BrymanA. (2008). The end of the paradigm wars? In AlasuutariP.BickmanL.BrannenJ. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social research methods (pp. 13-25). London, England: Sage.
2.
GageN. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A “historical” sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18, 4-10.
3.
GorardS. (2017). Significance testing is still wrong, and damages real lives: A brief reply to Spreckelsen and van der Horst, and Nicholson and McCusker. Sociological Research Online, 22(1), 11. Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/22/2/11.html
4.
HammersleyM. (1992). What’s wrong with ethnography?London, England: Routledge.
5.
HammersleyM. (1996). The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: Paradigm loyalty versus methodological eclecticism. In RichardsonJ. (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences (pp. 159-174). Leicester, England: British Psychological Society.
6.
HammersleyM. (2008). Troubles with triangulation. In BergmanM. (Ed.), Advances in Mixed Methods Research. London: Sage.
7.
HammersleyM. (2013). What is Qualitative Research?London: Bloomsbury.
8.
HammersleyM. (2018). What is ethnography? Can it survive? Should it survive?Ethnography and Education, 13(1), 1-17.
9.
MorganD. L. (2018). Living within blurry boundaries: The value of distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 12(3), 268-279. doi:10.1177/1558689816686433
10.
MorrisonD.HenkelR. (Eds.). (1970). The significance test controversy. London, England: Butterworths.
11.
PotterJ.HepburnA. (2015). Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(4), 281-307
12.
SandelowskiM. (2014). Unmixing mixed methods. Research in Nursing & Health, 37, 3-8.
