Abstract
Health care research includes many studies that combine quantitative and qualitative methods. In this paper, we revisit the quantitative-qualitative debate and review the arguments for and against using mixed-methods. In addition, we discuss the implications stemming from our view, that the paradigms upon which the methods are based have a different view of reality and therefore a different view of the phenomenon under study. Because the two paradigms do not study the same phenomena, quantitative and qualitative methods cannot be combined for cross-validation or triangulation purposes. However, they can be combined for complementary purposes. Future standards for mixed-methods research should clearly reflect this recommendation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Altheide, D. L. & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. In: Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 485-499.
Baum, F. (1995). Researching public health: Behind the qualitative-quantitative methodological debate. Social Science and Medicine 40: 459-468.
Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Caracelli, V. J. & Greene, J. C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15: 195-207.
Caracelli, V. J. & Riggin, L. J. C. (1994). Mixed-method evaluation: Developing quality criteria through concept mapping. Evaluation Practice 15: 139-152.
Carey, J. W. (1993). Linking qualitative and quantitative methods: Integrating cultural factors into public health. Qualitative Health Research 3: 298-318.
Casebeer, A. L. & Verhoef, M. J. (1997). Combining qualitative and quantitative research methods: Considering the possibilities for enhancing the study of chronic diseases. Chronic Diseases in Canada 18: 130-135.
Clarke, P. N. & Yaros, P. S. (1988). Research blenders: Commentary and response. Nursing Science Quarterly 1: 147-149.
Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Datta, L. (1997). Multimethod evaluations: Using case studies together with other methods. In: E. Chelimsky & W. R. Shadish (eds.), Evaluation for the 21st Century: A Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 344-359.
Denzin, N. K. (1970). The Research Act in Sociology. London: Butterworth.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In: N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 1-17.
Droitcour, J. A. (1997). Cross design synthesis: Concept and application. In: E. Chelimsky, & Shadish, W. R. (eds), Evaluation for the 21st Century: A Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 360-372.
Greene, J. C. & Caracelli, V. J. (eds) (1997). Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J. & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixedmethod evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11: 255-274.
Guba, E. (1987). What have we learned about naturalistic evaluation? Evaluation Practice 8: 23-43.
Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In: E. G. Guba (ed.), The Paradigm Dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 17-30.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 105-117.
Haase, J. E. & Myers, S. T. (1988). Reconciling paradigm assumptions of qualitative and quantitative research. Western Journal of Nursing Research 10: 128-137.
House, E. R. (1994). Integrating the quantitative and qualitative. In: C. S. Reichardt & S. F. Rallis (eds), The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: New Perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 13-22.
Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher 17: 10-16.
Howe, K. R. (1992). Getting over the quantitative-qualitative debate. American Journal of Education 100: 236-257.
King, G., Keohane, R. O. & Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kuzel, A. J. & Like, R. C. (1991). Standards of trustworthiness for qualitative studies in primary care. In: P. G. Norton, M. Steward, F. Tudiver, M. J. Bass & E. V. Dunn (eds.), Primary Care Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 138-158.
Miles, M. & Huberman, A. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher 13: 20-30.
Morgan, D. L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research 8: 362-376.
Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research 40: 120-123.
Needleman, C. & Needleman, M. L. (1996). Qualitative methods for intervention research. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 29: 329-337.
Phillips, J. R. (1988a). Diggers of deeper holes. Nursing Science Quarterly 1: 149-151.
Phillips, J. R. (1988b). Research blenders. Nursing Science Quarterly 1: 4-5.
Pope, C. & Mays, N. (1993). Opening the black box: An encounter in the corridors of health sciences research. British Medical Journal 306: 315-318.
Reichardt, C. S. & Rallis, S. F. (1994). Qualitative and quantitative inquiries are not incompatible: A call for a new partnership. New Directions for Program Evaluation 61: 85-91.
Reid, A. J. (1996). What we want: Qualitative research. Canadian Family Physician 42: 387-389.
Sandelowski, M. (1986). The problem of rigour in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science 8: 27-37.
Secker, J., Wimbush, E., Watson, J. & Milburn, K. (1995). Qualitative methods in health promotion research: Some criteria for quality. Health Education Journal 54: 74-87.
Smith, J. K. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the issue. Educational Researcher 12: 6-13.
Smith, J. K. & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitativequalitative debate among educational inquiries. Educational Researcher 15: 4-12.
Steckler, A., McLeroy, K. R., Goodman, R. M., Bird, S. T. & McCormick, L. (1992). Toward integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: An introduction. Health Education Quarterly 19: 1-8.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Chapter 1: Introduction. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 23-32.
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sale, J.E.M., Lohfeld, L.H. & Brazil, K. Revisiting the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate: Implications for Mixed-Methods Research. Quality & Quantity 36, 43–53 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014301607592
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014301607592