The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Information Systems Research: A Case Study1
Abstract
This article reports how quantitative and qualitative methods were combined in a longitudinal multidisciplinary study of interrelationships between perceptions of work and a computer information system. The article describes the problems and contributions stemming from different research perspectives and methodological approaches. It illustrates four methodological points: (1) the value of combining qualitative and quantitative methods; (2) the need for context-specific measures of job characteristics rather than exclusive reliance on standard context-independent instruments; (3) the importance of process measures when evaluating information systems; and (4) the need to explore the necessary relationships between a computer system and the perceptions of its users, rather than unidirectional assessment of computer system impacts on users or of users characteristics on computer system implementation. Despite the normative nature of these points, the most important conclusion is the desirability for a variety of approaches to studying information systems. No one approach to information systems research can provide the richness that information systems, as a discipline, needs for further advancement.
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
Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Jick, T. D. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392366 · Cited by 7,103 · cited 1×
“…— the cross-validation achieved when different kinds and sources of data converge and are found congruent (Benbasat, et al,, 1987; Bonoma, 1985; Jick, 1983; Yin, 1984), or when an explanation is developed to account for all the data when they diverge (Trend, 1979), This article describes how…”
BackgroundBarley, S. R. (1986) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392767 · Cited by 2,315
Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research
Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.34.5.583 · Cited by 2,108
User Involvement and MIS Success: A Review of Research
Ives, B., & Olson, M. H. (1984) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.30.5.586 · Cited by 1,318
Numbers and Narrative: Combining Their Strengths in Research Reviews
Light, R., & Pillemer, D. (1982) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.52.1.0114v8756m170618 · Cited by 93
Cited by
Walsham, G. (2006) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000589 · Cited by 2,217
Does Sample Size Matter in Qualitative Research?: A Review of Qualitative Interviews in is Research
Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A., & Fontenot, R. (2013) · Journal of Computer Information Systems · doi:10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667 · Cited by 1,636
Survey research methodology in management information systems: an assessment
Pinsonneault, A., & Kraemer, K. (1993) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.1993.11518001 · Cited by 1,288
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
Dubé, L., & Paré, G. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036550 · Cited by 976
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaplan, B., & Duchon, D.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 1988-12-01
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 571-586
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W2164827649
- Cited by
- 1,074
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 19.70
- 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: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Information Systems Research: A Case Study1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/249133
- The paper
- Kaplan, B., & Duchon, D. (1988). Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Information Systems Research: A Case Study1. MIS Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/249133
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.