Qualitative & Quantitative Research

social sciences. Both quantitative and qualitative research are

Table of Contents
modes of inquiry that use different methods to acquire answers
to social phenomena. Purists believe that researchers who use
Abstract either the quantitative or qualitative approach to research look
at how the world is viewed and what is important to know dif-
Overview
ferently from one another. Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005)
Quantitative Research state that there are those in the research world who do not
advocate the mixing of these two research methods.
Variables Researchers who consider themselves pragmatists advocate
Collecting Data integrating methods within a single study (Creswell, 1994).
Sieber (1973) states that researchers can actually utilize the
Qualitative Research strengths of both methodolo- gies in any given study in order to
Perceived Differences Between Quantitative & understand social phenomena. There has been a recent growth
Qualitative Research in the mixing of quantitative and qualitative approaches, as
researchers look to all available research techniques to address
Combining the Two Methods the research questions, rather than promote a preconceived bias
toward one methodology or another (Sechrest & Sidani, 1995).
Further Insights
Exemplary Manuscript Guidelines
Overview
Typical Qualitative Research Project Format
Typical Quantitative Research Project Format Quantitative and qualitative research are the two dominant
research paradigms, or methodologies, used in the human and
Verification of Data social sciences. Both quantitative and qualitative research are
modes of inquiry that use different methods to acquire answers
Viewpoints
to social phenomena. Purists advocate a mono-method, a single
Absence of Sound Theory approach to research. Purists believe that researchers who use
either the quantitative or qualitative approach to research look
Advantages of Pragmatic Research at how the world is viewed and what is important to know dif-
Calls for More Qualitative Research Studies ferently from one another. Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005)
state that there are those in the research world who do not
Terms & Concepts advocate the mixing of these two research methods. However,
Onwueg- buzie and Leech (2005) further assert that the choice
Bibliography of research methodology should be dependent upon the
research questions. Researchers who consider themselves
Suggested Reading pragmatists advocate inte- grating methods within a single study
(Creswell, 1994). Sieber (1973) states that researchers can
actually utilize the strengths of both methodologies -
quantitative and qualitative - in any given study in order to
Abstract understand social phenomena. As Miles and Huberman (1984)
state, "Epistemological purity doesn't get research done" (p.
Quantitative and qualitative research are the two dominant 21). To pragmatists, research methodologies are "merely tools
research paradigms or methodologies used in the human and that are designed to aid our understanding of the world"
(Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005, p. 376).

14

(c) 2014 Salem Press. All Rights Reserved.

 Qualitative & Quantitative Research
Quantitative Research
The philosophical framework for quantitative research (often
called the traditional, positivist, experimental, or empiricist
paradigm) is based on the empiricist tradition established by
such authorities as Comte, Mill, Durkheim, Newton and Locke
(Smith, 1983; Creswell, 1994). To a positivist researcher, real-
ity is objective and independent of the researcher. Research is
formal, value-free and unbiased. There are two types of
quantita- tive methodologies: experiment or survey. The
process itself is deductive in nature, with a cause-effect
approach to the research. The researcher generalizes, leading to
predictions, explanations, and understandings (Creswell, 1994).
Quantitative studies are considered accurate, valid and reliable
(Guba and Lincoln, 1989). According to positivists, since pure
quantitative methodologies are objective in nature, if any part
of the research possesses a subjective element, then any
interpretation of the data must be ultimately subjective
(Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005).
Variables
The components of quantitative research include measuring
sub- jects and reporting the results. Any experiment tests cause
and effect of the sample population. The researcher identifies
inde- pendent variables, called treatment conditions or factors
in an experiment. Rosenthal and Rosnow (1991) identify five
exam- ples of independent variables:
• Biological events (such as food deprivation);
• Social environments;
• Hereditary factors;
• Previous training and experience; and
• Maturity.
Dependent variables are also identified, and are described by
Creswell (1994) as "the responses or the criterion variables pre-
sumed to be "caused" or influenced by the independent
variable" (p. 129).
The research design provides a description of a random repre-
sentation of the population. In other words, the study outlines
the selection of subjects and how many will participate in the
experiment. The researcher states how the random sample will
be selected.
Collecting Data
Random sampling allows for the researcher to generalize the
findings of the study to an entire population. The researcher
carefully designs the data instrument, giving a rationale for its
selection as a tool for collecting data. The instrument can be
one that the researcher designed himself or herself, an instru-
ment that the researcher can modify that has been used in
another study, or an intact instrument that has been used by
another researcher. Permission must be acquired before a
researcher uses an instrument that has been used in a previous
research study.
(c) 2014 Salem Press. All Rights Reserved.
15
A pre-existing instrument should already have an established
validity and reliability. Creswell (1994) states that "during an
experiment, a researcher makes observations or obtain
measures by using instruments at a pre-test and post-test stage"
(p. 129). Researchers will create treatment conditions and
develop a step- by-step procedure for conducting the
experiment.
Qualitative Research
Qualitative research is based on a constructivist or natural-
ist approach and began as a countermovement to the positivist
paradigm (Creswell, 1994). To the qualitative researcher, real-
ity is subjective and seen through the eyes of the participants in
the study. The researcher interacts with the subjects through the
emerging design of the research project. The process is induc-
tive in nature, and patterns or theories are developed through
the research process (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Creswell (1994)
out- lines four qualitative research designs that are frequently
found in human and social science research:
• Ethnographies, in which a researcher studies a cultural
group in a natural setting during a specified period of
time;
• Grounded theory, in which a researcher develops a theory
through multiple stages of data collection and compares it
with other theories found in the literature;
• Case studies, in which a researcher explores a single
phenomena that occurs during a defined time or
activity and collects data; and,
• Phenomenological studies, in which a researcher exam-
ines a human experience through detailed descriptions.
Perceived Differences Between Quantitative &
Qualitative Research
Gall, Borg, and Gall (1996) have developed an outline of the
assumed differences between quantitative and qualitative
research, which are as follows:
• Quantitative researchers view causal relationships among
social phenomena from a mechanistic perspective, while
qualitative researchers assign human intentions a ma-
jor role in explaining causal relationships among social
phenomena.
• Quantitative researchers assume an objective social real-
ity, whereas qualitative researchers assume that social
reality is constructed by the participants.
• Quantitative researchers assume that social reality is rela-
tively constant across time and settings, whereas qualita-
tive researchers assume that social reality is continuously
constructed in social situations.
• Quantitative researchers take an objective, detached
stance towards research participants and their setting,
whereas qualitative researchers become personally in-
volved with research participants.
16 Qualitative & Quantitative Research
• Quantitative researchers study populations or samples
that represent populations, while qualitative researchers
study cases.
• Quantitative researchers study behavior and other observ-
able phenomena, while qualitative researchers study
the meanings that individuals create and other internal
phenomena.
• Quantitative researchers study human behavior in natural
or contrived settings, while qualitative researchers study
human actions in natural settings.
• Quantitative researchers use preconceived concepts and
theories to determine what data will be collected, while
qualitative researchers discover concepts and theories
after data have been collected.
• Quantitative researchers generate numerical data to repre-
sent the social environment, while qualitative researchers
generate verbal and pictorial data to represent the social
environment.
• Quantitative researchers use statistical methods to
analyze data, whereas qualitative researchers use analytic
induc- tion to analyze data.
• Quantitative researchers study human behavior in natural
or contrived settings, while qualitative researchers study
human actions in natural settings.
• Quantitative researchers use statistical inference proce-
dures to generalize findings from a sample to a defined
population, whereas qualitative researchers generalize
case findings by searching for other similar cases.
• Quantitative researchers prepare impersonal, objective
reports of research findings, while qualitative researchers
prepare interpretative reports reflecting researchers' con-
structions of the data and an awareness that readers will
form their own constructions from what is reported (Gall,
Borg, & Gall, 1996, p. 30).
Combining the Two Methods
For pragmatists who advocate that the research question drives
the choice of research methodology, the mixing of quantitative
and qualitative methodologies is a possibility in any given
study. Sechrest and Sidani (1995) and others provide a list of
similari- ties between quantitative and qualitative
methodologies. Both quantitative and qualitative processes:
• Involve the use of observation to address research ques-
tions. Both methodologies "describe their data, construct
explanatory arguments
• From their data, and speculate about why the outcomes
they observed happened as they did" (Sechrest & Sidani,
1995, p. 78).
• Use techniques that are relatively analogous at some level
of specificity, such as triangulation.
(c) 2014 Salem Press. All Rights Reserved.
• Try to discover meaning from the interpretation of data.
• Use analytical techniques in an attempt to explain com-
plex relationships in the social science world (Dzurec &
Abraham, 1993; Sechrest & Sidani, 1995).
• Utilize techniques to verify their data.
• Use data reduction as an important part of the data analy-
sis process.
• Promote the role of theory by testing theory (quantitative
methods) or initiating and building theory (qualitative
methods).
• Can use the same collection of data to get results (On-
wuegbuzie & Leech, 2005, p. 380).
There has been a recent growth in the mixing of quantitative
and qualitative approaches, as researchers look to all available
research techniques to address the research questions, rather
than promote a preconceived bias toward one methodology or
another (Sechrest & Sidani, 1995).
Further Insights
Exemplary Manuscript Guidelines
Smart (2005) states that research manuscripts need to advance
the development of knowledge or inform institutional policy. In
order for research to have this sort of impact, research manu-
scripts need to have many strong characteristics. Exemplary
manuscripts are balanced in form and include:
• One-third introduction and literature review that includes
complex and important topics facing scholars and policy
makers and the state of current knowledge about those
topics,
• One-third research procedures and findings, which
includes the sampling design, research design, measure-
ment, statistics, and the proper reporting of research
evidence obtained, and,
• One-third discussion and implications, which encom-
passes synthesis and integration of findings obtained
from the present investigation within the context of
existing knowledge (Smart, 2005, p. 463).
A Literature Review is a review of the literature that informs
the research project. The literature review presents a theoretical
background and a review of other studies that are closely
related to the study that the researcher is developing; makes
connec- tions to the dialogue about the topic that may be
appearing in literature; provides a framework for the
researcher's study; and acts as a benchmark for findings that the
new research will reveal (Creswell, 1994).
 Qualitative & Quantitative Research 17

Typical Qualitative Research Project Format • Purpose of the study

Vivar, McQueen, Whyte, and Armayor (2007) outline the steps • Research questions or objectives or hypothesis
that a researcher may take in developing a qualitative research
project. These steps include: • Theoretical perspective
• Selecting an interesting topic; • Definition of terms
• Conducting a literature review to identify what has al- • Delimitations and limitations of the study
ready been written about the topic, including • Significance of the study
• The description of practice-based research, systematic • Review of the Literature:
reviews, literature reviews, and meta-analysis;
• Methods:
• Presenting the significance of the study by clarifying why
the research is important, through the writing of a • Research design
• Proposal; • Sample, population or subjects
• Defining the concepts in the study; • Instrumentation and materials
• Finding a theoretical framework; • Variables in the study
• Choosing a method of data collection, whether these be • Data analysis
interviews, focus groups, and/or observations; • Appendices:
• Planning the data collection, including running a pilot • Instruments
study to prevent unexpected problems and to
Verification of Data
• Identify modifications necessary in the full study;
Both quantitative and qualitative data can be verified, using dif-
• Describing the procedures of data analysis, with a ferent techniques. Quantitative research can be verified
justifi- cation of procedures to be used in the study; "through a control process and random sampling techniques to
maximize internal and external validity" (Onwuegbuzie &
• Enhancing the quality of the study, including Leech, 2005, p. 380). Qualitative verification methodologies
presenting an in-depth description of the project, how
include:
and
• What decisions are made and any issues that occur • Triangulation;
throughout the study; • Prolonged engagement;
• Reporting the ethical issues; including potential risks; • Persistent observation;
• Illuminating the limitations of the study; • Leaving an audit trail;
• Disseminating the findings, by sharing the results of the • Member checking;
research with other professionals through
• Weighing the evidence;
• Presenting in professional academic journals,
confer- ences, seminars, and other meetings where • Checking for representativeness of sources of data;
• Professionals gather in conversation about research; • Checking for researcher effect;
• Planning the timeframe, or the time if takes to complete • Making contrasts and comparisons;
the study; • Checking the meaning of outliers;
• Concluding, highlighting the major elements of the study; • Using extreme cases;
and, finally,
• Ruling out spurious relations;
• Presenting the references, or the bibliography.
• Replicating a finding;
Typical Quantitative Research Project Format • Assessing rival explanations;
Creswell (1994) outlines a typical quantitative research project • Looking for negative evidence;
format, including the following segments:
• Obtaining feedback from informants;
• Introduction:
• Peer debriefing;
• Context (Statement of the problem)

(c) 2014 Salem Press. All Rights Reserved.

18 Qualitative & Quantitative Research
• Clarifying researcher bias; and
• Thick description (Creswell, 1998; Onwuegbuzie &
Leech, 2005, p. 380).
Viewpoints
Absence of Sound Theory
Some researchers believe that research today lacks sound
theory and does not significantly contribute to the field of
knowledge. Smart (2005), for example, asserts that "reliance on
strong theo- ries is a rare attribute of higher education research
manuscripts." He states that "the focus seems to be more
toward development of our own distinct intellectual heritage
and less toward reliance on the intellectual traditions of the
more mature and advanced academic disciplines" (p. 468). He
mentions three benefits to including sound theory in any
research. Sound theories
• Provide a roadmap...by identifying the important vari-
ables to be included in studies and the hypothesized
relationships among those variables;
• Incorporate extant empirical findings within a logical and
consistent framework; and,
• Offer a coherent potential answer to important issues
fac- ing the academic community (p. 467).
Advantages of Pragmatic Research
Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005) state that there are definite
advantages to becoming a pragmatic researcher as opposed to
a researcher who is wedded to either quantitative or qualitative
research. They state that pragmatists who use a dual approach
to research:
• Are flexible in their investigative techniques, as they at-
tempt to address a range of research questions that arise;
• Promote collaboration among researchers;
• View research as an holistic endeavor;
• Can use quantitative research to inform qualitative re-
search, and vice versa;
• Can combine macro and micro approaches to viewing
data;
• Can merge two voices, the researcher and the
participant (p. 383).
Calls for More Qualitative Research Studies
Naidoo and Orme (1998) state that qualitative research stud-
ies need to be included more in research journals, particularly
in health literature. Predominantly, journals lean toward pub-
lishing quantitative research, as it has long been considered to
have more rigorous methodology. Rogers, Popay, Williams and
Latham (1997) state that "there is a role for qualitative research
in illuminating further the vital link between human agency and
(c) 2014 Salem Press. All Rights Reserved.
structural context in people's lives" (p. 31). While fewer
qualita- tive studies appear in journals than quantitative studies,
Naidoo and Orme (1998) point out that qualitative research is
ideal in health care research, as qualitative research "is likely to
comprise smaller scale studies and hence be less expensive than
larger quantitative studies" (p. 94). However, qualitative
research is often excluded from journals because the studies do
not conform to what are perceived to be scientific standards
(Naidoo & Orme, 1998; Scott-Samuel, 1994).
Terms & Concepts
Data: Data are "the scores or numerical measurements of
behav- ior or characteristics obtained from observations of a
sample of people or animals" (Kiess, 1996, p. 538).
Dependent Variable: A dependent variable is "a variable in an
experiment that depends on the independent variable; in most
instances, the dependent variable is some measure of a
behavior" (Kiess, 1996, p. 538).
Experiment: An experiment is "a controlled situation in which
one or more independent variables are manipulated to observe
the effect on the dependent variable" (Kiess, 1996, p. 538).
Factor: A factor is another name for an independent variable
(Kiess, 1996).
Independent Variable: An independent variable is "a variable
manipulated in an experiment to determine its effect on the
dependent variable" (Kiess, 1996, p. 539).
Qualitative Data: Qualitative data are "data obtained from
nominal measurement indicating that variables differ in quality"
(Kiess, 1996, p. 541).
Quantitative Data: Quantitative data are "data obtained from
ordinal, interval, or ratio measurements, indicating how much
of a variable exists" (Kiess, 1996, p. 541).
Reliability: Questions that support the efforts by researchers to
establish reliability are:
• Are the item responses consistent across constructs? (item
consistency)
• Do individuals vary in their responses when the instru-
ment is measured a second time? (test stability)
• Were errors caused by carelessness in administration or
scoring? (consistency in test administration and scoring)
(Creswell, 1994).
Surveys: Surveys are cross-sectional or longitudinal studies
using questionnaires or structured interviews for data collection
with the intent of generalizing from a sample to a population
(Babbie, 1990).
 Qualitative & Quantitative Research
Theory: Kerlinger (1986) defines theory as "a set of interrelated
constructs (concepts), definitions, and propositions that present
a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among
variables, with the purpose of explaining and predicting the
phe- nomena" (p. 9).
Triangulation: Triangulation occurs when a researcher "seeks
convergence and corroboration of results from different meth-
ods...as he/she studies the same phenomena" (Onwuegbuzie,
2005, p. 384). In quantitative data, researchers might
triangulate several measures of achievement; in qualitative data,
research- ers might triangulate interview data with
observational data (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005).
Validity: Creswell (1994) defines the many types of validity
through effective questions. These questions support the efforts
by researchers to establish validity:
• Do the items measure the content they were supposed to
measure? (content validity)
• Do scores predict a criterion measure? (predictive valid-
ity)
• Do results correlate with other results? (concurrent valid-
ity)
• Do items measure the hypothetical constructs or con-
cepts? (construct validity)
• Do the items appear to measure what the instrument
pur- ports to measure? (face validity) (p. 121).
Variable: Kiess (1996) defines a variable as "any
environmental condition or event, stimulus, personal
characteristic or attribute, or behavior that can take on different
values at different times or with different people" (p. 543).
Bibliography
Arghode, V. (2012). Qualitative and quantitative research:
Paradigmatic differences. Global Education Journal,
2012(4), 155-163. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from
EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e
hh&AN=85678192&site=ehost-live
Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods. (2nd ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Creswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quanti-
tative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dzurec, L., & Abraham, J. (1993). The nature of inquiry:
Linking quantitative and qualitative research. Advances in
Nursing Science, 16, 73-79.
(c) 2014 Salem Press. All Rights Reserved.
19
Frels, R.K., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2013). Administering
quantitative instruments with qualitative interviews:
A mixed research approach. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 91(2), 184-194. Retrieved December 15,
2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research
Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t
rue&db=ehh&AN=85872801&site=ehost-live
Gall, M., Borg, W., & Gall, J. (1996). Educational research.
New York: Longman.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kerlinger, F. (1986). Foundations of Behavioral Research (3rd
Ed.). New York:
Kerlinger, F. (1986). Foundations of Behavioral Research (3rd
Ed.). New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Kiess, H. (1996). Statistical concepts for the behavioral
sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Miles, M., &
Huberman, M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: An
expanded sourcebook. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Naidoo, J., & Orme, J. Qualitative and quantitative research:
An opportunity to restore the balance? Critical Public
Health, 8, 93-97. Retrieved December 7, 2007 from
EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier: http://
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&A
N=6832659&site=ehost-live
Onwuegbuzie, A, & Leech, N. (2005). On becoming a prag-
matic researcher: The importance of combining quantita-
tive and qualitative research methodologies. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8,( 5), 375-387.
Retrieved December 7, 2007 from EBSCO online data-
base, Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.
com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=18970163&sit
e=ehost-live
Onwuegbuzie, A. (2012). Introduction: Putting the MIXED
back into quantitative and qualitative research in edu-
cational research and beyond: Moving toward the radi-
cal middle. International Journal of Multiple Research
Approaches, 6(3), 192-219. Retrieved December 15,
2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research
Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t
rue&db=ehh&AN=91277401&site=ehost-live
Rogers, A. Popay, J., Williams, G., & Latham, M. Inequalities
in health and health promotion: Insights from the quali-
tative research literature. London: Health Education
Authority.
20 Qualitative & Quantitative Research
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. (1991). Essentials of behavioral
research: Methods and data analysis. (2nd ed.). NY:
McGraw-Hill. Scott-Samuel, A. (1994). Response: New
approaches in research and practice. Health Education,
53, 113-115.
Sechrest, L., & Sidani, S. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative
methods: Is there an alternative? Evaluation and Program
Planning, 18, 77-87.
Sieber, S. (1973). The integration of fieldwork and survey
methods. American Journal of Sociology,73, 1335-1359.
Smart, J. (2005). Attributes of exemplary research manuscripts
employing quantitative analyses. Research in Higher
Education, 46 (4), 461-477. Retrieved December 7, 2007
from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier:
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a
ph&AN=16600379&site=ehost-live
Smith, J. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research: An
attempt to clarify the issue. Educational Researcher, 12,
6 -13.
Vivar, C., McQueen, A., Whyte, D., & Armayor, N. (2007).
Getting started with qualitative research: Developing a
research proposal. Nurse Researcher, 14, 60-73. Retrieved
December 7, 2007 from EBSCO online database,
Academic Search Premier:
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dire
ct=true&db=aph&AN=24871965&site=ehost-live
Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualita-
tive research traditions: Epistemological, theoretical,
and methodological differences. European Journal of
Education, 48(2), 311-325. Retrieved December 15,
2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research
Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t
rue&db=ehh&AN=87498866&site=ehost-live
Suggested Reading
Ashworth, P. (1997). The variety of qualitative research non-
positivist approaches. Nurse Education Today,17, 219-224.
Baker, C., Wuest, J., & Stern, P. (1992). Method slurring: The
grounded theory/phenomenology example. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 17, 1355-1360.
Barbour, R., & Barbour, M. (2003, May). Evaluating and
synthesizing qualitative research: The need to develop a
distinctive approach. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical
Practice, 9, 179-186. Retrieved December 7, 2007 from
EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier: http://
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&A
N=9980124&site=ehost-live
(c) 2014 Salem Press. All Rights Reserved.
Brannen, J. (Ed.). (1992). Mixing methods: Qualitative and
quantitative research. Aldershot: Avebury.
Burnard, P. (1991). A method of analyzing interview tran-
scripts in qualitative research. Nurse Education Today, 11,
461-466. Bryman, A. (1984). The debate between quan-
titative and qualitative research: A question of method or
epistemology? British Journal of Sociology, 35, 78-92.
Collins, R. (1984). Statistics versus words. In R. Collins (Ed.),
Sociological Theory (pp. 329-362). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Cutcliffe, J., & McKenna, H. (1999, August). Establishing
the credibility of qualitative Research findings: The plot
thickens. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30 (2), 374-380.
Retrieved December 7, 2007 from EBSCO online data-
base, Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.
com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5903964&site
=ehost-live
Devers, K., & Frankel, R. (2000, July). Study design in quali-
tative research -2: Sampling and data collection strategies.
Education for Health, 13, 263-271. Retrieved December
7, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search
Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr
ue&db=aph&AN=3835418&site=ehost-live
Duffy, J. (2005, Dec.). Critically appraising quantitative
research. Nursing and Health Sciences, 7, 281-283.
Retrieved December 7, 2007 from EBSCO online data-
base, Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.
com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=18698879&sit
e=ehost-live
Elmore, P., & Woehike, B. (1998). Statistical methods
employed in American Educational Researcher and
Review of Educational Research from 1978 to 1987.
Educational Researcher, 17, 19-20.
Fade, S. (2003, June). Communicating and judging the qual-
ity of qualitative research: The need for a new language.
Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 16, 139-149.
Retrieved December 7, 2007 from EBSCO online data-
base, Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.
com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9741991&site
=ehost-live
Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., & Davidson, L. (2002,
December). Understanding and evaluating qualita-
tive research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Psychiatry, 36, 717-732. Retrieved December 7, 2007 from
EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier: http://
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&A
N=7686421&site=ehost-live
 Qualitative & Quantitative Research
Greene, J., Caracelli, V., & Graham, W. (1989). Toward a con-
ceptual framework for mixed-methodevaluation designs.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 235-274.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1981). Effective evaluation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Howe, K. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative
incompatibility thesis or dogmas die-hard. Educational
Researcher, 17, 10-16.
Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods
research: A research paradigm whosetime has come.
Educational Researcher, 33, 14-26.
Johnson, R., & Waterfield, J. (2004). Making words count:
The value of qualitative research. Physiotherapy Research
International, 9, 121-131. Retrieved
December 7, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic
Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?di
rect=true&db=aph&AN=15613313&site=ehost-live
Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's hand-
book. (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Koch, T., & Harrington, A. (1998). Reconceptualizing rigor:
The case for reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28,
882-890.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly
Hills, CA.: Sage.
Lund, T. (2005, April). The qualitative-quantitative dis-
tinction: Some comments. Scandinavian Journal of
EducationalResearch, 49, 115-132. Retrieved December
7, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search
Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr
ue&db=aph&AN=16378321&site=ehost-live
McKenna, H. (1997). Nursing theories and models. London:
Routledge.
McLoughlin, Q. (1991). Relativistic naturalism: A cross-cul-
tural approach to human science. New York: Praegar.
Morse, J., & Field, P. (!996). Nursing records: The application
of qualitative approaches. Cheltenham: Stanley Thomas.
Newman, I., & Benz, C. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative
research methodology: Exploring the interactive contin-
uum. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Nolan, M., & Behi, R. (1995). Triangulation: The best of all
worlds? British Journal of Nursing,14, 820-832.
(c) 2014 Salem Press. All Rights Reserved.
21
Onwuegbuzie, A. (2002). Positivists, post-positivists, post-
structuralists, and post- modernists: Why can't we all
get along? Towards a framework for unifying research
paradigms. Education, 122, 518-530. Onwuegbuzie, A.
(2003). Effect sizes in qualitative research: A prolegom-
enon. Quality And Quantity: International Journal of
Methodology, 37, 393-409.
Onwuegbuzie, A., & Daniel, L. (2002). A framework for
reporting and interpreting internal consistency reliability
estimates. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling
and Development, 35, 89-103.
Rolfe, G. (2006, February). Validity, trustworthiness and
rigour: Quality and the idea of qualitative research.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53, 304-310. Retrieved
December 7, 2007 from EBSCO online database,
Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19518871&site=eh
ost-live
Rossman, G., & Wilson, B. (1985). Numbers and words:
Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a
single large-scale evaluation study. Education Review, 9,
627-643.
Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigor in qualitative
research. Advances in Nursing Science, 8, 27-37.
Sandelowski, M. (1993). Rigor or rigor mortis: The problem
of rigor in qualitative research revisited. Advances in
Nursing Science, 16, 1-8.
Smith, K., & Biley, F. (1997). Understanding grounded theory:
Principles and evaluation. Nurse Researcher, 4, 17-30.
Smith, J., & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the con-
versation: The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate
among educational inquirers. Educational Researcher, 15,
4-12.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology:
Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
Westerman, M. (2006). What counts as "good" quantitative
research and what can we say about when to use quantita-
tive and/or qualitative methods? New Ideas in Psychology,
24,( 3), 263-274.
22 Qualitative & Quantitative Research

Essay by Tricia Smith, Ed.D.

Dr. Tricia Smith is an Assistant Professor of English at Fitchburg State College in Fitchburg, Massachusetts and teaches theory and
pedagogy courses in English Education. She has written several articles on on-line instruction, advising, and collaborative learning.
Her other areas of interest include linguistics and young adult literature.

(c) 2014 Salem Press. All Rights Reserved.