The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quality Criteria for Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research: A View from Social Policy
Open accessAbstract
This article reports some findings from an investigation of social policy researchers in the UK. The findings relate to the quality criteria that social policy researchers deem to be appropriate to quantitative research, qualitative research and mixed methods research. The data derive from an e‐survey of researchers which was followed up by semi‐structured interviews with a purposively selected sample from among those e‐survey respondents who agreed to be interviewed. The article emphasises the findings that relate to quality criteria for mixed methods research, since this is an area that has not attracted a great deal of attention. Greater agreement was found regarding the criteria that should be employed for assessing quantitative than qualitative research. The findings relating to mixed methods research point to a preference for using a combination of quantitative and qualitative research criteria and for employing different criteria for the quantitative and the qualitative components.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006) · doi:10.1002/9780470754887 · Cited by 3,586
Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done
Bryman, A. (2006) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794106058877 · Cited by 3,354
Self-citation
Cited by
Generalizability in qualitative research: a tale of two traditions
Carminati, L. (2018) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732318788379 · Cited by 401
Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review
Yadav, D. (2022) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0 · Cited by 217
Metadata
- Authors
- Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J.
- Venue
- International Journal of Social Research Methodology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-10
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 261-276
- ISSN
- 1364-5579 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5300
- OpenAlex
- W2060955223
- Cited by
- 364
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 49.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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.
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.