Affiliation:
1. Beijing Foreign Studies University, China
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.
Funder
Beijing Municipal Office of Philosophy and Social Science Planning
Humanities and Social Science Fund of Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China
Subject
General Social Sciences,General Arts and Humanities
Reference101 articles.
1. Acun V., Yilmazer S. (2019). Combining grounded theory (GT) and structural equation modelling (SEM) to analyze indoor soundscape in historical spaces. Applied Acoustics, 155(1), 515–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2019.06.017
2. Adams R., Smart P., Huff A. (2017). Shades of grey: Guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic literature reviews for management and organizational studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19, 432–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12102
3. Ahmad N. H. (2007). A cross cultural study of entrepreneurial competencies and entrepreneurial success in SMEs in Australia and Malaysia (Doctor of Philosophy). University of Adelaide.
4. Allmark P., Machaczek K. (2018). Realism and pragmatism in a mixed methods study. The Journal of Advanced Nursing, 74(6), 1301–1309. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13523
Cited by
18 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献