Distinguishing Between Quantitative and Qualitative Research: A Response to Morgan

Abstract

This is a response to Morgan’s article (Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 268-279) on the qualitative/quantitative distinction. I argue that Morgan has mischaracterized my views on this distinction, and on the value of design typologies in mixed methods research, and that the qualitative/quantitative distinction is more productively framed on a different basis than the one he proposed.

Keywords

quantitative/qualitative distinction mental models variance theory and process theory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbott

(2001). Chaos of disciplines. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Abbott

(2004). Methods of discovery: Heuristics for the social sciences. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Becker

H. S.

(2017). Evidence. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Blumer

(1956). Sociological analysis and the “variable.” American Sociological Review, 21, 683-690.

Cartwright

Hardie

(2012). Evidence-based policy: A practical guide to doing it better. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Greene

J. C.

(2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Guba

E. G.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hammersley

(2018). Commentary—On the “indistinguishability thesis”: A response to Morgan. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 256-261.

Hay

M. C.

(Ed.). (2015). Methods that matter. Integrating mixed methods for more effective social science research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

10.

Illari

Russo

(2014). Causality: Philosophical theory meets scientific practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

11.

King

Keohane

R. O.

Verba

(1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

12.

Korb

K. A.

(2012). Conducting educational research: Step 2: Identify key variables and research design. Retrieved from http://korbedpsych.com/R02Variables.html

13.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

14.

Maxwell

J. A.

(2011a). A realist approach for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

15.

Maxwell

J. A.

(2011b). Paradigms or toolkits? Philosophical and methodological positions as heuristics for mixed methods research. Mid-Western Educational Researcher 24(2), 27-30.

16.

Maxwell

J. A.

(2012). The importance of qualitative research for causal explanation in education. Qualitative Inquiry 18(8), 649-655.

17.

Maxwell

J. A.

(2018). The “silo problem” in mixed methods research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches 10(1), 317-327. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.29034/ijmra.v10n1a20

18.

Maxwell

J. A.

Chmiel

(2014). Notes toward a theory of qualitative data analysis. In Flick

Uwe

(Ed.), SAGE Handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 21-34). London, UK: Sage Publications.

19.

Maxwell

J. A.

Chmiel

Rogers

(2015). Designing integration in mixed method and multi-method research. In Hesse-Biber

Johnson

R. B.

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 223-239). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

20.

Maxwell

J. A.

Loomis

(2003). Mixed methods design: An alternative approach. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 241-271). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

21.

Maxwell

J. A.

Mittapalli

(2010). Realism as a stance for mixed method research. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 145-167). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

22.

Mohr

L. B.

(1982). Explaining organizational behavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

23.

Morgan

D. L.

(2018a). Living within blurry boundaries: The value of distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 268-279.

24.

Morgan

D. L.

(2018b). Rebuttal. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 260-261.

25.

National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

26.

Pawson

Tilley

(1997). Realistic evaluation. London, England: Sage.

27.

Ragin

C. C.

(1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

28.

Salmon

W. C.

(1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

29.

Salmon

W. C.

(1998). Causality and explanation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

30.

Sandelowski

(2018). A reluctant but necessary rebuttal to a rebuttal. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(4), 366-368.

31.

Shadish

W. R.

Cook

T. D.

Campbell

D. T.

(2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

32.

Smith

M. L.

(1997). Mixing and matching: Methods and models. In Greene

J. C.

Caracelli

V. J.

(Eds.), Advances in mixed method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (pp. 73-86). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

33.

Trochim

W. M. K.

(2006). Web center for social research methods: Variables. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/variable.php

34.

Weisner

T. S.

(Ed.). (2002). Discovering successful pathways in children’s development: Mixed methods in the study of childhood and family life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

35.

Weiss

R. S.

(1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interviewing. New York, NY: Free Press.

36.

Yin

(1993). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.