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 201–300 of 1,084
Burdett, K. R. (2013) · Lincoln (University of Nebraska) · Cited by 26
Experiences of GP trainees in undertaking telephone consultations: a mixed-methods study
Chaudhry, U. A. R., Ibison, J. M., Harris, T. J., Rafi, I., Johnston, M., & Fawns, T. (2020) · BJGP Open · doi:10.3399/bjgpopen20x101008 · Cited by 23
Mixed methods research: a design for emergency care research?
Cooper, S. J., Porter, J. E., & Endacott, R. (2010) · Emergency Medicine Journal · doi:10.1136/emj.2010.096321 · Cited by 27
Kadushin, C., Hecht, S., Sasson, T., et al. (2008) · Field Methods · doi:10.1177/1525822x07307426 · Cited by 23
Payment and economic evaluation of integrated care
Tsiachristas, A. (2015) · International Journal of Integrated Care · doi:10.5334/ijic.2009 · Cited by 23
Multi-criteria Evaluation of Bran Use to Promote Circularity in the Cereal Production Chain
Grippo, V., Romano, S., & Vastola, A. (2019) · Natural Resources Research · doi:10.1007/s11053-019-09457-w · Cited by 23
Robust weighted aggregation of expert opinions in futures studies
Marozzi, M., Bolzan, M., & Zio, S. D. (2022) · Annals of Operations Research · doi:10.1007/s10479-022-04990-z · Cited by 23
“In studying complex phenomena, many scholars claim that a mixed-method approach is desirable, given the need to analyse the problem from many perspectives (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Sale et al., 2002).”
Wang, Z., Wang, D., Xu, Y., Zhou, L., & Zhou, Y. (2025) · Journal of Chinese Political Science · doi:10.1007/s11366-025-09917-6 · Cited by 27
“①”
Mayoh, J., Bond, C., & Todres, L. (2011) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689811416942 · Cited by 22
“Although complementarity is a popular philosophical justification for the mixing of qualitative and quantitative methods, Sale et al. (2002) suggest that traditional notions of complementarity are not advisable for mixed methods research if the ultimate goal is to study different aspects of the…”
BackgroundMethodUmaefulam, V. O., & Premkumar, K. (2020) · mHealth · doi:10.21037/mhealth.2019.12.01 · Cited by 21
Judging the relative trustworthiness of research results: How to do it and why it matters
Gorard, S. A. C. (2024) · Review of Education · doi:10.1002/rev3.3448 · Cited by 34
“Sale et al. (2002) makes this split, claiming that only quantitative studies are about science, while qualitative studies are about multiple realities.”
BackgroundSimple formative assessment, high learning gains in college general chemistry
Yalaki, Y. (2010) · Eurasian Journal of Educational Research · Cited by 22
A Mixed Methods Genre Analysis of the Discussion Section of MMR Articles in Applied Linguistics
Hashemi, M. R., & Moghaddam, I. G. (2016) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689816674626 · Cited by 25
Holtz, P., & Odağ, Ö. (2018) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1080/14780887.2018.1447622 · Cited by 34
“Sale et al. (2002), for example, summarize that quantitative research endorses a positivist and reductionist epistemology.”
BackgroundBurland, K. (2005) · White Rose eTheses Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) · Cited by 21
The Challenges of Establishing an Integrative Medicine Primary Care Clinic in Sydney, Australia
Hunter, J., Corcoran, K., Phelps, K. L., et al. (2012) · The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine · doi:10.1089/acm.2011.0392 · Cited by 21
“16 Similar to a proposed evaluation model by Walter et al., 17 the current investigators returned to Donabedian’s model— structure, process, and outcomes 18 —as the basis for evaluation.”
Perceptions of adult Arkansans regarding trusted sources of information about the COVID-19 pandemic
Purvis, R. S., Willis, D. E., Moore, R. A., BOGULSKI, C. A., & McElfish, P. A. (2021) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-021-12385-1 · Cited by 21
Factors that influence the adoption of e-learning : an empirical study in Kuwait
Alkharang, M. M. (2014) · Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) (Brunel University London) · Cited by 22
Research methodological issues in evaluating herbal interventions
Hota, D., Bansal, Chakrabarti, & Chakrabarti (2010) · Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials · doi:10.2147/oajct.s9029 · Cited by 21
Bidart, C., & Cacciuttolo, P. (2012) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-012-9667-6 · Cited by 21
The place of words and numbers in psychiatric research
Falissard, B., Révah‐Levy, A., Yang, S. M., & Fagot-Largeault, A. (2013) · Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine · doi:10.1186/1747-5341-8-18 · Cited by 24
“Discussion In recent decades, there has been widespread debate regarding a questionable compatibility [37] and the relative merits of quantitative and qualitative approaches for research in several academic fields [38].”
BackgroundHasson‐Ohayon, I., Roe, D., Yanos, P. T., & Lysaker, P. H. (2015) · Journal of Mental Health · doi:10.3109/09638237.2015.1101419 · Cited by 21
“It has been argued that qualitative and quantitative assessment do not study the exact same phenomena and therefore they should be used for complementary purposes (Sale et al., 2002).”
BackgroundMethodExploring appropriation of global cultural rituals
Tinson, J. S., & Nuttall, P. J. (2010) · Journal of Marketing Management · doi:10.1080/0267257x.2010.510325 · Cited by 21
“However, it is recognised that ‘the distinction of phenomena in mixed methods research is crucial and can be clarified by labeling the phenomenon examined by each method’ (Sale, Lohfeld, & Brazil, 2002 , p.”
Tsiachristas, A., Walters, B. H., Adams, S., Bal, R. A., & Mölken, M. R. (2014) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0518-0 · Cited by 21
“Mixed-methods research facilitates this by combining qualitative and quantitative research methods in order to identify, decompose, analyze, and understand complexities in healthcare [13].”
MethodTaking charge: perceived control and acceptability of domestic demand-side response
Fell, M. J. (2016) · UCL Discovery (University College London) · Cited by 20
Sceptical or clerical? Theory as a barrier to the combination of research methods
Gorard, S. A. C. (2009) · Cited by 21
Jin, X., Yuan, Z., & Zhou, Z. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20010834 · Cited by 23
“The mixed-method design is appropriate for this research for two reasons [41].”
MethodArslan, E., Kendir, H., AKMEŞE, H., et al. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151712889 · Cited by 20
“While determining the sample, the purposive sampling technique was used because it is a more effective method for small groups and subjective evaluations [49].”
MethodWhite, M. J., Judd, M. D., & Poliandri, S. (2012) · Sociological Methodology · doi:10.1177/0081175012461233 · Cited by 19
“Bazeley (2006:65) points out that ‘‘some have argued for total separation of the qualitative and quantitative components of mixed method studies, with integration considered legitimate only at the point of final interpretation (e.g., Morse 2003; Sale et al. 2002).”
BackgroundKrivokapic‐Skoko, B., & O’Neill, G. (2011) · International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches · doi:10.5172/mra.2011.5.3.290 · Cited by 18
Battlefield tourism - Anzac day commemorations at Gallipoli : an empirical analysis
Basarin, V. J. (2011) · Cited by 19
Khumpaisal, S., Ross, A. D., & Abdulai, R. T. (2010) · Journal of Retail & Leisure Property · doi:10.1057/rlp.2010.3 · Cited by 20
“Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) and Sale et al (2002) support the mixed methodologies approach as it uses both quantitative and qualitative research techniques in a single research project, thereby benefi ting from the advantages of both methodologies.”
“Life is hard”: How the COVID-19 pandemic affected daily stressors of women
Purvis, R. S., Ayers, B. L., Rowland, B., Moore, R. A., Hallgren, E., & McElfish, P. A. (2022) · Dialogues in Health · doi:10.1016/j.dialog.2022.100018 · Cited by 23
“Quantitative and qualitative data were collected simultaneously with an online questionnaire [21 – 27].”
Aziz, M., & Anjum, G. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1533802 · Cited by 27
Interdisciplinary sport injury research and the integration of qualitative and quantitative data
Hausken‐Sutter, S. E., af Gennäs, K. B., Schubring, A., et al. (2023) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-023-01929-1 · Cited by 19
FACTORS INFLUENCING THE EDUCATIONAL SUCCESS OF MINORITY PRE-SERVICE EDUCATORS
Clark, M. A., Brooks, M. D., Lee, S. M., et al. (2006) · Journal of College Student Retention Research Theory & Practice · doi:10.2190/9hj4-lxcu-b40x-b35m · Cited by 19
Voorhees, H. L., & Smith, M. H. (2019) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732319868985 · Cited by 19
Berros, J. B. (2014) · Revista Latina de Comunicación Social · doi:10.4185/rlcs-2014-1014 · Cited by 19
Mixed Methodologies: A New Research Paradigm or Enhanced Quantitative Paradigm
Morris, E. J., & Burkett, K. (2011) · Online Journal of Cultural Competence in Nursing and Healthcare · doi:10.9730/ojccnh.org/v1n1a3 · Cited by 19
Qualitative research methods and its application in nephrology
Guha, C., Viecelli, A. K., Wong, G., Manera, K., & Tong, A. (2021) · Nephrology · doi:10.1111/nep.13888 · Cited by 24
“Qualitative research is used to generate in-depth and rich information on social or health related experiences and interactions.(35,36) The frame-”
MethodEmbracing the population health framework in nursing research
MacDonald, S. E., Newburn‐Cook, C. V., Allen, M. N., & Reutter, L. (2012) · Nursing Inquiry · doi:10.1111/nin.12017 · Cited by 22
Characterizing health researcher barriers to sharing results with study participants
McElfish, P. A., Long, C. R., James, L. P., et al. (2019) · Journal of Clinical and Translational Science · doi:10.1017/cts.2019.409 · Cited by 19
“A mixed-methods concurrent triangulation design [17 – 23], with a survey that collected quantitative and qualitative data simultaneously, assessed the perceptions and barriers health researchers experience with the dissemination of results to study participants.”
MethodDoria, L., & Fantacci, L. (2017) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-017-0520-9 · Cited by 22
MacFadgen, S. L. (2007) · Summit (Simon Fraser University) · Cited by 18
Methodological considerations for studying social processes
Patterson, B. J., & Morin, K. H. (2012) · Nurse Researcher · doi:10.7748/nr2012.09.20.1.33.c9306 · Cited by 18
Traffic-related air pollution and perceived health risk: Lay assessment of an everyday hazard
Day, R. J. (2006) · Health Risk & Society · doi:10.1080/13698570600871869 · Cited by 18
Chimpololo, A., & Burrowes, V. J. (2019) · American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · doi:10.4269/ajtmh.19-0021 · Cited by 17
Ortíz, G., Gómez, J. A. D., Aledo, A., & Urgeghe, A. M. (2018) · Sustainability Science Practice and Policy · doi:10.1080/15487733.2018.1510237 · Cited by 18
“…focus tends to be the base argument, or even the methodological ideal, in all environmental analysis literature, which seeks explanations and solutions for complexity through the adoption of multi- and transdisciplinary approaches (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004; Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil 2002).”
BackgroundThe Application of Social Survey Methods in Analysing the Tourist Activity of Seniors
Głąbiński, Z. (2015) · Bulletin of Geography Socio-economic series · doi:10.1515/bog-2015-0004 · Cited by 17
Hulst, L., & Akkermans, A. J. (2011) · Psychological Injury and Law · doi:10.1007/s12207-011-9110-7 · Cited by 17
“…of 8,000 surviving relatives of fatal victims of traffic accident between 2000 and 2007, where the family had had contact with Victim Support at least once (which is more or less standard after major accidents), and (b) personal injury victims’ legal representatives, who sent out 20 invitation…”
BackgroundResultEnterprise resource planning systems success assessment : an integrative framework
Ifinedo, P. (2006) · Jyväskylä University Digital Archive (University of Jyväskylä) · Cited by 17
Empirical research consolidation: a generic overview and a classification scheme for methods
Haneef, N. J. (2011) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-011-9524-z · Cited by 24
Fonseca, D., Villagrasa, S., Vails, F., Domínguez, E. R., Climent, A., & Vicent, L. (2014) · IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) · doi:10.1109/fie.2014.7044209 · Cited by 17
“For these reasons, the different phenomena can be reduced to empirical indicators that represent reality, quantitative methods are considered objective [47, 48].”
BackgroundDaly, A. (2007) · UTAS Research Repository · doi:10.25904/1912/2730 · Cited by 17
Raijman, R., & Hochman, O. (2009) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-009-9284-1 · Cited by 17
Grecu, A. L., Hadjar, A., & Lourêiro, K. S. (2022) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440221105477 · Cited by 22
“All in all, it appears to be crucial to conceptualize the research strands of the mixed-methods study, ensuring that the potential of each approach can be fulfilled, which in turn means that no strand is considered as an entirely auxiliary construction for the other strand (Sale et al., 2002).”
BackgroundMixed Methods Research in TESOL : Procedures Combined or Epistemology Confused?
Mirhosseini, S. (2017) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.1002/tesq.427 · Cited by 16
Observing Outcomes in Youth Development: An Analysis of Mixed Methods
Henderson, K. A., Powell, G. M., & Scanlin, M. M. (2005) · Journal of Park and Recreation Administration · Cited by 16
Peri-urban interface: An alternative residential location of low-income migrants in Kumasi, Ghana
Adu-Gyamfi, A., Owusu‐Addo, E., Inkoom, D. K. B., & Asibey, M. O. (2022) · Cities · doi:10.1016/j.cities.2022.103570 · Cited by 20
Alnajem, M. (2014) · UPT. Syiah Kuala University Library (Syiah Kuala University) · Cited by 16
Researchers' experiences with and perceptions of returning results to participants: Study protocol
McElfish, P. A., Purvis, R. S., & Long, C. R. (2018) · Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2018.06.005 · Cited by 15
Use of social media for health education and corporate communication of hospitals
Costa-Sánchez, C., & González, M. I. M. (2018) · El Profesional de la Informacion · doi:10.3145/epi.2018.sep.18 · Cited by 16
Card Lab: An Educational Game to Support Chemistry Laboratory Learning
Li, L., & He, T. (2022) · Journal of Chemical Education · doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00632 · Cited by 22
Studying sensitive issues: the contributions of a mixed approach
Condomines, B., & Hennequin, É. (2014) · RIMHE Revue Interdisciplinaire Management Homme(s) & Entreprise · doi:10.3917/rimhe.014.0003 · Cited by 15
Rethinking translation studies
Sun, S. (2014) · Translation Spaces · doi:10.1075/ts.3.08sun · Cited by 16
Purushothaman, A. (2013) · VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) · Cited by 16
Qualitative assessment of a challenge-based learning and teamwork applied in electronics program
Romero, S., Fonseca, D., Aláez, M., & Amo, D. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22739 · Cited by 16
O'Malley, L. A., Worthington, H. V., Donaldson, M., O'Neil, C., Birch, S., Noble, S., Killough, S., Murphy, L., Greer, M., Brodison, J., et al. (2017) · Community Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology · doi:10.1111/cdoe.12357 · Cited by 15
Mixed Methods Data Collection in Dementia Research
Robinson, A. L., Emden, C., Croft, T. D., Vosper, G., Elder, J., Stirling, C., & Vickers, J. C. (2011) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689811416940 · Cited by 15
“Our research shared the complementarity purpose advocated by Sale et al. (2002), whereby mixed methods can be applied simultaneously or sequentially, provided care is taken in delineating the purpose for which each method is employed (e.g., in our research measurement of dementia severity vs.…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSustainable development of microfinance customers
Jose, S., & Chacko, J. M. (2017) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/jeim-02-2016-0056 · Cited by 20
Modell, S. (2007) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.997194 · Cited by 19
“Yet, the advancement of a unified approach to this end has recently been identified as a major unresolved issue in the mixed methods literature (Sale et al., 2002; Sale and Brazil, 2004; Bryman, 2006).”
BackgroundRole of Financial Institutions in the Growth of Micro and Small Enterprises in Assosa Zone
Abara, G. (2017) · Journals & Books Hosting (International Knowledge Sharing Platform) · Cited by 15
Nijhuis, F. A. P., Elwyn, G. J., Bloem, B. R., Post, B., & Faber, M. J. (2018) · Pilot and Feasibility Studies · doi:10.1186/s40814-018-0286-4 · Cited by 15
“With the triangulation, we aim to gain a more complete understanding of the effects of the SDM intervention [18].”
MethodEnglish-medium instruction : Seeking assessment criteria for spoken professional English
Pilkinton-Pihko, D. (2013) · Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja · Cited by 15
Investigating the use of NICE guidelines and IAPT services in the treatment of depression.
Gyani, A., Pumphrey, N., Parker, H., Shafran, R., & Rose, S. (2012) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 16
Lai, J., Klag, M., & Shikako‐Thomas, K. (2019) · Learning Health Systems · doi:10.1002/lrh2.10192 · Cited by 15
“Overall, the comprehensiveness of an evaluation is strengthened by employing mixed‐methods approaches.(58)”
MethodWhen the Elderly Turn to Petty Crime
Sugie, N. F. (2016) · International Criminal Justice Review · doi:10.1177/1057567716679232 · Cited by 14
“Although the interviews were based on a small and selected sample, they complement interpretations of the prefectural-level findings by adding cultural contextualization (Sale et al., 2002; Scrimshaw, 1990; Small, 2011).”
ResultBibliometric and Topic Modeling Analysis of Corporate Social Irresponsibility
Mendiratta, A., Singh, S., Yadav, S. S., & Mahajan, A. (2023) · Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management · doi:10.1007/s40171-023-00343-2 · Cited by 15
“Next, we transform the document format from all text files into one JSON file representing the whole corpus (Schmiedel et al., 2019).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHassan, M., & Asaad, T. (2020) · Middle East Current Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s43045-020-00030-3 · Cited by 15
Mariami, Z. A., Cadilhon, J., Werthmann, C., et al. (2015) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.229814 · Cited by 15
Lakkala, M. (2010) · Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja · Cited by 15
Charalambous, M. (2019) · Journal of Further and Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0309877x.2019.1690642 · Cited by 23
Visual Technologies for Urban Design Competences in Architecture Education
Sanchez-Sepulveda, M. V., Marti-Audi, N., & Fonseca, D. (2019) · Ninth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM'21) · doi:10.1145/3362789.3362822 · Cited by 14
“The value of research lays not so much in the epistemology of the method, but in its efficiency [18] as the quantitative methods are considered objective [12, 21] and require deduction to interpret results.”
BackgroundMotivation assessment in engineering students using hybrid technologies for 3D visualization
Fonseca, D., Villagrasa, S., Dalmau, F. V., Domínguez, E. R., Climent, A., & Vicent, L. (2014) · International Symposium on Computers in Education · doi:10.1109/siie.2014.7017714 · Cited by 14
“For these reasons, the different phenomena can be reduced to empirical indicators that represent reality, quantitative methods are considered objective [37, 38].”
BackgroundA discussion on using quantitative or qualitative data for assessment of individual competencies
Silva, V. V. M., & Ribeiro, J. L. D. (2020) · Personnel Review · doi:10.1108/pr-08-2019-0444 · Cited by 14
Babis, D. (2016) · Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies · doi:10.1080/1369183x.2016.1166939 · Cited by 14
“Research is improved when based on multiple methods, since they complement each other (Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil 2002; Bennett 2004).”
MethodDarragh, J. A., Ellison, C., Rillotta, F., Bellon, M., & Crocker, R. W. (2015) · Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities · doi:10.1080/23297018.2015.1075416 · Cited by 14
Tan, L., Kocsis, A., Burry, J., & Kyndt, E. (2023) · Design Studies · doi:10.1016/j.destud.2023.101190 · Cited by 13
Catallo, C., Jack, S. M., Ciliska, D. K., & MacMillan, H. L. (2013) · Nursing Research and Practice · doi:10.1155/2013/798213 · Cited by 18
Prevalence and Quality of Mixed Methods Research in Educational Subdisciplines: A Systematic Review
Gierus, B., Du, T., Maduforo, A. N., et al. (2025) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440251335171 · Cited by 16
“…paradigms or Dewey’s pragmatism as an ‘‘alternative para-digm’’ to support MMR (Greene, 2007), issues of validity (Long, 2017), and qualitative research within quantitative community measuring up to quantitative standards without knowledge of qualitative investigations (Sale et al., 2002, p. 50).”
Arunthari, S. (2005) · Research Online (University of Wollongong) · Cited by 15
The capacity of personnel in disaster risk management in South African municipalities
Wentink, G., & van Niekerk, D. (2017) · The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa · doi:10.4102/td.v13i1.427 · Cited by 14
Agbényiga, D. L. (2011) · Children and Youth Services Review · doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.035 · Cited by 13
Vanderpool, L. E., Trilk, J. L., Griffin, S. F., et al. (2020) · Topics in Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1097/tin.0000000000000227 · Cited by 13
Addressing the barriers to optimal management of febrile neutropenia in children with cancer
Anderson, K., Bradford, N., Edwards, R., et al. (2019) · European Journal of Oncology Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2019.101719 · Cited by 13
A Framework for the Strategic Management of Science & Technology Parks
Ribeiro, J. D. A., Higuchi, A. K., Ladeira, M. B., Veiga, R. T., & de Faria, A. F. (2016) · Journal of technology management & innovation · doi:10.4067/s0718-27242016000400011 · Cited by 16
Enhancing Learning Motivation in Elementary Schools: The Impact and Role of Rewards
Sigalingging, R., Nababan, H., Putra, A., & Nababan, M. (2023) · Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan dan Humaniora · doi:10.35335/jiph.v12i1.27 · Cited by 13
“…qualitative research methods to provide a comprehensive understanding of the impact of rewards on students' learning motivation in elementary schools(Bryman, 2008)(Lee & Smith, 2012)(Sale et al., 2002). a. Participants: The study will involve elementary school students from multiple grade levels.”
Ramanadhan, S., & Viswanath, K. (2013) · Translational Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s13142-012-0191-y · Cited by 12
Demystifying mixed methods research: Participation in a reading group ‘sign posts’ the way
Greenwood, M. D., & Terry, K. J. (2012) · International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches · doi:10.5172/mra.2012.6.2.98 · Cited by 16
“In the case of the thesis, research and higher degree Nicholl (2010), Clarke (2009), Bryman (2006, 2007, 2008) and Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil (2002) we would argue that the biggest challenge in all mixed-method research is ensuring that the fi ndings are integrated.”
BackgroundFactors to be considered in cloud computing adoption
Ali, O., Soar, J., Yong, J., & Tao, X. (2016) · Web Intelligence · doi:10.3233/web-160347 · Cited by 15
“Design of the mixed methods usually begin with a qualitative study quantitative research [80,93,95], although this order can be reversed [84].”
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
