Closing Down the Conversation: The End of the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate Among Educational Inquirers
Abstract
The contention of this paper is that the claim of compatibility and the call for cooperation between quantitative and qualitative inquiry cannot be sustained. Moreover, these claims have the unfortunate effect of closing down an important conversation. To elaborate these points, this paper briefly reviews the transition from conflict to cooperation between the two perspectives and then notes how compatibility is based on a confusion over two different definitions of method. Finally, the discussion focuses on why this conversation, because it invokes issues crucial to our understanding of who we are and what we do as inquirers, must be reinvigorated.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
For research to be valid or reliable in the narrow quantitative sense requires that what is studied be independent of the inquirer and be described without distortion by her interests, values, or purposes.
“For research to be valid or reliable in the narrow (quantitative) sense requires that what is studied be independent of the inquirer and be described without distortion by her interests, values, or purposes (Smith and Heshusius, 1986).”
From Revisiting the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate: Implications for Mixed-Methods Research (2002) · cites this paper as Smith and Heshusius, 1986
Cites
Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research
LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543052001031 · Cited by 1,740 · see citing works
Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982) · ECTJ · doi:10.1007/bf02765185 · Cited by 1,186 · see citing works
The content of awareness is a model of the world
Yates, J. (1985) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.92.2.249 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/01623737011003255 · Cited by 5,687 · see citing works
Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields
Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999) · British Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1348/014466599162782 · Cited by 2,491 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
How to Conduct a Mixed Methods Study: Recent Trends in a Rapidly Growing Literature
Small, M. L. (2011) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102657 · Cited by 829 · see citing works
Meaning in Method: The Rhetoric of Quantitative and Qualitative Research
FIRESTONE, W. A. (1987) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x016007016 · Cited by 738 · see citing works
Mixing methods: the entry of qualitative and quantitative approaches into the research process
Brannen, J. (2005) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/13645570500154642 · Cited by 663 · see citing works
Towards Rigor in Reviews of Multivocal Literatures: Applying the Exploratory Case Study Method
Ogawa, R. T., & Malen, B. (1991) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543061003265 · Cited by 247 · see citing works
Potts, A. J., Didymus, F. F., & Kaiseler, M. (2023) · International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1750984x.2021.1907853 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
- Authors
- SMITH, J. K., & HESHUSIUS, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Northern Iowa (US)
- York University (CA)
- Venue
- Educational Researcher
- Published
- 1986-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 4-12
- ISSN
- 0013-189X (ISSN-L)
- 1935-102X
- OpenAlex
- W2128086226
- Cited by
- 675
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 24
- FWCI
- 118.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Educational Researcher (publishedVersion)
- UNI ScholarWorks (University of Northern Iowa) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational theories and practices
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Keywords
- mixed methods, epistemology of inquiry, educational inquiry, research paradigms
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
