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 301–400 of 1,084
Mixed Methods Research: An Overview
Alasmari, N. (2020) · International Journal of Social Science and Human Research · doi:10.47191/ijsshr/v3-i9-04 · Cited by 13
“The primary purpose of using quantitative research is to produce data in the form of numbers that can be aggregated and analysed to describe, predict and represent the truth (Sale et al., 2002).”
BackgroundKao, T. A., & Martyn, K. K. (2014) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/2158244014535411 · Cited by 13
Huysmans, P., & Bruyn, P. D. (2013) · European Conference on Information Systems · Cited by 13
Campbell, D. J. T., Tam‐Tham, H., Dhaliwal, K. K., et al. (2017) · Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · doi:10.1161/circoutcomes.116.003310 · Cited by 12
Gram, A. S., Bønnelycke, J., Rosenkilde, M., Reichkendler, M. H., Auerbach, P., Sjödin, A. M., Ploug, T., Jespersen, A. P., & Stallknecht, B. M. (2013) · Scandinavian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1177/1403494813504505 · Cited by 12
Dencer-Brown, A., Jarvis, R., Alfaro, A. C., & Milne, S. (2021) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/15586898211014422 · Cited by 12
“It is quite rare in mixed methods studies for the researcher to explicitly state their research paradigms and philosophical viewpoints (Sale et al., 2002).”
BackgroundSamkin, G., Low, M., & Taylor, J. (2012) · Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal · doi:10.14453/aabfj.v6i4.2 · Cited by 12
“This approach to research is now widely practiced and accepted (Sale, Lohfeld & Brazil 2002).”
BackgroundMethodThe invisible students with disabilities in the Australian education system
Teather, S., & Hillman, W. (2017) · Equality Diversity and Inclusion An International Journal · doi:10.1108/edi-02-2017-0029 · Cited by 12
Analysis of Data-Based Scientific Reasoning from a Product-Based and a Process-Based Perspective
Meister, S., & zu Belzen, A. U. (2021) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci11100639 · Cited by 12
“The study is based on a mixed-methods design encompassing assessment instruments that allow the application of quantitative and qualitative analysis methods [43].”
MethodResistance and Power in Irish Higher Education: ORCID and the Monitored University
Houghton, F. T., & Foster, A. E. (2024) · The Journal of Academic Librarianship · doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2024.102853 · Cited by 11
Haselhurst, J., Moss, K., Rust, S., Oliver, J., Hughes, R., McGrath, C., Reed, D., Ferguson, L., & Murray, J. (2020) · Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/1359104520972457 · Cited by 11
“to the narrative, post-structuralist ethos of the group, a qualitative approach was felt to be the most appropriate method to privilege the stories of parents in their own words (Sale et al., 2002).”
MethodEmotional labour and the job satisfaction of adventure tour leaders in Australia
Torland, M. (2013) · Cross Connect (Southern Cross University) · Cited by 11
Linden, I., Wolfs, C. A. G., Perry, M., Metsemakers, J. F. M., van der Weijden, T., de Vugt, M. E., Verhey, F. R. J., Handels, R. L. H., Rikkert, M. G. M. O., Dirksen, C. D., et al. (2021) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049322 · Cited by 11
Ceka, E., & Ermasova, N. (2020) · Policing An International Journal · doi:10.1108/pijpsm-02-2020-0023 · Cited by 12
Kania‐Richmond, A., Reece, B. F., Suter, E., & Verhoef, M. J. (2015) · BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12906-015-0536-4 · Cited by 11
Nasehi, A. (2013) · Borås Academic Digital Archive (University of Borås) · Cited by 11
Value chain performance improvement for sustainable mango industry development in Pakistan
Badar, H. (2015) · The University of Queensland · doi:10.14264/uql.2015.430 · Cited by 11
Transformative technologies, spatial changes : essays on mobile phones and the Internet
Taipale, S. (2009) · Jyväskylä University Digital Archive (University of Jyväskylä) · Cited by 11
Nambiar, D., Muralidharan, A., Garg, S., Daruwalla, N., & Ganesan, P. (2015) · International Journal for Equity in Health · doi:10.1186/s12939-015-0267-7 · Cited by 11
“The main product of analysis, our heuristic, was subject to validation via member-checking [36], i.”
MethodUsing Mixed Methods Approach in Cross-Cultural Studies: Lessons of a Research Experience
Panda, A., & Gupta, R. K. (2013) · Psychological Studies · doi:10.1007/s12646-013-0205-y · Cited by 12
Mampane, M. R. (2010) · UpSpace Institutional Repository (University of Pretoria) · Cited by 11
Meza, O., & Jaimes, C. M. (2019) · International Journal of Public Administration · doi:10.1080/01900692.2019.1660991 · Cited by 11
Applying mixed methods research in evaluating clinical trials
Murphy, L., & Maguire, W. (2011) · Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management · doi:10.1108/11766091111124711 · Cited by 12
Commonalities and specificities of dynamic capabilities: a mixed methods study of UK high‐tech SMEs
Senaratne, C., Wang, C. L., & Sarma, M. (2021) · R and D Management · doi:10.1111/radm.12518 · Cited by 11
Having “a say”: forms of voice in Australian call centres
McDonnell, A., Connell, J., Hannif, Z. N., & Burgess, J. (2014) · Employee Relations · doi:10.1108/er-01-2013-0005 · Cited by 10
“These include the integration of survey and focus group information, and the fundamental methodological differences embraced in each of the data collection forms that arise from the different ontological and epistemological positions of qualitative and quantitative research (Sale et al., 2002).”
BackgroundYansıtıcı Tematik Analiz: Bir Doktora Tez Çalışması Örneği
Hınız, G., & Yavuz, A. (2023) · Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama · doi:10.17244/eku.1300330 · Cited by 12
Assessing the outcomes of school-based partnership resilience intervention
Mampane, M. R., & Huddle, C. (2017) · South African Journal of Education · doi:10.15700/saje.v37n1a1412 · Cited by 14
Yasuoka, M. (2015) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1007/s10606-015-9229-2 · Cited by 10
“We apply a mixed approach (Greene et al. 1989; Sale et al. 2002) that combines qualitative and quantitative methods to understand communicative processes in intercultural collaboration.”
MethodVirtual Reality Using Smart-Devices in Educational Frameworks
Navarro, I., de Reina, O., Fonseca, D., Gómez, M., & Ferrer, Á. (2017) · International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction · doi:10.4018/ijthi.2017100104 · Cited by 10
Mixing methods and theory to explore web activity
Tinati, R., Halford, S., Carr, L. A., et al. (2012) · ACM Web Science Conference (WebSci) · doi:10.1145/2380718.2380758 · Cited by 10
Case sampling for psychotherapy practice, theory, and policy guidance: Qualities and quantities
Krause, M. S. (2015) · Psychotherapy Research · doi:10.1080/10503307.2015.1051161 · Cited by 10
“Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil (2002) argue that qualitative and quantitative research are incompatible alternative forms of research because they are about quite different things, something subjective and something objective, which differs from the distinction between them used here.”
BackgroundZeglin, R. J. (2019) · Sexuality Research and Social Policy · doi:10.1007/s13178-019-00398-w · Cited by 10
Success at work requires hope and the ability to life-long learning
Uusiautti, S. (2016) · European Journal of Workplace Innovation · doi:10.46364/ejwi.v2i2.356 · Cited by 10
Consumer Attitude towards celebrity endorsements on Social Media
Jatto, O. (2014) · eSource (Dublin Business School) · Cited by 9
Descriptive statistics in research and teaching: are we losing the middle ground?
Procheş, Ş. (2015) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-015-0256-3 · Cited by 10
Fielden, S. L. (2008) · Gender in Management An International Journal · doi:10.1108/17542410810849097 · Cited by 10
Action research: The key to inclusive education in Cyprus
Constantia, C., & Papademetriou, C. (2019) · Journal of Pedagogy / Pedagogický casopis · doi:10.2478/jped-2019-0006 · Cited by 10
“Sale (2002) attributes the current failure to establish effective inclusive strategies to the continued use of qualitative and quantitative research methods.”
BackgroundQualitative assessment of urban virtual interactive environments for educational proposals
Calvo, X., Sanchez-Sepulveda, M. V., Fonseca, D., et al. (2018) · Ninth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM'21) · doi:10.1145/3284179.3284295 · Cited by 10
“The value of research lays not so much in the epistemology of the method, but in its effectiveness [32]: On the one hand, quantitative research methods are considered objective [27, 38].”
BackgroundCarey, T. A., Huddy, V. C., & Griffiths, R. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01445 · Cited by 11
Fahlman, D. (2013) · Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology · doi:10.21432/t2x59h · Cited by 10
Fonseca, D., Climent, A., Vicent, L., et al. (2016) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39483-1_1 · Cited by 10
“Because this paradigm considers that phenomena can be reduced to empirical indicators that represent reality, quantitative methods are considered objective [13, 14].”
BackgroundAli, F., Köseoğlu, M. A., Okumuş, F., Putra, E. D., Yildi̇z, M., & Doğan, İ. (2021) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology · doi:10.1108/jhtt-06-2020-0150 · Cited by 10
Zill, J. M., Lindig, A., Reck, L. M., et al. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066939 · Cited by 10
Student participation in a DEI audit as High-Impact Practice
Wells, V., Gibney, M., Paris, M., et al. (2022) · The journal of academic librarianship · doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102615 · Cited by 9
Social Research Methods Series: Proposal Writing Guide
Wanjohi, A. M. (2014) · Cited by 9
The perceived impact of the internet on family and social relations in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Alolyan, A. A. (2026) · e-space (Manchester Metropolitan University) · doi:10.83056/mmu.32438568 · Cited by 9
A Mixed Method Approach Enabling the Triangulation Technique: Case Study in Vietnam
Dang, V. H. (2015) · World Journal of Social Science · doi:10.5430/wjss.v2n2p1 · Cited by 13
Weetman, K., Dale, J. R., Mitchell, S., Ferguson, C., Finucane, A., Buckle, P., Arnold, E., Clarke, G., Karakitsiou, D.-E., McConnell, T., et al. (2022) · BMC Palliative Care · doi:10.1186/s12904-022-01038-8 · Cited by 11
An evaluation of Zippy's Friends, an emotional wellbeing programme for children in primary schools
Clarke, A. M. (2011) · Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) · doi:10.13025/15854 · Cited by 9
Quality in subtitling: theory and professional reality
Kuo, S.-Y. (2014) · Spiral (Imperial College London) · doi:10.25560/24171 · Cited by 9
Naimer, M. S., Aliarzadeh, B., Bell, C. M., et al. (2022) · BMC Family Practice · doi:10.1186/s12875-022-01679-x · Cited by 9
“The clinical utility of the resulting wait time data was evaluated through focus groups with family physicians and specialist physicians [9].”
MethodKaushik, V., & Tewari, S. (2023) · Social Indicators Research · doi:10.1007/s11205-023-03139-0 · Cited by 9
“Such mixed-method approach combines the use of qualitative and quantitative techniques so as to maximize the learning from different sources of information (narrative and numerical) and arrive at more concrete results, which we could not get just by following anyone of these approaches (Sale et al., 2002).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSligo, J. L., Nairn, K., & McGee, R. O. (2017) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/13645579.2017.1321868 · Cited by 9
Gendered executive headhunting with Chinese characteristics
Yan, L., Plimmer, G., & Zhou, A. (2023) · Gender Work and Organization · doi:10.1111/gwao.13067 · Cited by 9
Stakeholder expectations of interpreters : a multi-site, multi-method approach
Downie, J. (2016) · Cited by 9
Matysiak, A., & Mynarska, M. A. (2010) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 9
Rothmüller, M., Rasmussen, P. H., & Vendelbo-Larsen, S. A. (2018) · Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings · doi:10.1111/1559-8918.2018.01219 · Cited by 9
Kidd, L. (2007) · Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) · Cited by 9
A critical evaluation of competitive intelligence and insight management practice.
Wright, S. (2011) · DMU Open Research Archive (De Montfort University) · Cited by 9
Hellman, M. (2011) · Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs · doi:10.2478/v10199-011-0039-7 · Cited by 9
“They present the thought that if truth is a normative concept, like good; truth is what works (Sale et al. 2002, 47).”
BackgroundHow do women change osteoporosis-preventive behaviours in their children?
Winzenberg, T. M., Hansen, E., & Jones, G. (2007) · European Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602730 · Cited by 8
“…methodology is ideally suited to exploring mothers’ approaches to the issue of lifestyle behavioural change in their children, compared to more structured quantitative approaches such as surveys, when the survey content may reflect preconceived ideas (Pope and Mays, 1995; Sale et al., 2002).”
BackgroundLearning, Communication and Interaction via Wiki: An Australian Perspective
Issa, T. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-7439-6_1 · Cited by 8
Assessment of augmented visualization methods in multimedia engineering education
Fonseca, D., Domínguez, E. R., Falip, S. V., & Canaleta, X. (2015) · International journal of engineering education · Cited by 9
Youth Experiences with Wildlife During a Period of Significant Cultural Change in Laikipia, Kenya
Thomas, R., Bruyere, B. L., Sundaresan, S. R., et al. (2015) · Human Dimensions of Wildlife · doi:10.1080/10871209.2015.968891 · Cited by 8
Alves-Costa, F., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. E., Christie, H., & Halligan, S. L. (2018) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020443 · Cited by 8
Standardization of a Graphic Symbol System as an Alternative Communication Tool for Turkish
Karal, Y., Karal, H., Şılbır, L., et al. (2016) · Educational Technology & Society · Cited by 8
Replicating and Scaling up Qualitative Analysis using Crowdsourcing: A Github-based Case StudyPreprint
Chen, D., Stolee, K. T., & Menzies, T. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.08571 · Cited by 8
“In contrast, quantitative studies are used for explanatory or descriptive purpose to measure and analyze causal relationships between variables [34, 55].”
BackgroundMethodPara-quantitative Methodology: Reclaiming experimentalism in educational research
Varaki, B. S., Floden, R. E., & Kalatehjafarabadi, T. J. (2015) · Open Review of Educational Research · doi:10.1080/23265507.2014.986189 · Cited by 21
Goins, R. T., Spencer, S. M., & Byrd, J. C. (2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0302-9_7 · Cited by 8
Organizational experience of social media: impacts on competitive intelligence
Carvalho, D. S., Picoto, W. N., & Busch, P. A. (2021) · VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems · doi:10.1108/vjikms-05-2019-0067 · Cited by 9
Evaluation study of long-term development co-operation between Vietnam and Sweden
McGillivray, M., Carpenter, D. J., & Norup, S. (2012) · Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) · Cited by 8
Bidart, C., & Dupray, A. (2014) · Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique · doi:10.1177/0759106314543634 · Cited by 8
“‘‘Mixed’’ empirical research has increasingly expanded, along with methodological and theoretical clarifications advocating greater permeability between these dimensions (Sale et al., 2002; Maxwell and Loomis, 2003; Hall and Howard, 2008).”
BackgroundMicrofinance and Women’s Empowerment in Ghana: Challenges and Prospects
Ebenezer, O.-Y., Gideon, O.-Y., & Uwineza, D. (2020) · International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences · doi:10.6007/ijarbss/v10-i10/7945 · Cited by 8
What is Empirical in Empirical Studies of Law? A European New Legal Realist ConceptionPreprint
Holtermann, J. V. H., & Madsen, M. R. (2016) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2858726 · Cited by 8
Keeping Adolescents Busy With Extracurricular Activities
Kao, T. A., & Salerno, J. (2013) · The Journal of School Nursing · doi:10.1177/1059840513487751 · Cited by 8
Uusiautti, S. (2015) · International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology · doi:10.5861/ijrsp.2015.1164 · Cited by 7
Government-community partnership in the provision of education in rural Tanzania
Kamando, A. N. (2014) · Enlighten: Theses (The University of Glasgow) · Cited by 7
de Oliveira, A. L., Coelho, M. G., de Barros, D. A., de Resende, A. S., Sansevero, J. B. B., Borges, L. A. C., Basso, V. M., & de Faria, S. M. (2020) · Land Use Policy · doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104978 · Cited by 7
The Use of Mixed Methods in Management Research
Abro, M. M. Q., Khurshid, M. A., & Aamir, A. (2015) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 7
Arizavi, S., & Choubsaz, Y. (2021) · International Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1111/ijal.12337 · Cited by 7
Mahéo, V.-A., Dejaeghere, Y., & Stolle, D. (2012) · Canadian Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0008423912000388 · Cited by 7
Dakora, E. A. N., & ., A. S. (2014) · Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies · doi:10.22610/jebs.v6i3.485 · Cited by 7
The adoption of e-commerce in SMEs : an empirical investigation in Egypt
Rabie, M. H. A. (2013) · Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) · Cited by 7
Levin, T., & Wagner, T. (2009) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8427-0_11 · Cited by 9
“Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil (2002) also suggested that combining research methods is not only legitimate but also useful for several reasons, including (a) the complexity of phenomena investigated requires data representing a large number of perspectives; and (b) the two paradigms share a commitment to understanding and…”
BackgroundTechnology Adoption in Secondary Mathematics Teaching in Kenya: An Explanatory Mixed Methods Study
Kamau, L. M. (2014) · Syracuse University Libraries (Syracuse University) · Cited by 7
Innovación de Base Científica-Tecnológica desde las Universidades de Iberoamérica
Cruz-Novoa, A. (2016) · Journal of technology management & innovation · doi:10.4067/s0718-27242016000400001 · Cited by 9
Wang, Z., & Wang, H. (2022) · Risk Management and Healthcare Policy · doi:10.2147/rmhp.s372945 · Cited by 8
“Nonetheless, quantitative methods cannot explain the specific details of the action process.(36) Considering this study’s focus on determining North China’s challenges to blood supply and the mobilization mechanisms of blood donation during the pandemic, we opted for a qualitative research approach.”
MethodAnderson, N., & Özakinci, G. (2019) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-019-0319-7 · Cited by 8
Ali, M. A., Hussin, N., Haddad, H., Al-Ramahi, N. M., Almubaydeen, T. H., & Abed, I. A. (2022) · Journal of risk and financial management · doi:10.3390/jrfm15100456 · Cited by 14
Mostafa, A. M. S. (2013) · ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) · Cited by 7
Bindabel, W. A. (2017) · DMU Open Research Archive (De Montfort University) · Cited by 7
Occupational safety and health professionals' training in Italy
Papaleo, B., Cangiano, G., & Calicchia, S. (2013) · Journal of Workplace Learning · doi:10.1108/13665621311316438 · Cited by 8
“As regards the implication on theory and practice, the qualitative methods and tools employed in the evaluation showed up clearly the trainees’ needs, critical points and problems that may be overlooked if not purposely brought to the surface (Sale et al., 2002).”
MethodLoosen, W. (2009) · VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-531-91816-7_33 · Cited by 7
Interactive foresight simulation
Hansen, M. S., Rasmussen, L. B., & Jacobsen, P. (2015) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.10.011 · Cited by 7
Al-Chalabi, M., Banister, D., & Brand, C. (2018) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.05.013 · Cited by 7
Capabilities and habitat in industrial renewal: the case of UK textiles
Froud, J., Hayes, S., Wei, H., et al. (2018) · Cambridge Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/cje/bey028 · Cited by 7
SYNERGY OF QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE MARKETING RESEARCH − CAPI AND OBSERVATION DIARY
Lipowski, M., Pastuszak, Z., & Bondos, I. (2018) · Econometrics · doi:10.15611/eada.2018.1.04 · Cited by 7
“Although, as Sobocińska [2012] notes, the increasing penetration of the Internet makes the mistake coverage decreasing, thereby increasing the attractiveness of the quantitative marketing research conducted on the Internet, the idea of an internetusers panel was rejected by the authors.”
BackgroundA mixed-methods measurement and evaluation methodology for mobile application usability studies
Weichbroth, P. (2019) · Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems · doi:10.15439/2019f299 · Cited by 7
“The quantitative paradigm is based on positivism [53], where evidence is characterized by empirical research.”
BackgroundFlemming, K., & McInnes, E. (2011) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119959847.ch4 · Cited by 7
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
