is, the mere capacity to implement a mixed methods study is not sufficient reason to pursue such a design (O’Cathain et al., 2007; Sale et al., 2002).”
BackgroundJiang, L., Tripp, T. M., & Hong, P. Y. (2017) · Stress and Health · doi:10.1002/smi.2742 · Cited by 68
Mixed Methods in Finance Research
Dewasiri, N. J., Weerakoon, Y. K., & Azeez, A. A. (2018) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/1609406918801730 · Cited by 57
Ashktorab, T., Hasanvand, S., Naemeh, S., et al. (2017) · Journal of Caring Sciences · doi:10.15171/jcs.2017.022 · Cited by 56
Ngulube, P., Mokwatlo, K., & Ndwandwe, S. C. (2009) · South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science · doi:10.7553/75-2-91 · Cited by 53
Sustainable tourism: development, decline and de-growth. Management issues from the Isle of Man
Canavan, B. (2013) · Journal of Sustainable Tourism · doi:10.1080/09669582.2013.819876 · Cited by 54
LEARNER AUTONOMY IN LANGUAGE LEARNING: TEACHERS' BELIEFS
Nguyen, N. T. (2014) · Cited by 54
Cyber risk and insurance for transportation infrastructure
Tonn, G. L., Kesan, J. P., Zhang, L., & Czajkowski, J. R. (2019) · Transport Policy · doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.04.019 · Cited by 54
Teye, J. K. (2012) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689812453332 · Cited by 53
Fonseca, D., Navarro, I., Cano, I. D. R., et al. (2017) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/0735633117733995 · Cited by 53
Lartey, J. K. S., Osafo, J., Andoh–Arthur, J., & Asante, K. O. (2020) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-020-00484-0 · Cited by 64
“ities which are based on the construction and the interpretation of the realities of individuals [25, 28].”
BackgroundConflicting Findings in Mixed Methods Research
Slonim‐Nevo, V., & Nevo, I. (2008) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689808330621 · Cited by 59
Haffajee, R. L., Andraka‐Christou, B., Attermann, J., Cupito, A., Buche, J., & Beck, A. J. (2020) · Substance Abuse Treatment Prevention and Policy · doi:10.1186/s13011-020-00312-3 · Cited by 51
Giannakaki, M. (2005) · Educational Research and Evaluation · doi:10.1080/13803610500110687 · Cited by 50
Carroll, L., & Rothe, J. P. (2010) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph7093478 · Cited by 51
“not be done without first considering their intrinsic philosophical differences [23].”
BackgroundAppearing Competent: A Study of Impression Management in U.S. and European CEO Profiles
Pollach, I., & Kerbler, E. (2011) · Journal of Business Communication · doi:10.1177/0021943611414687 · Cited by 49
(2010) · PubMed · Cited by 47
Bazeley, P. (2009) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781444316490.ch6 · Cited by 48
Chan, I. Y. S., Leung, M., & Liang, Q. (2018) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph15030561 · Cited by 54
Understanding the Experience of Stroke: A Mixed-Method Research Agenda
Clarke, P. J. (2009) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/gnp047 · Cited by 52
“Along with others ( Bryman, 2006 , 2007 ; Sale et al., 2002 ), I would argue that the biggest challenge in all mixed-method research is ensuring that the fi ndings are integrated.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGunnarsdóttir, I., Davíðsdóttir, B., Worrell, E., & Sigurgeirsdóttir, S. (2021) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2021.101968 · Cited by 45
Improving women's representation in senior positions in universities
Doherty, L., & Manfredi, S. (2009) · Employee Relations · doi:10.1108/01425451011010096 · Cited by 45
The consumer competence of young adults: a study of newly formed households
Grønhøj, A. (2007) · Qualitative Market Research An International Journal · doi:10.1108/13522750710754290 · Cited by 45
“The study combined qualitative and quantitative research techniques as complementary research methods ( Sale et al. , 2002”
MethodIntegrating Mixed Methods in Health Services and Delivery System Research
Miller, W. L., Crabtree, B. F., Harrison, M. I., & Fennell, M. L. (2013) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12123 · Cited by 46
Brunner, R. D. (2006) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11077-006-9012-9 · Cited by 43
“Therefore, the investigator is capable of studying a phenomenon without influencing or being influenced by it...’ (Sale et al., 2002:44).”
BackgroundInfluentialFemale Entrepreneurial Intentions in Pakistan: A Theory of Planned Behavior Perspective
Sarwar, A., Ahsan, Q., & Rafiq, N. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.553963 · Cited by 56
Research Design, as Independent of Methods
Gorard, S. (2010) · SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research · doi:10.4135/9781506335193.n10 · Cited by 50
“Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil (2002), for example, claim that “the quantitative paradigm is based on positivism.”
BackgroundCrilly, N. (2019) · Design Studies · doi:10.1016/j.destud.2019.10.006 · Cited by 43
Pirrone, I., Dieleman, M., Reis, R., & Pell, C. (2021) · Global Health Action · doi:10.1080/16549716.2021.1927332 · Cited by 37
“In syndemics research, key aspects, such a context, likely attract contrasting conceptua-lizations and operationalizations across disciplines [4,12].”
Huang, Y. C. (2012) · Journal of Public Relations Research · doi:10.1080/1062726x.2012.671987 · Cited by 40
“To enhance the reliability, validity, and generalizibility of the research findings, I selected respondents with a view to both completeness (Risjord, Moloney, & Dunbar, 2001 ) and complementariness (Morgan, 1998 ; Sale, Lohfeld, & Brazil, 2002 ; Risjord et al, 2001 ).”
BackgroundQualitative research in epidemiology: theoretical and methodological perspectives
Bannister-Tyrrell, M., & Meiqari, L. (2020) · Annals of Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2020.07.008 · Cited by 54
Methodological issues and complementary therapies: researching intangibles?
Carter, B. (2003) · Complementary Therapies in Nursing and Midwifery · doi:10.1016/s1353-6117(03)00042-8 · Cited by 40
Exploring Open Space: A self-directed learning approach for higher education
van Woezik, T. E. T., Reuzel, R. P. B., Koksma, J., & de Serpa, S. N. F. (2019) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2019.1615766 · Cited by 40
Liu, Y. (2022) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440221079922 · Cited by 63
“Rather than taking a purist stance, some opponents maintain that qualitative and quantitative approaches entail very different philosophical worldviews and therefore can only be combined for complementarity since the findings from one approach can provide additional insights to the other (Hathcoat & Meixner, 2017; Ros…”
BackgroundInfluentialCabeza‐Ramírez, L. J., García, F. J. F., & Fernández, G. A. M. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18062917 · Cited by 39
“guish between quantitative (Qn), qualitative (Ql), and mixed (M) methods [34], and Figure 1.”
MethodA Researcher’s Dilemma: Philosophy in Crafting Dissertations and Theses
Sefotho, M. M. (2015) · Journal of Social Sciences · doi:10.1080/09718923.2015.11893390 · Cited by 54
“Phenomena are fundamentally important for qualitative researchers (Sale et al. 2002).”
BackgroundUnfolding the subjectivity of foreign language enjoyment in online classes: A Q methodology study
Thumvichit, A. (2022) · Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development · doi:10.1080/01434632.2022.2050917 · Cited by 40
“The dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative research methodologies, which many scholars have criticised, has been a contentious issue (Newman and Benz 1998; Ridenour and Newman 2008; Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil 2002; Sechrest and Sidana 1995; Tarrow 2004).”
Zubiaga, A., Procter, R., & Maple, C. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0209472 · Cited by 38
“We also intend to use the findings of this work to inform further qualitative and quantitative research in a mixed-paradigm research study [40] on perceptions of the IoT, following established principles [41].”
MethodLama, S., Pradhan, S., & Shrestha, A. (2020) · Information Technology & Tourism · doi:10.1007/s40558-019-00163-0 · Cited by 45
Allin, S. J., Shepherd, J., Tomasone, J. R., Munce, S., Linassi, G. A., Hossain, S., & Jaglal, S. B. (2018) · JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · doi:10.2196/rehab.8158 · Cited by 38
“It has been argued that a focus on specific phenomena is well suited to health-services research as it caters to both qualitative and quantitative analyses [40].”
BackgroundMixed Methods and Causal Analysis
Harding, D. J., & Seefeldt, K. S. (2013) · Handbooks of sociology and social research · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6094-3_6 · Cited by 42
Sustainable human resource management and employee engagement: A holistic assessment instrument
Diaz‐Carrion, R., López‐Fernández, M., & Romero‐Fernandez, P. M. (2020) · Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management · doi:10.1002/csr.1921 · Cited by 38
Illuminating insights into subjectivity: Q as a methodology in applied linguistics research
Thumvichit, A. (2022) · Applied Linguistics Review · doi:10.1515/applirev-2021-0205 · Cited by 39
Designing a Mixed Methods Study in Pediatric Oncology Nursing Research
Wilkins, K. L., & Woodgate, R. L. (2008) · Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing · doi:10.1177/1043454207311914 · Cited by 39
Kops, M., Schittenhelm, C., & Wachs, S. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2025.108650 · Cited by 39
Goins, R. T., Spencer, S. M., & Byrd, J. C. (2008) · Journal of Applied Gerontology · doi:10.1177/0733464808326294 · Cited by 36
Methodologies of Learning Served by Virtual Reality: A Case Study in Urban Interventions
Sanchez-Sepulveda, M. V., Kompen, R. T., Fonseca, D., et al. (2019) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app9235161 · Cited by 36
“Easily identify the needs and requirements of the human scale”
BackgroundGuell, C., Panter, J., & Ogilvie, D. (2013) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-497 · Cited by 35
“Mixed-method research, however, is gaining increased popularity in health research and the lack of standard practice regarding how to achieve a truly mixed methodology has encouraged a lively academic debate [17,18].”
BackgroundAllin, S. J., Shepherd, J., Thorson, T., Tomasone, J. R., Munce, S., Linassi, G. A., McBride, C. B., Jiancaro, T., & Jaglal, S. B. (2020) · JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · doi:10.2196/16351 · Cited by 36
“It has been argued that approaches centering on descriptions of specific phenomena are suited to health services research, as they cater to both qualitative and quantitative analyses [49].”
BackgroundDoes Lone Motherhood Decrease Women’s Happiness? Evidence from Qualitative and Quantitative Research
Baranowska-Rataj, A., Matysiak, A., & Mynarska, M. A. (2013) · Journal of Happiness Studies · doi:10.1007/s10902-013-9486-z · Cited by 35
“The mixed-method approach is increasingly being advocated in the social sciences (e.g. Bryman 1988; Giele and Elder 1998; Sale et al. 2002).”
MethodSupporting Fathering Through Infant Massage
Cheng, C. D., Volk, A. A., & Marini, Z. A. (2011) · The Journal of Perinatal Education · doi:10.1891/1058-1243.20.4.200 · Cited by 35
“The complex interplay of fathering and stress deserves to be investigated in a tradition that values depth in understanding while achieving cross-validation in a single study (Bergman, 2010; Sale et al., 2002).”
BackgroundBerkovich, I. (2017) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-017-0607-3 · Cited by 35
Msit No'kmaq: An Exploration of Positionality and Identity in Indigenous Research
Hurley, E. S., & Jackson, M. (2020) · Witness The Canadian Journal of Critical Nursing Discourse · doi:10.25071/2291-5796.43 · Cited by 34
A Critical Commentary on Combined Methods Approach to Researching Educational and Social Issues.
Nudzor, H. P. (2009) · Cited by 34
Performance of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus protocols in Dutch hospitals
van Gemert-Pijnen, J., Hendrix, M. G. R., van der Palen, J. A. M., & Schellens, P. J. (2005) · American Journal of Infection Control · doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2004.10.009 · Cited by 34
Patel, D. G., Harcourt, D. M., Rumsey, N., Naqvi, H., & White, P. (2016) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.4187 · Cited by 33
“However, sample sizes tend to be small, as the focus is on understanding experiences rather than generalising to the wider population [15].”
BackgroundRural GPs' satisfaction with radiology services to their communities: a qualitative study
Sounness, B., Hughes, C. J., & Winzenberg, T. M. (2008) · Rural and Remote Health · doi:10.22605/rrh902 · Cited by 33
Migration health research in Norway: a scoping review
Laue, J., Díaz, E., Eriksen, L., & Risør, T. (2021) · Scandinavian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1177/14034948211032494 · Cited by 33
“[49] sale JeM, Lohfeld Lh and Brazil k.”
Cultural echoes in Dutch immigrants’ and non-immigrants’ understandings and values of nature
Kloek, M. E., Buijs, A. E., Boersema, J. J., et al. (2017) · Journal of Environmental Planning and Management · doi:10.1080/09640568.2017.1319803 · Cited by 33
“In doing so, we used the quantitative and qualitative methods not so much for cross-validation purposes, but for complementary purposes (Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil 2002).”
MethodLiang, Y., Liu, J., Wang, R., et al. (2014) · Ecological Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2014.05.014 · Cited by 32
“Such methods demonstrate strong robustness, especially when the quantitativemodels are constrained by certain conditions (Bredeweg et al., 2009; Sale et al., 2002; Zitek et al., 2009).”
BackgroundSwygart-Hobaugh, A. J. (2004) · Library Collections Acquisitions and Technical Services · doi:10.1016/j.lcats.2004.02.003 · Cited by 32
Marginalised Care: Migrant Workers Caring for Older People in Ireland
Walsh, K., & O’Shea, E. (2010) · Journal of Population Ageing · doi:10.1007/s12062-010-9030-4 · Cited by 32
“older people, migrant care workers and employers), this mixed method approach, and triangulation of information sources(4) ensures that all the necessary dimensions and perspectives are included in the research enhancing evidence-based analysis and interpretation of the data (Jick 1979; Shih 1998; Duffy 1987; Sale et…”
MethodCovell, C. L., Sidani, S., & Ritchie, J. A. (2011) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.12.002 · Cited by 31
“In addition, several articles have been ublished that highlight the advantages and rationale of sing mixed designs or approaches (Driscoll et al., 2007; ale et al., 2002); the most frequently cited advantage is e ability to achieve a comprehensive understanding of e research topic (Johnson et al.”
BackgroundMobile communication research in communication journals from 1999 to 2014
Kim, Y., Kim, B., Kim, Y., & Wang, Y. (2017) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444817718162 · Cited by 31
“The methods used in mobile communication research were categorized into quantitative methods and qualitative methods in terms of macro-level methods (see Sale et al., 2002).”
MethodThe Routledge Handbook of Hospitality Marketing
Gürsoy, D. (2017) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315445526 · Cited by 35
Capturing methodological trends in mobile communication studies
Taipale, S., & Fortunati, L. (2013) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2013.862562 · Cited by 30
Quality Research in Literacy and Science Education
Shelley, M., Yore, L. D., & Hand, B. (2009) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8427-0 · Cited by 61
Triangulation and Validity of Network Data
Wald, A. E. (2014) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139227193.005 · Cited by 31
Surveying the landscape of mixed methods phenomenological research
Mayoh, J., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2014) · International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches · doi:10.5172/mra.2014.8.1.2 · Cited by 31
“When discussing triangulation in the general sense, Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil (2002) provided the argument that results cannot be compared if the paradigms behind such approaches underlie different phenomena.”
BackgroundThe Self as Data: A Qualitative Methodology
Arnold, J. (2011) · Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology · doi:10.5539/jedp.v1n1p65 · Cited by 30
Goerres, A., & Prinzen, K. (2010) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-010-9379-8 · Cited by 31
“This assumption allows the same researcher to approach a certain social phenomenon from different sides without altering its meaning significantly (for a different view see (Sale and Brazil 2004; Sale et al. 2002)); (b) that there is an interest in causation (see Faletti and Lynch 2009).”
Uher, J. (2018) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-018-0744-3 · Cited by 29
“…question of whether or not behavioural, psychological and social phenomena can be mean-ingfully explored by means of quantification, what access researchers can generally gain to these phenomena and how findings can be interpreted (e.g., Bruschi 2017; Michell 2010; Sale et al. 2002; Toomela 2011).”
BackgroundCarr, E. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02428.x · Cited by 29
Gabarda-Mallorquí, A., Tortella, B. D., & Tirado, D. (2024) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.103747 · Cited by 29
Child Poverty in Colombia: Construction of a Multidimensional Measure Using a Mixed-Method Approach
García, S., & Ritterbusch, A. E. (2014) · Child Indicators Research · doi:10.1007/s12187-014-9274-2 · Cited by 29
Ryan, C., Ninov, I., & Aziz, H. (2012) · Tourism Management Perspectives · doi:10.1016/j.tmp.2012.08.006 · Cited by 29
Mixed Methods and Its Application in Prehospital Research
McManamny, T. E., Sheen, J. A., Boyd, L., & Jennings, P. (2014) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689813520408 · Cited by 29
Crooks, V. A., Schuurman, N., Cinnamon, J. M., Castleden, H., & Johnston, R. (2011) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689810385693 · Cited by 26
“The third methodological wave, involving incorporating both qualitative and quantitative data, has increasingly been supported theoretically within the discipline as geographers realize the benefit of incorporating lived realities and experiential data into previously quantitative models and analyses (Cresswell, 2009;…”
BackgroundThe coping processes of adult refugees resettled in New Zealand.
Pahud, M.-T. (2008) · UC Research Repository (University of Canterbury) · doi:10.26021/9931 · Cited by 26
Bui, D. T. (2009) · Tuwhera (Auckland University of Technology) · Cited by 27
Methods in Public Health Services and Systems Research
Harris, J. K., Beatty, K., Barbero, C., Howard, A. F., Cheskin, R., Shapiro, R. M., & Mays, G. P. (2012) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.01.028 · Cited by 27
NPG and Stewardship theory: remedies for NPM privatization prescriptions
Mills, D. E., Bradley, L. M., & Keast, R. L. (2019) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2019.1695883 · Cited by 26
Ong, B. N., Dunn, K. M., & Croft, P. R. (2006) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-005-2071-8 · Cited by 25
“The epistemological version argues that because of fundamental differences in nature, multi-method strategy is not possible (Sale et al., 2002).”
BackgroundAdvocating mixed-methods approaches in health research
Bryers, H., van Teijlingen, E., & Pitchforth, E. (2014) · Nepal Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.3126/nje.v4i5.12018 · Cited by 25
The rise of the prosumer: an analysis of self-service technology adoption in a corporate context
Considine, E., & Cormican, K. T. (2022) · International journal of information systems and project management · doi:10.12821/ijispm050202 · Cited by 25
“The survey which adapted the original SSTQUAL scale was developed following best practice [43] to examine participant’s perception of SST.”
MethodOn the pitfalls and promises of using mixed methods in literacy research: perceptions of reviewers
Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Staley, B. (2017) · Research Papers in Education · doi:10.1080/02671522.2017.1402081 · Cited by 41
“Those who subscribe to the incompatibility thesis argue the research methods derive from different paradigms or worldviews with incompatible ontological and epistemological assumptions (e.g. Brannen 2005; Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil 2002).”
BackgroundKerr, D. C., Ornelas, I. J., Lilly, M. M., Calhoun, R., & Meischke, H. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/13449 · Cited by 25
“We employed 2 research paradigms, quantitative positivist and qualitative interpretivist, and have provided a convergent interpretation of the results in the Discussion section [44].”
Resolving the qualitative-quantitative debate in healthcare research
Turyahikayo, E. (2014) · Medical Practice and Reviews · doi:10.5897/mpr.2013.0107 · Cited by 31
“Hence, the researcher and phenomena are independent entities (Hischheim, 1985), and that all phenomena can be reduced to empirical indicators which represent the truth (Sale et al., 2002).”
BackgroundAn exploratory investigation into first year student transition to university
Bowles, A. (2011) · Cited by 24
Stamenkov, G. (2022) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-022-01461-2 · Cited by 40
“There are studies that warn against mixed methods research because they are based on different paradigms: quantitative paradigm is based on positivism, while qualitative paradigm is based on interpretivism and constructivism (Sale et al. 2002).”
BackgroundMethodArham, A. F. (2014) · RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) · doi:10.25439/rmt.27332790 · Cited by 24
Seeking treatment for symptomatic malaria in Papua New Guinea
Davy, C. P., Sicuri, E., Ome, M., et al. (2010) · Malaria Journal · doi:10.1186/1475-2875-9-268 · Cited by 24
“While these approaches may have different methodological and theoretical underpinnings, it is not uncommon for these types of data to be combined within a single study [35].”
BackgroundMacur, M. (2011) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-011-9621-z · Cited by 24
““Evidence of this is reflected by the notion that quantitative methods cannot access some of the phenomena that health researchers are interested in, such as lived experiences as a patient, social interactions, and the patients’ perspective of doctor–patient interactions” (Sale et al. 2002, p. 44).”
BackgroundMadrigal, L. A., & Gill, D. L. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology · doi:10.1123/jcsp.2014-0034 · Cited by 24
“According to Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil (2002) quantitative information may provide a way to obtain information that is separate from the observer while qualitative information may shed light on the changing nature of reality created through people’s experiences; thus, the two methods serve…”
BackgroundThe Violence Continuum: Australian Aboriginal male violence and generational post-traumatic stress
Atkinson, C. (2009) · Cross Connect (Southern Cross University) · Cited by 23
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
