The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Standards for Qualitative (And Quantitative) Research: A Prolegomenon
Abstract
The proliferation of qualitative methods in educational research has led to considerable controversy about standards for the design and conduct of research. This controversy has been playing itself out over the last several decades largely in terms of the quantitative-qualitative debate. In this paper we argue that framing the issue of standards in terms of quantitative-qualitative debate is misguided. We argue instead that the problem of standards—for qualitative and quantitative research—is best framed in terms of the “logics in use” associated with various research methodologies. In particular, rather than being judged in terms of qualitative versus quantitative paradigms, logics in use, which are often drawn from other academic disciplines and adapted for the purposes of educational research, are judged in terms of their success in investigating educational problems deemed important. Finally, we proffer five general standards that can apply to educational research of all kinds.
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
Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists
Strauss, A. L. (1987) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511557842 · Cited by 12,277
The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art
Clifford, J. (1988) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvjf9x0h · Cited by 5,528
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
Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research
Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/160940690200100202 · Cited by 4,978
Qualitative Analysis on Stage: Making the Research Process More Public
Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x031007028 · Cited by 1,362
Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature.
Murphy, Dingwall, Greatbatch, Parker, & Watson (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2160 · Cited by 1,107
(2003) · Digital Education Resource Archive (University College London) · Cited by 902
Latulippe, K., Hamel, C., & Giroux, D. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.6731 · Cited by 458
Metadata
- Authors
- Howe, K., & Eisenhart, M.
- Venue
- Educational Researcher
- Published
- 1990-05
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 2
- ISSN
- 0013-189X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2115877643
- Cited by
- 367
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 72.03
- 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: Standards for Qualitative (And Quantitative) Research: A Prolegomenon. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1176381
- The paper
- Howe, K., & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Standards for Qualitative (And Quantitative) Research: A Prolegomenon. Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176381
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.