The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Against the Quantitative-Qualitative Incompatibility Thesis or Dogmas Die Hard
Abstract
Over approximately the last 20 years, the use of qualitative methods in educational research has evolved from being scoffed at to being viewed as useful for provisional exploration, to being accepted as a valuable alternative approach in its own right, to being embraced as capable of thoroughgoing integration with quantitative methods. Progress has been halting, and it is not surprising that certain thinkers are now balking at the latest stage of development. The chief worry is that the capitulation to "what works" ignores the incompatibility of the competing positivistic and interpretivist epistemological paradigms that purportedly undergird quantitative and qualitative methods, respectively. Appealing to a pragmatic philosophical perspective, this paper argues that no incompatibility between quantitative and qualitative methods exists at either the level of practice or that of epistemology and that there are thus no good reasons for educational researchers to fear forging ahead with "what works."
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
The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change
Kuhn, T. S. (1977) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226217239.001.0001 · Cited by 3,861
Quantitative Versus Qualitative Research: An Attempt to Clarify the Issue
Smith, J. K. (1983) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x012003006 · Cited by 608
Cited by
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
Denzin, N. K. (2012) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689812437186 · Cited by 1,444
Revisiting the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate: Implications for Mixed-Methods Research
Sale, J. E. M., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002) · Quality and Quantity · doi:10.1023/a:1014301607592 · Cited by 1,082
Moments, Mixed Methods, and Paradigm Dialogs
Denzin, N. K. (2010) · Qualitative Inquiry · doi:10.1177/1077800410364608 · Cited by 456
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/13645570305055 · Cited by 353
Alise, M. A., & Teddlie, C. (2010) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689809360805 · Cited by 269
Qualitative and quantitative inquiries are not incompatible: A call for a new partnership
Reichardt, C. S., & Rallis, S. F. (1994) · New Directions for Program Evaluation · doi:10.1002/ev.1670 · Cited by 151
Exploring change in preservice teachers' beliefs about English Language Learning and teaching
(2016) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · doi:10.30466/ijltr.2016.20352 · Cited by 26
How does student-directed assessment affect learning? Using assessment as a learning process
Fletcher, A., & Shaw, G. (2012) · International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches · doi:10.5172/mra.2012.6.3.245 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Howe, K. R.
- Venue
- Educational Researcher
- Published
- 1988-11
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 10
- ISSN
- 0013-189X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2143811122
- Cited by
- 934
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 76.54
- 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
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.