The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A critical realist rationale for using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods
Abstract
Although using a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches is widely advocated, there is considerable scope for confusion due to the complex ontological and epistemological issues that need to be resolved. This paper examines some of the issues that may arise when the methods are combined. Three distinct standpoints with regard to using mixed method approaches are highlighted: a methodological purist position, a pragmatic standpoint and an anti-conflationist position. It is suggest that an anti-conflationist approach that is underpinned by the philosophy of critical realism is compatible with all three of the purposes of methodological triangulation identified by Risjord and his co-authors (Risjord et al., 2001, 2002) and that adopting a critical realist perspective may circumvent many of the problems that are associated with paradigm ‘switching’. The case for adopting a critical realist framework is illustrated by a case study, in which a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods was used to explore how and why gatekeeping decisions emerge at the interface between primary care and community mental health teams.
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
Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x033007014 · Cited by 11,170 · cited 1×
“The methodological pragmatists such as Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) and Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) accept the same set of paradigmatic assumptions as the purists.”
BackgroundBell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/hebz/9780198869443.001.0001 · Cited by 10,965
Consumer research, interpretive paradigms and methodological ambiguities
Goulding, C. (1999) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/03090569910285805 · Cited by 271 · cited 2×
“The initial qualitative interviews took the form of guided conversations based on a semi-structured interview schedule and a Grounded Theory method was used to analyse the data (Layder, 1993; Strauss and Corbin, 1998; Goulding, 1999).”
Cited by
Pluye, P., & Hong, Q. N. (2014) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182440 · Cited by 1,363
Inductive/deductive hybrid thematic analysis in mixed methods research
Proudfoot, K. (2023) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/15586898221126816 · Cited by 934
SMEETS, R. G. M., HERTROIJS, D. F. L., MUKUMBANG, F. C., KROESE, M. E. A. L., RUWAARD, D., & ELISSEN, A. M. J. (2022) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12543 · Cited by 53
ChatGPT and generation 'Z': a study on the usage rates of ChatGPT
Babu, M. A., Yusuf, K. M., Eni, L. N., Jaman, S. M. S., & Sharmin, M. R. (2024) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101163 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- McEvoy, P., & Richards, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Nursing
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 66-78
- ISSN
- 1361-4096 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-9871
- 1744-988X
- OpenAlex
- W2144422434
- Cited by
- 397
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 16.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: A critical realist rationale for using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1744987106060192
- The paper
- McEvoy, P., & Richards, D. (2006). A critical realist rationale for using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Journal of Research in Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987106060192
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.
