IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v12y2022i1p21582440221079922.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Paradigmatic Compatibility Matters: A Critical Review of Qualitative-Quantitative Debate in Mixed Methods Research

Author

Listed:
  • Yang Liu

Abstract

Although mixed methods research becomes increasingly popular, the issue that to what extent qualitative and quantitative research methods can be combined is insufficiently explored. To fill this gap, this critical literature review revisits the qualitative-quantitative debate between proponents and opponents of mixed methods research, examines the underlying philosophical assumptions held by two sides, and provides a new perspective to evaluate research combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. A brief review of the origin and development of mixed methods research is provided, followed by a presentation of the divergent opinions of proponents and opponents of mixed methods research and an illustration of why grounded theory, classified as a qualitative research method, can work well with quantitative studies. These ideas contribute to the conclusion rendered here: paradigmatic differences cannot be reduced to the simplistic duality of qualitative-quantitative debate, and the use of compatible paradigms is the key to mixing different research methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Yang Liu, 2022. "Paradigmatic Compatibility Matters: A Critical Review of Qualitative-Quantitative Debate in Mixed Methods Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:12:y:2022:i:1:p:21582440221079922
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440221079922
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440221079922
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440221079922?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fuhui Tong & Zhuoying Wang & Yue Min & Shifang Tang, 2020. "A Systematic Literature Synthesis of 19 Years of Bilingual Education in Chinese Higher Education: Where Does the Academic Discourse Stand?," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, May.
    2. Md Hasan, 2016. "Positivism: to what extent does it aid our understanding of the contemporary social world?," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 317-325, January.
    3. Makrakis, Vassilios & Kostoulas-Makrakis, Nelly, 2016. "Bridging the qualitative–quantitative divide: Experiences from conducting a mixed methods evaluation in the RUCAS programme," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 144-151.
    4. R. Burke Johnson & Isabelle Walsh, 2019. "Mixed Grounded Theory: Merging Grounded Theory with Mixed Methods and Multimethod Research," Post-Print halshs-03579864, HAL.
    5. Joanna Sale & Lynne Lohfeld & Kevin Brazil, 2002. "Revisiting the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate: Implications for Mixed-Methods Research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 43-53, February.
    6. L J Philip, 1998. "Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Social Research in Human Geography—An Impossible Mixture?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 30(2), pages 261-276, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gjoko Stamenkov, 2023. "Recommendations for improving research quality: relationships among constructs, verbs in hypotheses, theoretical perspectives, and triangulation," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 2923-2946, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Haegeman, Karel & Marinelli, Elisabetta & Scapolo, Fabiana & Ricci, Andrea & Sokolov, Alexander, 2013. "Quantitative and qualitative approaches in Future-oriented Technology Analysis (FTA): From combination to integration?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 386-397.
    2. Petra C Gronholm & Oluwadamilola Onagbesan & Poonam Gardner-Sood, 2017. "Care coordinator views and experiences of physical health monitoring in clients with severe mental illness: A qualitative study," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 63(7), pages 580-588, November.
    3. repec:thr:techub:10028:y:2022:i:1:p:170-202 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Rosalia Diaz‐Carrion & Macarena López‐Fernández & Pedro M. Romero‐Fernandez, 2020. "Sustainable human resource management and employee engagement: A holistic assessment instrument," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 1749-1760, July.
    5. Eugenio De Gregorio & Ivana Tagliafico & Alfredo Verde, 2018. "A comparison of qualitatively and quantitatively driven analytic procedures of psychotherapeutic group sessions with deviant adolescents," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1731-1760, July.
    6. Stephen Buetow, 2014. "How Can a Family Resemblances Approach Help to Typify Qualitative Research? Exploring the Complexity of Simplicity," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(4), pages 21582440145, October.
    7. Norwood, Michael Francis & Lakhani, Ali & Maujean, Annick & Downes, Martin & Fullagar, Simone & McIntyre, Michelle & Byrne, Jason & Stewart, Anna & Barber, Bonnie L. & Kendall, Elizabeth, 2019. "Assessing emotional and social health using photographs: An innovative research method for rural studies and its applicability in a care-farming program for youth," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    8. Maria Rosario Perello-Marín & Gabriela Ribes-Giner & Odette Pantoja Díaz, 2018. "Enhancing Education for Sustainable Development in Environmental University Programmes: A Co-Creation Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-17, January.
    9. Karen Bell & Eldin Fahmy & David Gordon, 2016. "Quantitative conversations: the importance of developing rapport in standardised interviewing," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 193-212, January.
    10. Gjoko Stamenkov, 2023. "Recommendations for improving research quality: relationships among constructs, verbs in hypotheses, theoretical perspectives, and triangulation," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 2923-2946, June.
    11. Monika Mynarska & Anna Matysiak, 2010. "Women's determination to combine childbearing and paid employment: How can a qualitative approach help us understand quantitative evidence?," Working Papers 26, Institute of Statistics and Demography, Warsaw School of Economics.
    12. Anita Mendiratta & Shveta Singh & Surendra Singh Yadav & Arvind Mahajan, 2023. "Bibliometric and Topic Modeling Analysis of Corporate Social Irresponsibility," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 24(3), pages 319-339, September.
    13. Luigi Doria & Luca Fantacci, 2018. "Evaluating complementary currencies: from the assessment of multiple social qualities to the discovery of a unique monetary sociality," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 1291-1314, May.
    14. LaDona Knigge & Meghan Cope, 2006. "Grounded Visualization: Integrating the Analysis of Qualitative and Quantitative Data through Grounded Theory and Visualization," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 38(11), pages 2021-2037, November.
    15. Jana Uher, 2019. "Data generation methods across the empirical sciences: differences in the study phenomena’s accessibility and the processes of data encoding," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(1), pages 221-246, January.
    16. Oliveira, Athila Leandro de & Coelho Junior, Marcondes Geraldo & Barros, Dalmo Arantes & Resende, Alexander Silva de & Sansevero, Jerônimo Boelsums Barreto & Borges, Luis Antônio Coimbra & Basso, Vane, 2020. "Revisiting the concept of “fiscal modules”: implications for restoration and conservation programs in Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    17. Achim Goerres & Katrin Prinzen, 2012. "Using mixed methods for the analysis of individuals: a review of necessary and sufficient conditions and an application to welfare state attitudes," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 415-450, February.
    18. Vineet Kaushik & Shobha Tewari, 2023. "Modeling Opportunity Indicators Fostering Social Entrepreneurship: A Hybrid Delphi and Best-Worst Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 168(1), pages 667-698, August.
    19. Arun Agrawal & Ashwini Chhatre, 2011. "Strengthening Causal Inference through Qualitative Analysis of Regression Residuals: Explaining Forest Governance in the Indian Himalaya," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(2), pages 328-346, February.
    20. Kendra Strauss, 2009. "Cognition, Context, and Multimethod Approaches to Economic Decision Making," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(2), pages 302-317, February.
    21. Xiaoling Jin & Zhangshuai Yuan & Zhongyun Zhou, 2023. "Understanding the Antecedents and Effects of mHealth App Use in Pandemics: A Sequential Mixed-Method Investigation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-18, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:12:y:2022:i:1:p:21582440221079922. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.