This article offers a conceptual discussion of a series of qualitative and quantitative research endeavors that share common underpinnings and purpose. The article demonstrates several commonalities between approaches with the hope of encouraging readers to allow research questions to guide methodological choices and avoid overemphasizing division between research paradigms. The current work offers an extension of ideas previously published in Human Resource Development Review (Newman & Hitchcock, 2011) to address a call to explore aspects of theory-building in the context of research methods (Reio, 2010). Specific ideas discussed here focus on commonalities between quantitative and qualitative work when dealing with the broad notion of generalization, and include
connections between transferability, probabilistic generalization, naturalistic generalization, and external validity;
commonalities between multiple (or collective) case studies and meta-analyses; and
BrantlingerE.JiminezR.KlingnerJ.PugachM.RichardsonV. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195–207.
2.
CohenJ. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.
3.
CollinsK. M. T. (2010). Advanced sampling designs in mixed research: Current practices and emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 353–378). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (2005). The discipline and practice of qualitativeresearch. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
DillmanD. A.SmythJ. D.Melani ChristianL. (2009). Internet, mail and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
7.
HedgesL. V.OlkinI. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.
8.
HeeringaS. G.WestB. T.BerglundP. A. (2010). Applied survey data analysis. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman Hall/CRC Press.
9.
HellströmT. (2008). Transferability and naturalistic generalization: New generalizability concepts for social science or old wine in new bottles?Quality & Quantity, 42, 321–337.
JohnsonR. B. (2009). Toward a more inclusive scientific research in education. Educational Researcher, 38, 449–457.
12.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
13.
KlineR. B. (2004). Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
14.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
McNeilK.NewmanI. (1994). Summarizing the literature review with meta-analysis. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 7(4), 26–29.
16.
MorganP. L. (2003). Null hypothesis significance testing: Philosophical & practical considerations of a statistical controversy. Exceptionality, 11, 209–221.
17.
NastasiB. K.HitchcockJ. H.BrownL. M. (2010). An inclusive framework for conceptualizingmixed methods design typologies: Moving toward fully integrated synergistic researchmodels. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 305–338). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
NastasiB. K.SchensulS. L. (2005). Contributions of qualitative research to the validity of intervention research. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 177–195.
19.
NewmanI.BenzC. R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
20.
NewmanI.HitchcockJ. H. (2011). Underlying agreements between quantitative and qualitative research: The short and tall of it all. Human Resources Development Review, 10, 381–398.
21.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.LeechN. L. (2007). A call for qualitative power analyses. Quality and Quantity, 41(1), 105–121.
22.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.JohnsonR. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48–63.
23.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
ReioT. G. (2010). The ongoing quest for theory-building research methods articles. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 223–225.
25.
RidenourC. S.NewmanI. (2008). Mixed methods research: Exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
26.
SalsburgD. (2001). The lady tasting tea: How statistics revolutionized science in the twentieth century. New York, NY: Holt.
27.
SchmidtF. L.HunterJ. E. (1997). Eight common but false objections to the discontinuation of significance testing in the analysis of research data. In HarlowL. L.MuliakS. A.SteigerJ. H. (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 37-64). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
SchumackerR. E.NewmanI. (2012, April). Hypothesis testing in regression discontinuity designs. Paper presented at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Vancouver, CA.
29.
ShadishW. R.CookT.CampbellD. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
30.
StakeR. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
StakeR. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
32.
TashakkoriA.CreswellJ. W. (2007). Editorial: Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 207–211.
33.
TashakkoriA.NewmanI. (2010). Mixed methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches to research. In McGawB.BakerE.PetersonP. P. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 514–520). Oxford, UK: Elesvier.
34.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
ThompsonB. (2002a). “Statistical,” “practical,” and “clinical”: How many kinds of Significance do counselors need to consider?Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 64–71.
37.
ThompsonB. (2002b). What future quantitative social science research could look like: Confidence intervals for effect sizes. Educational Researcher, 31(3), 24–31.
38.
WilkinsonL. & the Task Force for Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in Psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594–604.
39.
YinR. (2009). Case study research (4th ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
