The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions: epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences
Open accessAbstract
There has been much discussion about quantitative and qualitative approaches to research in different disciplines. In the behavioural and social sciences, these two paradigms are compared to reveal their relative strengths and weaknesses. But the debate about both traditions has commonly taken place in academic books. It is hard to find an article that deals with the generic issues related to the quantitative and qualitative divide by drawing on distinguished research literature. Interested in addressing this need, this article aims to explain the essential characteristics of quantitative and qualitative research approaches with an emphasis on their underlying epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. It elucidates the research design issues and concepts in relation to both research paradigms, from planning research to collecting and analyzing data, and reporting findings. The criteria that are used to evaluate research strategies and findings are also discussed.
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
Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G., & Pilotta, J. J. (1985) · International Journal of Intercultural Relations · doi:10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 · Cited by 45,787
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203029053 · Cited by 20,105
(1998) · Cited by 18,576
Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008) · SAGE · doi:10.4135/9781452230153 · Cited by 12,136
Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers
(2003) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.41-1319 · Cited by 10,543
(1998) · Cited by 9,332
Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000) · Theory Into Practice · doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2 · Cited by 9,184
Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction
Glesne, C. (1991) · Cited by 7,507
Neufeld, A., & Ryan, A. G. (1988) · Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation · doi:10.3138/cjpe.3.006 · Cited by 5,913
Handbook of Qualitative Research
(1994) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80230-0 · Cited by 5,715
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Creswell J. W., 1994, Research Design: qualitative & quantitative approaches
- Creswell J. W., 2009, Research Design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed approaches
- Denzin N. K., 2005, Handbook of Qualitative Research
- Keppel G., 1991, Design and Analysis: a researchers' handbook
- Wolcott H. F., 1994, Transforming Qualitative Data: description, analysis, interpretation
Cited by
McMahon, S. A., & Winch, P. J. (2018) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000837 · Cited by 249
Department chair leadership: Exploring the role’s demands and tensions
Kruse, S. D. (2022) · Educational Management Administration & Leadership · doi:10.1177/1741143220953601 · Cited by 46
Religion, peculiar beliefs and luxury cars’ consumer behavior in Iran
Forghani, M. H., Kazemi, A., & Ranjbarian, B. (2019) · Journal of Islamic Marketing · doi:10.1108/jima-06-2018-0101 · Cited by 36
(2020) · Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations · doi:10.22381/lpi1920203 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Yilmaz, K.
- Venue
- European Journal of Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-05-08
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 311-325
- ISSN
- 0141-8211 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-3435
- OpenAlex
- W1540981287
- Cited by
- 934
- References
- 30
- FWCI
- 106.95
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions: epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/ejed.12014
- The paper
- Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions: epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12014
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.
