This document discusses the quantitative-qualitative debate regarding mixed methods research. It argues that quantitative and qualitative methods are based on different paradigms with differing views of reality. Specifically, quantitative methods assume an objective reality while qualitative methods see multiple subjective realities. Because of these differing views, the methods do not actually study the same phenomena. The document reviews arguments for combining methods but finds them inadequate as they do not address the underlying paradigmatic differences. It concludes that while methods cannot be combined for validation, they can be used complementarily to gain different perspectives.
MIX methode- building better theory by bridging the quantitative-qualitative ...politeknik NSC Surabaya
This document discusses the benefits of using qualitative research methods to build theory. It begins by distinguishing between quantitative and qualitative research paradigms in terms of their underlying philosophies, goals, and methods. The key difference is that quantitative research aims for replication and theory testing, while qualitative research aims to understand social phenomena from the perspectives of participants to develop new theories.
The document then provides an overview of qualitative research methods for data collection and analysis, focusing on grounded theory building. Grounded theory allows researchers to generate a detailed understanding of a phenomenon and develop a logically compelling analysis that identifies constructs and relationships to advance theory. The document argues that combining qualitative and quantitative methods can fully develop understanding and refine theories of organizational phenomena.
This document discusses and compares quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. It defines qualitative research as trying to understand people's perspectives and experiences through interpretation, with an inductive approach. Qualitative research allows probing individuals and building macro understandings. Quantitative research is defined as testing objective theories by examining variable relationships statistically and deductively, with standardized structures and controls for bias. The document indicates that a researcher's worldview should determine whether a qualitative or quantitative methodology best aligns with their research question.
1. The relationship between theory and research is dialectical, with theory guiding what data is collected in research and research findings challenging and further developing theories.
2. Research is the method used to gather data needed to generate and test theories. Descriptive research aims to describe phenomena and involves observation, while correlational research examines relationships between variables using surveys and interviews. Experimental research tests causal explanations by manipulating variables.
3. Theories are classified as descriptive, relational, or explanatory. Descriptive theories summarize common characteristics, relational theories specify relationships between characteristics, and explanatory theories predict causal relationships and can be tested experimentally. Research designs mirror these theory types as descriptive, correlational, or experimental respectively.
Berlin Summer School Presentation Olsen Data Epistemology and Methods Paradig...Wendy Olsen
Berlin Summer School in Social Science. Presentation by Wendy Olsen on Epistemology (Aspects of Knowing) in Methodological Paradigms (Schools of Thought)
Realism, Constructivism, Positivism, Empiricism
Data, Epistemology, Methodology, and Methods Paradigms. Data Collection [book] London: Sage 2012 Date of presentation, July 23, 2014.
This document discusses different views and definitions of research. It notes that research can be defined as a systematic process of gaining new information or answering questions. It also discusses research paradigms and the three main components - ontology, epistemology, and methodology. Positivism, interpretivism, and critical theory are examined as the three major research paradigms. Key characteristics and assumptions of each are outlined. Quantitative and qualitative methodologies are associated with positivism and interpretivism respectively. Specific methodologies like surveys, experiments, ethnography, phenomenology, and case studies are also discussed. The role of ethics in research is briefly covered at the end.
The document discusses the debate around whether theory or empiricism should come first in cross-cultural analysis research. Some argue for a deductive, theory-first approach where hypotheses are derived from existing theories. Others argue for an inductive, empiricism-first approach where patterns in the data shape theories. The author examines examples of studies taking both approaches and ultimately argues that theory should precede empiricism to provide a framework for properly analyzing and interpreting empirical data and accounting for confounding variables. Starting with empiricism risks bias and manipulation of statistics to support predetermined conclusions.
Oom not doom a novel method for improving psychological science, Bradley WoodsNZ Psychological Society
The document summarizes a novel method called Observation Oriented Modeling (OOM) for improving psychological science. OOM aims to address issues with traditional research methods like overreliance on group-level analyses and improper use of null hypothesis significance testing. It uses binary coding of observations and matrix algebra operations to model causal relationships between deep structures in data. Statistics like the Classification Strength Index and Percent Correct Classification evaluate how well a target matrix is conformed by a rotated conforming matrix, indicating causal relationships.
MIX methode- building better theory by bridging the quantitative-qualitative ...politeknik NSC Surabaya
This document discusses the benefits of using qualitative research methods to build theory. It begins by distinguishing between quantitative and qualitative research paradigms in terms of their underlying philosophies, goals, and methods. The key difference is that quantitative research aims for replication and theory testing, while qualitative research aims to understand social phenomena from the perspectives of participants to develop new theories.
The document then provides an overview of qualitative research methods for data collection and analysis, focusing on grounded theory building. Grounded theory allows researchers to generate a detailed understanding of a phenomenon and develop a logically compelling analysis that identifies constructs and relationships to advance theory. The document argues that combining qualitative and quantitative methods can fully develop understanding and refine theories of organizational phenomena.
This document discusses and compares quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. It defines qualitative research as trying to understand people's perspectives and experiences through interpretation, with an inductive approach. Qualitative research allows probing individuals and building macro understandings. Quantitative research is defined as testing objective theories by examining variable relationships statistically and deductively, with standardized structures and controls for bias. The document indicates that a researcher's worldview should determine whether a qualitative or quantitative methodology best aligns with their research question.
1. The relationship between theory and research is dialectical, with theory guiding what data is collected in research and research findings challenging and further developing theories.
2. Research is the method used to gather data needed to generate and test theories. Descriptive research aims to describe phenomena and involves observation, while correlational research examines relationships between variables using surveys and interviews. Experimental research tests causal explanations by manipulating variables.
3. Theories are classified as descriptive, relational, or explanatory. Descriptive theories summarize common characteristics, relational theories specify relationships between characteristics, and explanatory theories predict causal relationships and can be tested experimentally. Research designs mirror these theory types as descriptive, correlational, or experimental respectively.
Berlin Summer School Presentation Olsen Data Epistemology and Methods Paradig...Wendy Olsen
Berlin Summer School in Social Science. Presentation by Wendy Olsen on Epistemology (Aspects of Knowing) in Methodological Paradigms (Schools of Thought)
Realism, Constructivism, Positivism, Empiricism
Data, Epistemology, Methodology, and Methods Paradigms. Data Collection [book] London: Sage 2012 Date of presentation, July 23, 2014.
This document discusses different views and definitions of research. It notes that research can be defined as a systematic process of gaining new information or answering questions. It also discusses research paradigms and the three main components - ontology, epistemology, and methodology. Positivism, interpretivism, and critical theory are examined as the three major research paradigms. Key characteristics and assumptions of each are outlined. Quantitative and qualitative methodologies are associated with positivism and interpretivism respectively. Specific methodologies like surveys, experiments, ethnography, phenomenology, and case studies are also discussed. The role of ethics in research is briefly covered at the end.
The document discusses the debate around whether theory or empiricism should come first in cross-cultural analysis research. Some argue for a deductive, theory-first approach where hypotheses are derived from existing theories. Others argue for an inductive, empiricism-first approach where patterns in the data shape theories. The author examines examples of studies taking both approaches and ultimately argues that theory should precede empiricism to provide a framework for properly analyzing and interpreting empirical data and accounting for confounding variables. Starting with empiricism risks bias and manipulation of statistics to support predetermined conclusions.
Oom not doom a novel method for improving psychological science, Bradley WoodsNZ Psychological Society
The document summarizes a novel method called Observation Oriented Modeling (OOM) for improving psychological science. OOM aims to address issues with traditional research methods like overreliance on group-level analyses and improper use of null hypothesis significance testing. It uses binary coding of observations and matrix algebra operations to model causal relationships between deep structures in data. Statistics like the Classification Strength Index and Percent Correct Classification evaluate how well a target matrix is conformed by a rotated conforming matrix, indicating causal relationships.
This chapter discusses the research methodology and design used in the study. It begins by explaining the importance of understanding the philosophical assumptions that underpin research. The research design is described as a descriptive and interpretive case study analyzed through qualitative methods. Data collection methods included questionnaires, participant observation, interviews, and member checking. The chapter then explores the interpretive research paradigm in more detail and discusses how this paradigm frames the study. It provides an overview of the key characteristics of interpretivism, including the nature of reality, knowledge, and the relationship between the researcher and participants.
This document provides an overview of definitions of mixed methods research that have emerged over time. It discusses early definitions that focused on mixing methods or methodology. More recent definitions emphasize mixing qualitative and quantitative elements across multiple phases of research for the purposes of breadth, depth, and corroboration. The document also examines definitions that view mixed methods as representing multiple perspectives or ways of understanding the social world. In summarizing various definitions, the document aims to capture the diverse viewpoints that exist regarding what constitutes mixed methods research.
This document contrasts naturalistic and humanistic views on approaches to health promotion. The naturalistic view sees human behavior as determined by independent factors and aims to identify these factors to design interventions using scientific methods. However, this risks reducing human beings to objects that can be controlled. An alternative is a humanistic approach that sees people as having free will and focuses on justifying the best course of action through moral consensus rather than behavior change alone. The document argues for considering both approaches.
The researchers developed a new scale called the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (OHQ) to measure psychological well-being and happiness. The OHQ is a more compact version of the original Oxford Happiness Inventory (OHI) with single statement items rated on a 6-point scale, rather than multiple choice. Tests of the OHQ showed high reliability, strong correlation with the OHI, and associations with other validated well-being measures. Factor analysis identified a single dimension of well-being measured by the OHQ, suggesting it effectively captures an individual's overall level of happiness in a brief format. The researchers conclude the OHQ is a valid alternative to the OHI for measuring subjective psychological well-being.
This document provides an overview of theoretical perspectives and methodologies used in learning design research. It discusses how researchers come from a variety of disciplines including education, computer science, psychology, and more. Common theoretical perspectives discussed include sociocultural theories like cultural historical activity theory, communities of practice, and actor network theory. Methodologies used include qualitative approaches like ethnography, case studies, and action research as well as quantitative content analysis and evaluation. The relationship between theories, methods, and different epistemological stances is also examined.
This document discusses theories related to nursing. It begins by defining theory and discussing the purposes and levels of theory, including micro, middle range, grand, and meta theories. It then examines Ramona Mercer's work on maternal role attainment and the effects of antepartum stress on families. Mercer's research identified variables that influence maternal role attainment and developed models of how these variables relate. The document also discusses Mercer's longitudinal research findings on maternal role attainment in the first year after birth. In less than 3 sentences, this document provides an overview of nursing theory, examines Ramona Mercer's influential work in maternal-child health theory and research, and summarizes some of her key findings.
This document discusses the research methodology used in a study. It begins by introducing the key components of research methodology: philosophy, strategy, and instruments. It then discusses the two major research philosophies - positivism and interpretivism. The document considers both approaches and rationale for an interpretivist philosophy to understand group adoption of information systems. Both quantitative and qualitative methods are used, including a survey instrument and case studies. The purpose is to have a rigorous yet relevant approach to answering the research question.
This document summarizes a literature review on the application of mixed methods research in organizational studies. It finds that mixed methods research, which combines quantitative and qualitative data and analysis, is becoming increasingly popular in fields like sociology, psychology, education, and health sciences. However, mixed methods have been less used in business and management research. The literature review examines articles from 2003-2009 in the journals Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and Organizational Research Methods to identify uses of mixed methods in organizational research. It finds that mixed methods can provide a more comprehensive understanding than single method studies and discusses benefits and challenges of mixed methods applications.
This document provides an overview of key concepts in research methodology. It discusses the meaning of research as a systematic process of discovering new facts. The document outlines different types of research including descriptive vs analytical, applied vs fundamental, quantitative vs qualitative, conceptual vs empirical. It also discusses research objectives such as exploratory, descriptive, diagnostic and hypothesis testing studies. The document emphasizes the importance of research for advancing knowledge and addressing practical problems. It distinguishes between research methods, which are techniques for collecting and analyzing data, and research methodology, which is the systematic process of solving a research problem.
E)pistemological Awareness, Instantiation of Methods, and Uninformed Methodol...Abdullah Saleem
This article explores issues of epistemological awareness and the instantiation of methods in qualitative research. It argues that researchers should make their epistemological stances, methodological decision points, and logical arguments transparent. The authors discuss conceptualizing epistemological awareness through either a series of decision junctures or a spatial perspective. They illustrate current practices around epistemological awareness and methods instantiation by analyzing education research studies from 2006. The authors adopt a hybrid theoretical perspective using internalism and constructionism to structure their arguments around these issues.
Epidemiologic measures and policy formulation lessons from potential outcomes...Bsie
This document summarizes key concepts from causal theory that can be used to analyze population health measures. It discusses three common models for defining causality: counterfactual or potential-outcome models, structural-equations models, and graphical models. The document focuses on counterfactual models, which define causation in terms of potential outcomes under hypothetical alternative actions. It argues that health measures based solely on hypothetical outcome removal are ambiguous and may mislead policymaking, which requires analysis of intervention effects across multiple health outcomes.
The document discusses the definition and nature of computer science. It states that computer science is the systematic study of algorithmic processes that describe and transform information. The field uses the scientific paradigm of forming and testing hypotheses through experimentation. Computer science qualifies as an exact science that studies natural and artificial information processes using a systematized body of knowledge and is used for prediction and verification. Computing is now considered a third leg of science alongside theory and experimentation.
This document discusses pragmatism and scientific freedom. It argues that pragmatism is a flexible approach that allows researchers to use what works best for their particular study. Pragmatism advocates using theories and approaches if they prove useful, without worrying about philosophical concepts like objective reality. Adopting pragmatism could help fight against rigid scientific structures and allow for more independent, free science. The document also discusses how science has been dominated by institutions and biased by money and politics. It argues that science should be free from such influences and restrictions on knowledge production and sharing.
This document provides an introduction to research, covering key areas such as the meaning of research, purpose of research, types of research, and the scientific method of inquiry. Research is defined as a systematic process of asking questions and answering them through objective and organized methods such as surveys and experiments. The main purposes of research are to describe phenomena, explain relationships, make predictions, and gain control over events. Educational research specifically aims to better understand and improve teaching and learning. The scientific method emphasizes objective, empirical, and systematic procedures to minimize bias.
This document discusses research in social work. It defines research as a systematic process of investigating questions to gain new knowledge. Social work research specifically aims to build the knowledge base for solving practical problems in social work practice and policy. It applies scientific methods to study human behavior and social phenomena in order to help social workers address issues faced by clients, agencies, and communities. The objectives of social work research include testing interventions, exploring effectiveness, and developing social work theory. It provides evidence to inform decision-making in social services.
Qualitative methods in Psychology ResearchDr. Chinchu C
An introduction to Qualitative Methods in Psychology. Intended mostly for UG/PG students. Conveys the essentials of Ontology and Epistemology and moves on to the popular methods in Qualitative Psychological Research
The document discusses grounded theory and the constant comparative method as valid qualitative research strategies for educators. It describes grounded theory as developing theory through qualitative data analysis in multiple stages of collecting, refining, and categorizing data. The constant comparative method involves coding and analyzing data simultaneously and developing concepts from comparisons. Data collection methods can include interviews, observations, and document collection. Analysis involves reducing data, open coding, axial coding to relate categories, and selective coding to identify the core category. Theoretical sampling aids analysis and trustworthiness is ensured through triangulation, validity measures, and acknowledging limitations. Grounded theory allows important concepts to emerge from the data through this rigorous process.
This document discusses evidence-based medicine and the Russo-Williamson Thesis. It argues that to establish a causal claim, one needs evidence that a cause makes a difference to an effect as well as evidence of an underlying mechanism. It states that different types of evidence should be integrated, rather than one type being considered definitively better than others. Mechanistic evidence and evidence of difference-making provide complementary strengths when combined. Guidelines for evaluating causal evidence should consider mechanisms as well as statistical associations.
Role of theory in research by priyadarshinee pradhanPriya Das
This document discusses the role of theory in research. It defines research as a systematic process of investigation to discover new facts or verify existing facts. Theory is defined as a framework that helps observe and understand phenomena by connecting variables. There are two approaches to theory - inductive theory develops concepts from data, while deductive theory uses existing theory to guide research. The relationship between theory and research is bidirectional, as theory informs research and research can validate or refine theory over time based on empirical evidence.
La inteligencia artificial ha evolucionado desde sus orígenes en 1943 hasta convertirse en un campo de investigación activo. Se divide en inteligencia artificial convencional e inteligencia computacional. Se aplica a problemas de producción, atención al cliente y otros campos usando técnicas como sistemas expertos, redes neuronales y visión por computadora.
Información técnica sobre el proceso de ciclo de vida, etapas de implantación, normas de aplicación (UNE 150301, PCR, EPD...), bareras a su implantación, etc.
This chapter discusses the research methodology and design used in the study. It begins by explaining the importance of understanding the philosophical assumptions that underpin research. The research design is described as a descriptive and interpretive case study analyzed through qualitative methods. Data collection methods included questionnaires, participant observation, interviews, and member checking. The chapter then explores the interpretive research paradigm in more detail and discusses how this paradigm frames the study. It provides an overview of the key characteristics of interpretivism, including the nature of reality, knowledge, and the relationship between the researcher and participants.
This document provides an overview of definitions of mixed methods research that have emerged over time. It discusses early definitions that focused on mixing methods or methodology. More recent definitions emphasize mixing qualitative and quantitative elements across multiple phases of research for the purposes of breadth, depth, and corroboration. The document also examines definitions that view mixed methods as representing multiple perspectives or ways of understanding the social world. In summarizing various definitions, the document aims to capture the diverse viewpoints that exist regarding what constitutes mixed methods research.
This document contrasts naturalistic and humanistic views on approaches to health promotion. The naturalistic view sees human behavior as determined by independent factors and aims to identify these factors to design interventions using scientific methods. However, this risks reducing human beings to objects that can be controlled. An alternative is a humanistic approach that sees people as having free will and focuses on justifying the best course of action through moral consensus rather than behavior change alone. The document argues for considering both approaches.
The researchers developed a new scale called the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire (OHQ) to measure psychological well-being and happiness. The OHQ is a more compact version of the original Oxford Happiness Inventory (OHI) with single statement items rated on a 6-point scale, rather than multiple choice. Tests of the OHQ showed high reliability, strong correlation with the OHI, and associations with other validated well-being measures. Factor analysis identified a single dimension of well-being measured by the OHQ, suggesting it effectively captures an individual's overall level of happiness in a brief format. The researchers conclude the OHQ is a valid alternative to the OHI for measuring subjective psychological well-being.
This document provides an overview of theoretical perspectives and methodologies used in learning design research. It discusses how researchers come from a variety of disciplines including education, computer science, psychology, and more. Common theoretical perspectives discussed include sociocultural theories like cultural historical activity theory, communities of practice, and actor network theory. Methodologies used include qualitative approaches like ethnography, case studies, and action research as well as quantitative content analysis and evaluation. The relationship between theories, methods, and different epistemological stances is also examined.
This document discusses theories related to nursing. It begins by defining theory and discussing the purposes and levels of theory, including micro, middle range, grand, and meta theories. It then examines Ramona Mercer's work on maternal role attainment and the effects of antepartum stress on families. Mercer's research identified variables that influence maternal role attainment and developed models of how these variables relate. The document also discusses Mercer's longitudinal research findings on maternal role attainment in the first year after birth. In less than 3 sentences, this document provides an overview of nursing theory, examines Ramona Mercer's influential work in maternal-child health theory and research, and summarizes some of her key findings.
This document discusses the research methodology used in a study. It begins by introducing the key components of research methodology: philosophy, strategy, and instruments. It then discusses the two major research philosophies - positivism and interpretivism. The document considers both approaches and rationale for an interpretivist philosophy to understand group adoption of information systems. Both quantitative and qualitative methods are used, including a survey instrument and case studies. The purpose is to have a rigorous yet relevant approach to answering the research question.
This document summarizes a literature review on the application of mixed methods research in organizational studies. It finds that mixed methods research, which combines quantitative and qualitative data and analysis, is becoming increasingly popular in fields like sociology, psychology, education, and health sciences. However, mixed methods have been less used in business and management research. The literature review examines articles from 2003-2009 in the journals Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and Organizational Research Methods to identify uses of mixed methods in organizational research. It finds that mixed methods can provide a more comprehensive understanding than single method studies and discusses benefits and challenges of mixed methods applications.
This document provides an overview of key concepts in research methodology. It discusses the meaning of research as a systematic process of discovering new facts. The document outlines different types of research including descriptive vs analytical, applied vs fundamental, quantitative vs qualitative, conceptual vs empirical. It also discusses research objectives such as exploratory, descriptive, diagnostic and hypothesis testing studies. The document emphasizes the importance of research for advancing knowledge and addressing practical problems. It distinguishes between research methods, which are techniques for collecting and analyzing data, and research methodology, which is the systematic process of solving a research problem.
E)pistemological Awareness, Instantiation of Methods, and Uninformed Methodol...Abdullah Saleem
This article explores issues of epistemological awareness and the instantiation of methods in qualitative research. It argues that researchers should make their epistemological stances, methodological decision points, and logical arguments transparent. The authors discuss conceptualizing epistemological awareness through either a series of decision junctures or a spatial perspective. They illustrate current practices around epistemological awareness and methods instantiation by analyzing education research studies from 2006. The authors adopt a hybrid theoretical perspective using internalism and constructionism to structure their arguments around these issues.
Epidemiologic measures and policy formulation lessons from potential outcomes...Bsie
This document summarizes key concepts from causal theory that can be used to analyze population health measures. It discusses three common models for defining causality: counterfactual or potential-outcome models, structural-equations models, and graphical models. The document focuses on counterfactual models, which define causation in terms of potential outcomes under hypothetical alternative actions. It argues that health measures based solely on hypothetical outcome removal are ambiguous and may mislead policymaking, which requires analysis of intervention effects across multiple health outcomes.
The document discusses the definition and nature of computer science. It states that computer science is the systematic study of algorithmic processes that describe and transform information. The field uses the scientific paradigm of forming and testing hypotheses through experimentation. Computer science qualifies as an exact science that studies natural and artificial information processes using a systematized body of knowledge and is used for prediction and verification. Computing is now considered a third leg of science alongside theory and experimentation.
This document discusses pragmatism and scientific freedom. It argues that pragmatism is a flexible approach that allows researchers to use what works best for their particular study. Pragmatism advocates using theories and approaches if they prove useful, without worrying about philosophical concepts like objective reality. Adopting pragmatism could help fight against rigid scientific structures and allow for more independent, free science. The document also discusses how science has been dominated by institutions and biased by money and politics. It argues that science should be free from such influences and restrictions on knowledge production and sharing.
This document provides an introduction to research, covering key areas such as the meaning of research, purpose of research, types of research, and the scientific method of inquiry. Research is defined as a systematic process of asking questions and answering them through objective and organized methods such as surveys and experiments. The main purposes of research are to describe phenomena, explain relationships, make predictions, and gain control over events. Educational research specifically aims to better understand and improve teaching and learning. The scientific method emphasizes objective, empirical, and systematic procedures to minimize bias.
This document discusses research in social work. It defines research as a systematic process of investigating questions to gain new knowledge. Social work research specifically aims to build the knowledge base for solving practical problems in social work practice and policy. It applies scientific methods to study human behavior and social phenomena in order to help social workers address issues faced by clients, agencies, and communities. The objectives of social work research include testing interventions, exploring effectiveness, and developing social work theory. It provides evidence to inform decision-making in social services.
Qualitative methods in Psychology ResearchDr. Chinchu C
An introduction to Qualitative Methods in Psychology. Intended mostly for UG/PG students. Conveys the essentials of Ontology and Epistemology and moves on to the popular methods in Qualitative Psychological Research
The document discusses grounded theory and the constant comparative method as valid qualitative research strategies for educators. It describes grounded theory as developing theory through qualitative data analysis in multiple stages of collecting, refining, and categorizing data. The constant comparative method involves coding and analyzing data simultaneously and developing concepts from comparisons. Data collection methods can include interviews, observations, and document collection. Analysis involves reducing data, open coding, axial coding to relate categories, and selective coding to identify the core category. Theoretical sampling aids analysis and trustworthiness is ensured through triangulation, validity measures, and acknowledging limitations. Grounded theory allows important concepts to emerge from the data through this rigorous process.
This document discusses evidence-based medicine and the Russo-Williamson Thesis. It argues that to establish a causal claim, one needs evidence that a cause makes a difference to an effect as well as evidence of an underlying mechanism. It states that different types of evidence should be integrated, rather than one type being considered definitively better than others. Mechanistic evidence and evidence of difference-making provide complementary strengths when combined. Guidelines for evaluating causal evidence should consider mechanisms as well as statistical associations.
Role of theory in research by priyadarshinee pradhanPriya Das
This document discusses the role of theory in research. It defines research as a systematic process of investigation to discover new facts or verify existing facts. Theory is defined as a framework that helps observe and understand phenomena by connecting variables. There are two approaches to theory - inductive theory develops concepts from data, while deductive theory uses existing theory to guide research. The relationship between theory and research is bidirectional, as theory informs research and research can validate or refine theory over time based on empirical evidence.
La inteligencia artificial ha evolucionado desde sus orígenes en 1943 hasta convertirse en un campo de investigación activo. Se divide en inteligencia artificial convencional e inteligencia computacional. Se aplica a problemas de producción, atención al cliente y otros campos usando técnicas como sistemas expertos, redes neuronales y visión por computadora.
Información técnica sobre el proceso de ciclo de vida, etapas de implantación, normas de aplicación (UNE 150301, PCR, EPD...), bareras a su implantación, etc.
1) La inteligencia artificial se ocupa del diseño de sistemas computacionales inteligentes que exhiben características asociadas a la inteligencia humana como el lenguaje, el aprendizaje y la resolución de problemas.
2) Los sistemas expertos son programas que capturan conocimiento de un dominio y razonan sobre él para resolver problemas complejos, imitando el razonamiento humano.
3) Los sistemas expertos se han aplicado a áreas como reparación, embarques, mercadotecnia y optimización de almacenes
My presentation is about the design of SirajRock. In a few sentences, it introduces the topic of the presentation which is the design of something called SirajRock. Unfortunately there are no other details provided in the document to include in the summary.
La inteligencia artificial ha evolucionado desde sus orígenes en 1943 hasta convertirse en un campo de investigación activo. Se divide en inteligencia artificial convencional e inteligencia computacional. Se aplica a problemas de producción, atención al cliente y más, utilizando técnicas como sistemas expertos, redes neuronales y visión por computadora.
El documento describe el caso de un restaurante con varias sucursales en diferentes países que requiere un sistema de información para gestionar pedidos, inventario, empleados y finanzas. Se deben aplicar las perspectivas de accesibilidad, internacionalización, usabilidad y ubicación. La perspectiva de ubicación afecta la sincronización de datos, latencia y variaciones entre locales. Algunos problemas son la comunicación con cocineros sordos, cumplimiento de normas internacionales y diferencias horarias.
Este documento resume las reformas realizadas al Código de Defensa Social del Estado Libre y Soberano de Puebla entre 1986 y 2010. Durante este período se reformaron, adicionaron y derogaron varios artículos del código para modificar su contenido. Las reformas incluyeron cambios a artículos específicos, secciones, capítulos y libros del código.
This document provides an overview of quantitative research methods. It discusses key characteristics such as using numerical data suitable for statistical analysis and examining relationships between variables. Quantitative research aims to test hypotheses that are developed based on theories. It emphasizes objectivity, control of variables, and generalizing from samples to populations. Examples of quantitative studies examine the effects of class size and interventions for autism. Ethical issues around informed consent and treatment of participants are also addressed.
The positivist approach relies on quantitative methods like experiments and statistical analysis to test hypotheses and discover generalizable truths. It assumes an objective reality can be observed and measured. The interpretivist approach uses qualitative methods like interviews and case studies to understand phenomena within their specific contexts. It sees reality as socially constructed and allows for multiple perspectives. Both approaches agree research aims to generate new knowledge but diverge on their methods and philosophical assumptions.
This document discusses different research philosophies and methodologies. It outlines positivism and interpretivism as the two major research philosophies in Western science. Positivists believe reality can be observed objectively, while interpretivists believe reality can only be understood through subjective interpretation. The document then provides examples and descriptions of various research methodologies, including experiments, surveys, case studies, and action research, discussing their strengths and weaknesses.
Difference Between Quantitative And Qualitative ResearchMelanie Smith
The document discusses the differences between quantitative and qualitative research methods. It notes that while there may seem to be little difference to those new to research, scholars see vast differences between the two models. It describes how quantitative research relies on empirical data and statistics while qualitative research is more subjective and naturalistic. The document also discusses how qualitative research has become more rigorous over time in its data collection and analysis, and that a combined or integrated approach using both methods can provide a more comprehensive way to study phenomena.
Cross-cultural psychology explores the relationship between minds and the complex environments that shape them. It focuses on how environments like workplaces, cultural traditions, and political systems influence basic cognitive processes. Methodology in cross-cultural psychology includes both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Quantitative methods use experimental designs and measures of correlation, while qualitative research is conducted in natural settings using methods like interviews.
This document discusses mixed methods research. It provides an overview of why researchers use mixed methods, addressing criticisms of combining qualitative and quantitative research. It also challenges the distinction between these paradigms by analyzing seven common assumptions. Considerations for mixed methods designs include the timing, weighting, and mixing of qualitative and quantitative data. Key mixed methods designs are triangulation, embedded, explanatory, and exploratory approaches. Practical issues like research politics, costs, skills, and team organization are also covered.
This document discusses different research paradigms and methodologies in health research. It begins by outlining the positivist and interpretivist paradigms, which represent different epistemological approaches to knowledge and ways of knowing about the world. The positivist paradigm is linked to quantitative research methods and aims to produce objective evidence through scientific principles. The interpretivist paradigm is based on the principle that knowledge derives from human perception, and thus qualitative research methods are used that consider how human subjects understand the world. The document then discusses advantages and disadvantages of quantitative and qualitative research methods. It also introduces mixed methods research, which combines both approaches. Finally, it outlines some specific qualitative research methods commonly used in health research, including using documents, interviews,
Analyze Quantitative And Qualitative ResearchAmy Roman
This document provides an overview of qualitative and quantitative research approaches. It discusses the key differences between the two approaches in terms of their philosophical assumptions, research designs, and methods. Specifically, it notes that quantitative research tests objective theories through examining relationships between variables, while qualitative research explores social problems through understanding people's experiences. The document also outlines common research designs for each approach, such as experimental, survey, and case study designs for quantitative research and grounded theory, ethnography, and phenomenology for qualitative research.
This document discusses qualitative research methods for nursing studies. It defines qualitative research as a type of scientific inquiry that aims to understand human experiences and responses. The document notes that qualitative research is becoming more important for developing nursing knowledge and evidence-based practice. It compares qualitative and quantitative methods, noting that qualitative research is more flexible and focuses on understanding phenomena through naturalistic inquiry, while quantitative research seeks to confirm hypotheses and predict or control outcomes.
ANYTIME YOU COMPLETE A PAPERESSAY in this course you must follow .docxfestockton
ANYTIME YOU COMPLETE A PAPER/ESSAY in this course you must follow the APA rules. Use these requirements to attain full credit regardless if they are all listed out in the directions within the course.
· Set paper with 1-inch margins all around. Spacing ‘before’ and ‘after’ set at 0. Entire document including reference list and running is double spaced, Times New Roman, font 12 with all paragraphs indented on the first line by 1/2 inch.
· One title page with APA running heads and page numbers and the title, your name, school, professor’s name and credentials, date. Video for running head directions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u47x2dvQHs
· There is NO ABSTRACT in papers for this course. At the top of page 2 you will repeat the title of your assignment (not in bold, but centered) and then write a brief introduction paragraph of the ENTIRE paper (main sections should be mentioned; THIS INCLUDES ANY TOPICS FOR CASE STUDY SECTIONS).
· Intro is followed by a Level 1 subheading (bold and centered) for the first half of the assignment. This week it’s Nursing Past Related to Current Profession. Any question/point you are addressing under this heading should be marked clearly with Level 2 subheading which are bolded and flush left.
· Immediately after the first section above without any spaces, you will also use another Level 1 subheading (bold and centered) prior to the second half of the assignment which is the case study. This week it’s Professional Nursing Organizations. Again, differentiate which question/point you are answering by using a Level 2 subheading (bold and at the left margin).
· After both sections are discussed at length – there will be ONE Conclusion - needed for all papers as the last Level 1 subheading bold and centered that summarizes the entire paper/knowledge gained
· There will be ONE alphabetized reference page for all sources set “hanging” with references in APA format. All citations need a reference!
· All references listed are cited correctly in APA format in the text! Points are docked for incorrect citations and not meeting the source requirement!
· Should use 3rd person the majority of the time but it is OK to use 1st person when describing a personal experience related to a specific question.
Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, Vol 1 (1) 2009
Quantitative versus Qualitative Methods: Understanding Why Quantitative Methods are
Predominant in Criminology and Criminal Justice
George E. Higgins
University of Louisville
Abstract
The development of knowledge is important for criminology and criminal justice. Two
predominant types of methods are available for criminologists’ to use--quantitative and
qualitative methods. A debate is presently taking place in the literature as to which of these
methods is the proper method to provide knowledge in criminology and criminal justice. The
present study outlines the key issues for both methods and suggests that a criminologist’ resea ...
Grounded theory is a qualitative research method that aims to generate theory from data. The document discusses grounded theory's development by Glaser and Strauss and its key assumptions. It proposes using grounded theory to study workplace bullying in small organizations as a research topic. Both the merits and disadvantages of using grounded theory are discussed, such as the risk of producing a poorly designed framework if not fully understanding grounded theory's paradigm and methodology.
This document discusses correlational research, including its importance, uses, and considerations for planning and conducting correlational studies. Correlational research aims to determine relationships between two or more variables and is commonly used in nursing and healthcare research. Key factors discussed include selecting appropriate variables, sampling methods, reliable measurement tools, and techniques for analyzing correlational data such as Pearson's r, Spearman's ρ, chi-square tests, t-tests, and ANOVA. The document emphasizes that correlational research generates useful evidence to inform healthcare practice and decision making.
The document discusses the key aspects and goals of qualitative research. It states that the goal of qualitative research is to explore, describe and explain human behavior through close observation and listening. Qualitative data involves words rather than numbers to present results. Some common qualitative research methods mentioned include ethnography, interviews, focus groups, and open-ended questionnaires. Qualitative research typically involves smaller sample sizes due to the observation-based methods used.
Qualitative Research and Family Psychology by Jane F. GilgunJim Bloyd
Abstract: Qualitative approaches have much to offer family psychology. Among the uses for qualitative methods are theory building, model and hypothesis testing, descriptions of lived experiences, typologies, items for surveys and measurement tools, and case examples that answer ques- tions that surveys cannot. Despite the usefulness of these products, issues related to gener- alizability, subjectivity, and language, among others, block some researchers from appreci- ating the contributions that qualitative methods can make. This article provides descriptions of procedures that lead to these useful products and discusses alternative ways of under- standing aspects of qualitative approaches that some researchers view as problematic.
Gilgun, J. (2005). Qualitative Research and Family Psychology. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(1), 40-50. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.40
Pragmatism is a philosophical perspective in social science research that overcomes the limitations of positivism and interpretivism by using mixed methods. It integrates quantitative and qualitative data to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the issues being studied. Pragmatism is grounded in real-world experiences and solutions, using various research methods and theories as tools to address problems. This approach provides benefits like triangulation that improve the validity and applicability of social science research findings.
difference between the qualitative and quantitative researcher, variables, co...laraib asif
This document summarizes the key differences between qualitative and quantitative research methods. Qualitative research aims to understand human behaviors and contexts through inductive analysis like interviews and observations, while quantitative research tests hypotheses through deductive analysis using numerical data and statistics. Some key differences include sample sizes (smaller for qualitative), data collection techniques (open-ended for qualitative vs. standardized for quantitative), and generalizability of findings (qualitative explores specific contexts while quantitative seeks broader application). The document also discusses mixed methods research, which combines qualitative and quantitative approaches to leverage their respective strengths.
The document discusses the research methodology used in a study. It will employ both survey research and case study research. Survey research includes developing and validating an instrument to measure meeting processes, which will be administered before and during case studies. Case study research will involve in-depth analysis of organizations implementing group support systems to improve meetings. Both positivist and interpretivist approaches will be used to gather both quantitative and qualitative data.
This document provides an overview of research paradigms. It discusses key paradigms including positivism, post-positivism, constructivism, and pragmatism. For each paradigm, it describes the underlying ontology, epistemology, methodology, and methods. It also discusses the components of a research paradigm including ontology, epistemology, methodology, and methods. Quantitative and qualitative research designs are introduced. Experimental designs such as true experiments and quasi-experiments are covered as well as non-experimental designs like descriptive and correlational designs.
This document provides an overview of research methodology. It discusses that research methodology is the systematic process of solving a research problem. It involves understanding which research methods and techniques are applicable to specific problems. The chapter then describes the procedural aspects used in the research process, including research philosophy, philosophical worldviews, research approach, research design, data collection strategies, data analysis, and ethical considerations. It presents the figure showing the methodological structure of research. Finally, it discusses various philosophical worldviews including postpositivism that guide researchers in determining the appropriate research design based on the research question.
Building Production Ready Search Pipelines with Spark and MilvusZilliz
Spark is the widely used ETL tool for processing, indexing and ingesting data to serving stack for search. Milvus is the production-ready open-source vector database. In this talk we will show how to use Spark to process unstructured data to extract vector representations, and push the vectors to Milvus vector database for search serving.
In his public lecture, Christian Timmerer provides insights into the fascinating history of video streaming, starting from its humble beginnings before YouTube to the groundbreaking technologies that now dominate platforms like Netflix and ORF ON. Timmerer also presents provocative contributions of his own that have significantly influenced the industry. He concludes by looking at future challenges and invites the audience to join in a discussion.
In the rapidly evolving landscape of technologies, XML continues to play a vital role in structuring, storing, and transporting data across diverse systems. The recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) present new methodologies for enhancing XML development workflows, introducing efficiency, automation, and intelligent capabilities. This presentation will outline the scope and perspective of utilizing AI in XML development. The potential benefits and the possible pitfalls will be highlighted, providing a balanced view of the subject.
We will explore the capabilities of AI in understanding XML markup languages and autonomously creating structured XML content. Additionally, we will examine the capacity of AI to enrich plain text with appropriate XML markup. Practical examples and methodological guidelines will be provided to elucidate how AI can be effectively prompted to interpret and generate accurate XML markup.
Further emphasis will be placed on the role of AI in developing XSLT, or schemas such as XSD and Schematron. We will address the techniques and strategies adopted to create prompts for generating code, explaining code, or refactoring the code, and the results achieved.
The discussion will extend to how AI can be used to transform XML content. In particular, the focus will be on the use of AI XPath extension functions in XSLT, Schematron, Schematron Quick Fixes, or for XML content refactoring.
The presentation aims to deliver a comprehensive overview of AI usage in XML development, providing attendees with the necessary knowledge to make informed decisions. Whether you’re at the early stages of adopting AI or considering integrating it in advanced XML development, this presentation will cover all levels of expertise.
By highlighting the potential advantages and challenges of integrating AI with XML development tools and languages, the presentation seeks to inspire thoughtful conversation around the future of XML development. We’ll not only delve into the technical aspects of AI-powered XML development but also discuss practical implications and possible future directions.
HCL Notes and Domino License Cost Reduction in the World of DLAUpanagenda
Webinar Recording: https://www.panagenda.com/webinars/hcl-notes-and-domino-license-cost-reduction-in-the-world-of-dlau/
The introduction of DLAU and the CCB & CCX licensing model caused quite a stir in the HCL community. As a Notes and Domino customer, you may have faced challenges with unexpected user counts and license costs. You probably have questions on how this new licensing approach works and how to benefit from it. Most importantly, you likely have budget constraints and want to save money where possible. Don’t worry, we can help with all of this!
We’ll show you how to fix common misconfigurations that cause higher-than-expected user counts, and how to identify accounts which you can deactivate to save money. There are also frequent patterns that can cause unnecessary cost, like using a person document instead of a mail-in for shared mailboxes. We’ll provide examples and solutions for those as well. And naturally we’ll explain the new licensing model.
Join HCL Ambassador Marc Thomas in this webinar with a special guest appearance from Franz Walder. It will give you the tools and know-how to stay on top of what is going on with Domino licensing. You will be able lower your cost through an optimized configuration and keep it low going forward.
These topics will be covered
- Reducing license cost by finding and fixing misconfigurations and superfluous accounts
- How do CCB and CCX licenses really work?
- Understanding the DLAU tool and how to best utilize it
- Tips for common problem areas, like team mailboxes, functional/test users, etc
- Practical examples and best practices to implement right away
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 5DianaGray10
Welcome to UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series part 5. In this session, we will cover CI/CD with devops.
Topics covered:
CI/CD with in UiPath
End-to-end overview of CI/CD pipeline with Azure devops
Speaker:
Lyndsey Byblow, Test Suite Sales Engineer @ UiPath, Inc.
Maruthi Prithivirajan, Head of ASEAN & IN Solution Architecture, Neo4j
Get an inside look at the latest Neo4j innovations that enable relationship-driven intelligence at scale. Learn more about the newest cloud integrations and product enhancements that make Neo4j an essential choice for developers building apps with interconnected data and generative AI.
Goodbye Windows 11: Make Way for Nitrux Linux 3.5.0!SOFTTECHHUB
As the digital landscape continually evolves, operating systems play a critical role in shaping user experiences and productivity. The launch of Nitrux Linux 3.5.0 marks a significant milestone, offering a robust alternative to traditional systems such as Windows 11. This article delves into the essence of Nitrux Linux 3.5.0, exploring its unique features, advantages, and how it stands as a compelling choice for both casual users and tech enthusiasts.
GraphRAG for Life Science to increase LLM accuracyTomaz Bratanic
GraphRAG for life science domain, where you retriever information from biomedical knowledge graphs using LLMs to increase the accuracy and performance of generated answers
TrustArc Webinar - 2024 Global Privacy SurveyTrustArc
How does your privacy program stack up against your peers? What challenges are privacy teams tackling and prioritizing in 2024?
In the fifth annual Global Privacy Benchmarks Survey, we asked over 1,800 global privacy professionals and business executives to share their perspectives on the current state of privacy inside and outside of their organizations. This year’s report focused on emerging areas of importance for privacy and compliance professionals, including considerations and implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, building brand trust, and different approaches for achieving higher privacy competence scores.
See how organizational priorities and strategic approaches to data security and privacy are evolving around the globe.
This webinar will review:
- The top 10 privacy insights from the fifth annual Global Privacy Benchmarks Survey
- The top challenges for privacy leaders, practitioners, and organizations in 2024
- Key themes to consider in developing and maintaining your privacy program
Threats to mobile devices are more prevalent and increasing in scope and complexity. Users of mobile devices desire to take full advantage of the features
available on those devices, but many of the features provide convenience and capability but sacrifice security. This best practices guide outlines steps the users can take to better protect personal devices and information.
Let's Integrate MuleSoft RPA, COMPOSER, APM with AWS IDP along with Slackshyamraj55
Discover the seamless integration of RPA (Robotic Process Automation), COMPOSER, and APM with AWS IDP enhanced with Slack notifications. Explore how these technologies converge to streamline workflows, optimize performance, and ensure secure access, all while leveraging the power of AWS IDP and real-time communication via Slack notifications.
Removing Uninteresting Bytes in Software FuzzingAftab Hussain
Imagine a world where software fuzzing, the process of mutating bytes in test seeds to uncover hidden and erroneous program behaviors, becomes faster and more effective. A lot depends on the initial seeds, which can significantly dictate the trajectory of a fuzzing campaign, particularly in terms of how long it takes to uncover interesting behaviour in your code. We introduce DIAR, a technique designed to speedup fuzzing campaigns by pinpointing and eliminating those uninteresting bytes in the seeds. Picture this: instead of wasting valuable resources on meaningless mutations in large, bloated seeds, DIAR removes the unnecessary bytes, streamlining the entire process.
In this work, we equipped AFL, a popular fuzzer, with DIAR and examined two critical Linux libraries -- Libxml's xmllint, a tool for parsing xml documents, and Binutil's readelf, an essential debugging and security analysis command-line tool used to display detailed information about ELF (Executable and Linkable Format). Our preliminary results show that AFL+DIAR does not only discover new paths more quickly but also achieves higher coverage overall. This work thus showcases how starting with lean and optimized seeds can lead to faster, more comprehensive fuzzing campaigns -- and DIAR helps you find such seeds.
- These are slides of the talk given at IEEE International Conference on Software Testing Verification and Validation Workshop, ICSTW 2022.
Driving Business Innovation: Latest Generative AI Advancements & Success StorySafe Software
Are you ready to revolutionize how you handle data? Join us for a webinar where we’ll bring you up to speed with the latest advancements in Generative AI technology and discover how leveraging FME with tools from giants like Google Gemini, Amazon, and Microsoft OpenAI can supercharge your workflow efficiency.
During the hour, we’ll take you through:
Guest Speaker Segment with Hannah Barrington: Dive into the world of dynamic real estate marketing with Hannah, the Marketing Manager at Workspace Group. Hear firsthand how their team generates engaging descriptions for thousands of office units by integrating diverse data sources—from PDF floorplans to web pages—using FME transformers, like OpenAIVisionConnector and AnthropicVisionConnector. This use case will show you how GenAI can streamline content creation for marketing across the board.
Ollama Use Case: Learn how Scenario Specialist Dmitri Bagh has utilized Ollama within FME to input data, create custom models, and enhance security protocols. This segment will include demos to illustrate the full capabilities of FME in AI-driven processes.
Custom AI Models: Discover how to leverage FME to build personalized AI models using your data. Whether it’s populating a model with local data for added security or integrating public AI tools, find out how FME facilitates a versatile and secure approach to AI.
We’ll wrap up with a live Q&A session where you can engage with our experts on your specific use cases, and learn more about optimizing your data workflows with AI.
This webinar is ideal for professionals seeking to harness the power of AI within their data management systems while ensuring high levels of customization and security. Whether you're a novice or an expert, gain actionable insights and strategies to elevate your data processes. Join us to see how FME and AI can revolutionize how you work with data!
2. 44 JOANNA E. M. SALE ET AL.
Some people would say that we are beyond the debate and can now freely use
mixed- method designs to carry out relevant and valuable research. According to
Carey (1993), quantitative and qualitative techniques are merely tools; integrating
them allows us to answer questions of substantial importance. However, just be-
cause they are often combined does not mean that it is always appropriate to do
so.
We believe that mixed-methods research is now being adopted uncritically by
a new generation of researchers who have overlooked the underlying assumptions
behind the qualitative-quantitative debate. In short, the philosophical distinctions
between them have become so blurred that researchers are left with the impression
that the differences between the two are merely technical (Smith and Heshius,
1986).
OBJECTIVE
Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in a single study is widely prac-
ticed and accepted in many areas of health care research. Despite the arguments
presented for integrating methods, we will demonstrate that each of these methods
is based on a particular paradigm, a patterned set of assumptions concerning reality
(ontology), knowledge of that reality (epistemology), and the particular ways of
knowing that reality (methodology) (Guba, 1990). In fact, based on their paradig-
matic assumptions, the two methods do not study the same phenomena. Evidence
of this is reflected by the notion that quantitative methods cannot access some of
the phenomena that health researchers are interested in, such as lived experiences
as a patient, social interactions, and the patients’ perspective of doctor-patient inter-
actions. The information presented in this paper is not new in the sense that we are
making a “new” case for or against the debate. Rather, based on the paradigmatic
differences concerning the phenomenon under study, we propose a "new" solution
for using mixed-methods in research that we believe is both methodologically and
philosophically sound.
2. The Two Paradigms
The quantitative paradigm is based on positivism. Science is characterized by
empirical research; all phenomena can be reduced to empirical indicators which
represent the truth. The ontological position of the quantitative paradigm is that
there is only one truth, an objective reality that exists independent of human
perception. Epistemologically, the investigator and investigated are independent
entities. Therefore, the investigator is capable of studying a phenomenon without
influencing it or being influenced by it; “inquiry takes place as through a one
way mirror” (Guba and Lincoln, 1994: 110). The goal is to measure and analyze
causal relationships between variables within a value-free framework (Denzin and
Lincoln, 1994). Techniques to ensure this include randomization, blinding, highly
3. REVISITING THE QUANTITATIVE-QUALITATIVE DEBATE 45
structured protocols, and written or orally administered questionnaires with a lim-
ited range of predetermined responses. Sample sizes are much larger than those
used in qualitative research so that statistical methods to ensure that samples are
representative can be used (Carey, 1993).
In contrast, the qualitative paradigm is based on interpretivism (Altheide and
Johnson, 1994; Kuzel and Like, 1991; Secker et al., 1995) and constructivism
(Guba and Lincoln, 1994). Ontologically speaking, there are multiple realities
or multiple truths based on one’s construction of reality. Reality is socially con-
structed (Berger and Luckmann, 1966) and so is constantly changing. On an
epistemological level, there is no access to reality independent of our minds, no
external referent by which to compare claims of truth (Smith, 1983). The invest-
igator and the object of study are interactively linked so that findings are mutually
created within the context of the situation which shapes the inquiry (Guba and
Lincoln, 1994; Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). This suggests that reality has no exist-
ence prior to the activity of investigation, and reality ceases to exist when we no
longer focus on it (Smith, 1983). The emphasis of qualitative research is on process
and meanings. Techniques used in qualitative studies include in-depth and focus
group interviews and participant observation. Samples are not meant to repres-
ent large populations. Rather, small, purposeful samples of articulate respondents
are used because they can provide important information, not because they are
representative of a larger group (Reid, 1996).
The underlying assumptions of the quantitative and qualitative paradigms result
in differences which extend beyond philosophical and methodological debates. The
two paradigms have given rise to different journals, different sources of funding,
different expertise, and different methods. There are even differences in scientific
language used to describe them. For example, the term “observational work” may
refer to case control studies for a quantitative researcher, but to a qualitative re-
searcher it would refer to ethnographic immersion in a culture. “Validity” to a
quantitative researcher would mean that results correspond to how things really are
out there in the world, whereas to a qualitative researcher “valid” is a label applied
to an interpretation or description with which one agrees (Smith and Heshusius,
1986). Similarly, the phrase “research has shown . . . ” or “the results of research
indicate . . . ” refers to an accurate reflection of reality to the quantitative researcher,
but to a qualitative researcher it announces an interpretation that itself becomes
reality (Smith and Heshusius, 1986).
The different assumptions of the quantitative and qualitative paradigms ori-
ginated in the positivism-idealism debate of the late 19th century (Smith, 1983).
The inherent differences rarely are discussed or acknowledged by those using
mixed-method designs. The reasons why may be because the positivist paradigm
has become the predominant frame of reference in the physical and social sci-
ences. In addition, research methods are presented as not belonging to or reflecting
paradigms. Caracelli and Greene (1993) refer to mixed-method designs as those
where neither type of method is inherently linked to a particular inquiry paradigm
4. 46 JOANNA E. M. SALE ET AL.
or philosophy. Guba and Lincoln (1989) claim that questions of method are second-
ary to questions of paradigms. We argue that methods are shaped by and represent
paradigms that reflect a particular belief about reality. We also maintain that the
assumptions of the qualitative paradigm are based on a worldview not represented
by the quantitative paradigm.
3. Arguments Presented for Mixed-Method Research
Having discussed some of the basic philosophical assumptions of the two
paradigms, we are better able to address the arguments given for combining quant-
itative and qualitative methods in a single study. There are several viewpoints as
to why qualitative and quantitative methods can be combined. First, the two ap-
proaches can be combined because they share the goal of understanding the world
in which we live (Haase and Myers, 1988). King et al. (1994) claim that both
qualitative and quantitative research share a unified logic, and that the same rules
of inference apply to both.
Second, the two paradigms are thought to be compatible because they share
the tenets of theory-ladenness of facts, fallibility of knowledge, indetermination
of theory by fact, and a value-ladened inquiry process. They are also united by a
shared commitment to understanding and improving the human condition, a com-
mon goal of disseminating knowledge for practical use, and a shared commitment
for rigor, conscientiousness, and critique in the research process (Reichardt and
Rallis, 1994). In fact, Casebeer and Verhoef (1997) argue we should view qual-
itative and quantitative methods as part of a continuum of research with specific
techniques selected based on the research objective.
Third, as noted by Clarke and Yaros (1988), combining research methods is
useful in some areas of research, such as nursing, because the complexity of
phenomena requires data from a large number of perspectives. Similarly, some re-
searchers have argued that the complexities of most public health problems (Baum,
1995) or social interventions, such as health education and health promotion pro-
grams (Steckler et al., 1992), require the use of a broad spectrum of qualitative and
quantitative methods.
Fourth, others claim that researchers should not be preoccupied with the
quantitative-qualitative debate because it will not be resolved in the near future,
and that epistemological purity does not get research done (Miles and Huberman,
1984).
None of these arguments adequately addresses the underlying assumptions be-
hind the paradigmatic differences between qualitative and quantitative research.
However, Reichardt and Rallis (1994) acknowledge the possibility of contention
between the two paradigms concerning the nature of reality by conceding that the
two paradigms are incompatible if the qualitative paradigm assumes that there are
no external referents for understanding reality. We have argued that the qualitative
paradigm does assume that there are no external referents for understanding reality.
5. REVISITING THE QUANTITATIVE-QUALITATIVE DEBATE 47
Therefore, we propose that in addressing this fundamental assumption, Reichardt
and Rallis dismiss their own claim of compatibility between methodological
camps.
An interesting argument has been made by Howe (1988) who suggests that
researchers should forge ahead with what works. Truth, he states, is a normative
concept, like good. Truth is what works. This appears to be the prevalent attitude in
mixed- methods research. Howe’s argument seems to suggest that only pragmatists,
or those not wedded to either paradigm, would attempt to combine research meth-
ods across paradigms. But this does not address the issue of differing ontological
assumptions of the two paradigms.
A more interesting and complicated issue is the explanation of results from
studies using qualitative and quantitative methods which appear to agree. How can
the results be similar if the two paradigms are supposedly looking at different phe-
nomena? Achieving similar results may be merely a matter of perception. In order
to synthesize results obtained via multiple methods research, people often simplify
the situation under study, highlighting and packaging results to reflect what they
think is happening. The truth is we rarely know the extent of disagreement between
qualitative and quantitative results because that is often not reported. Another pos-
sibility which may account for seemingly concordant results could be that both
are, in fact, quantitative. Conducting a frequency count on responses to open-ended
questions is not qualitative research. Given the overwhelming predominance of the
positivist worldview in health care research, this is not surprising. This often trans-
lates to the misapplication of the canons of good “science” (quantitative research)
to qualitative studies (see Sandelowski, 1986).
Perhaps the only convincing argument for mixing qualitative and quantitative
research methods in a single study would be to challenge the underlying assump-
tions of the two paradigms themselves. A sound argument would be that both
qualitative and quantitative paradigms are based on the tenets of positivism, not
constructivism or interpretivism. Howe (1992) gives the impression of making this
argument by denying there is an “either-or” choice to be made. Rather, he claims,
both quantitative and qualitative researchers should embrace positivism coloured
by a certain degree of interpretivism, an adjustment which he proposes is made
possible by the critical social research model (or the critical educational research
model) which eschews the positivist-interpretivist split in favour of compatibility.
A legitimate argument would have been for Howe and others who appear to
be leaning toward this position (e.g. Reichardt and Rallis, 1994) to claim that the
paradigmatic debate was oversimplified by a positivism-interpretivism split, and
that the qualitative paradigm actually espoused positivism. If we take the position
that qualitative researchers operate within a positivist world, we could argue that
such a position actually negates or undermines the quantitative-qualitative debate
in the first place because it does away with the beliefs about reality from which
qualitative research arose. We believe, however, that one cannot be both a positivist
and an interpretivist or constructivist.
6. 48 JOANNA E. M. SALE ET AL.
Closely tied to the arguments for integrating qualitative and quantitative ap-
proaches are the reasons given for legitimately combining them. Two reasons
for this are prevalent in the literature. The first is to achieve cross-validation or
triangulation – combining two or more theories or sources of data to study the
same phenomenon in order to gain a more complete understanding of it (Denzin,
1970). The second is to achieve complementary results by using the strengths of
one method to enhance the other (Morgan, 1998). The former position maintains
that research methods are interdependent (combinant); the latter, that they are in-
dependent (additive). Although these two reasons are often used interchangeably
in the literature, it is important to make a distinction between them.
4. The Phenomenon of Study
It is probably safe to say that certain phenomena lend themselves to quantitative as
opposed to qualitative inquiry and vice versa in other instances. Both quantitative
and qualitative researchers often appear to study the same phenomena. However,
these researchers’ definition of what the phenomena are and how they can best be
described or known differ. Both paradigms may label phenomena identically, but in
keeping with their paradigmatic assumptions, these labels refer to different things.
For the quantitative researcher, a label refers to an external referent; to a qual-
itative researcher, a label refers to a personal interpretation or meaning attached
to phenomena. For example, a quantitative researcher might use a factory record
as if it were representative of what actually happens in the workplace, whereas a
qualitative researcher might interpret it as one of the ways that people in a factory
view their work environment (Needleman and Needleman, 1996). Because there
is no external referent with which to gauge what the truth is, there is no interest
in assessing the record as representative of the one and only reality in the work-
place. Rather, the ways people use and describe it are expected to vary due to
people’s differing realities based on such characteristics as gender, age, or role
(e.g., employer, manager, worker). Another example is surgical waiting lists. To a
quantitative researcher, the list is like a bus queue; patients are taken off the list
based on the urgency of need for surgery or some other factors. To a qualitative
researcher, the key to understanding the meaning of the list rests with determining
how it is organized, managed and used by the people who actively create and
maintain it (Pope and Mays, 1993).
These two examples demonstrate that although qualitative and quantitative
paradigms may use common labels to refer to phenomena, what the labels refer to
is not the same. There are differences of phenomena within each paradigm as well.
However, the differences in phenomena between the two paradigms are philosoph-
ical differences, whereas the difference in phenomena within each paradigm are
not. Within the quantitative paradigm, we may compare the results of a magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) scan to those of a computed tomography (CT) scan.
Although they may appear to reveal different realities, the use of the scans assumes
7. REVISITING THE QUANTITATIVE-QUALITATIVE DEBATE 49
that there is something to measure that exists independent of our minds. Both
scans are trying to approximate or capture the one reality which correlates with
the phenomenon of interest. Within the qualitative paradigm, one may compare
the results of a phenomenological study to those of a grounded theory study on
how nurses cope with the deaths of their patients. These two types of qualitative
studies do not assume that external referents for coping skills exist independent of
our minds.
Having taken the position that the quantitative and qualitative paradigms do not
study the same phenomena, it follows that combining the two methods for cross-
validation/triangulation purposes is not a viable option. (Cross validation refers to
combining the two approaches to study the same phenomenon). Ironically, in a
comprehensive review of mixed-method evaluation studies, Greene and Caracelli
(1989) found that methodological triangulation was actually quite rare in mixed-
method research, used by only 3 of 57 studies. Combining the two approaches
in a complementary fashion is also not advisable if the ultimate goal is to study
different aspects of the same phenomenon because, as we argue, mixed-methods re-
search cannot claim to enrich the same phenomenon under study. The phenomenon
under study is not the same across methods. Not only does cross-validation and
complementarity in the above context violate paradigmatic assumptions, but it also
misrepresents data. Loss of information is a particular risk when attempts are made
to unite results from the two paradigms because it often promotes the selective
search for similarities in data.
5. Further Considerations in Mixed-Method Research Designs
The most frequently used mixed-method designs start with a qualitative pilot
study followed by quantitative research (Morgan, 1998). This promotes the mis-
perception that qualitative research is only exploratory, cannot stand on its own,
and must be validated by quantitative work because the latter is “scientific” and
studies truth. In response, qualitative researchers have increasingly tried to defend
their work using quantitative criteria, such as validity and reliability, as defined
in quantitative studies. They also increasingly use computer programs specific-
ally designed for analysing qualitative data, such as NUD.IST or Ethnograph, in
quantitative (counting) ways. These practices seriously violate the assumptions
of the qualitative paradigm(s). For research to be valid or reliable in the narrow
(quantitative) sense requires that what is studied be independent of the inquirer and
be described without distortion by her interests, values, or purposes (Smith and
Heshusius, 1986). This is not how qualitative studies unfold. They are based on the
minimum distance between the investigator and the investigated, and seek multiple
definitions of reality embedded in various respondents’ experiences. Therefore, it
is more appropriate for qualitative researchers to apply parallel but distinct canons
of rigor appropriate to qualitative studies (Strauss and Corbin, 1990).
8. 50 JOANNA E. M. SALE ET AL.
It is difficult to say whether the growing trend of quantifying qualitative research
is a direct result of mixing quantitative and qualitative approaches. It does seem to
be a result of researchers from the two paradigms attempting to work together, or
the desire for qualitative research to be “taken seriously” in the world of positivist
research, such as is commonly found in medicine. In our opinion, mixing research
methods across paradigms, as is currently practiced, often diminishes the value of
both methods. Pressure is being exerted from the quantitative camp for qualitative
research to “measure up” to its standards without understanding the basic premises
of qualitative investigations. Proponents of the qualitative paradigm need to ad-
dress this pressure, but “without slipping on the mantle of quantitative inquiry”
(Smith and Heshusius, 1986: 10). This pressure will no doubt continue to escalate
as combined methods research becomes more common.
6. Our Solution
The key issues in the quantitative-qualitative debate are ontological and epistem-
ological. Quantitative researchers perceive truth as something which describes an
objective reality, separate from the observer and waiting to be discovered. Qualit-
ative researchers are concerned with the changing nature of reality created through
people’s experiences – an evolving reality in which the researcher and researched
are mutually interactive and inseparable (Phillips, 1988b). Because quantitative and
qualitative methods represent two different paradigms, they are incommensurate.
As Guba states, “the one [paradigm] precludes the other just as surely belief in a
round world precludes belief in a flat one” (1987: 31). Fundamental to this view-
point is that qualitative and quantitative researchers do not, in fact, study the same
phenomena.
We propose a solution to mixed-methods research and the quantitative-
qualitative debate. Qualitative and quantitative research methods have grown out
of, and still represent, different paradigms. However, the fact that the approaches
are incommensurate does not mean that multiple methods cannot be combined
in a single study if it is done for complementary purposes. Each method studies
different phenomena. The distinction of phenomena in mixed-methods research
is crucial and can be clarified by labelling the phenomenon examined by each
method. For example, a mixed-methods study to develop a measure of burnout ex-
perienced by nurses could be described as a qualitative study of the lived experience
of burnout to inform a quantitative measure of burnout. Although the phenomenon
‘burnout’ may appear the same across methods, the distinction between “lived
experience” and “measure” reconciles the phenomenon to its respective method
and paradigm.
This solution differs from that of merely using the strengths of each method to
bolster the weaknesses of the other(s), or capturing various aspects of the same phe-
nomena. This implies an additive outcome for mutual research partners. Based on
9. REVISITING THE QUANTITATIVE-QUALITATIVE DEBATE 51
this assertion, qualitative and quantitative work can be carried out simultaneously
or sequentially in a single study or series of investigations.
7. Implications
Given that we have returned to debate in a no-debate world, what is the outlook
for mixed-paradigm research? As Phillips (1988a) points out, it may be that quant-
itative and qualitative approaches are inadequate to the task of understanding the
emerging science of wholeness because they give an incomplete view of people
in their environments. Perhaps in a “Kuhnian” sense, a new paradigm is in order,
one with a new ontology, epistemology, and methodology. Alternatively, we have
proposed seeking complementarity which we believe is both philosophically and
practically sound. This solution lends itself to new standards for mixed-paradigm
research. We hope that future guidelines which assess the quality of such research
consider this recommendation.
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.
10. 52 JOANNA E. M. SALE ET AL.
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 mixed-
method 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 quantitative-
qualitative debate among educational inquiries. Educational Researcher 15: 4–12.
11. REVISITING THE QUANTITATIVE-QUALITATIVE DEBATE 53
Steckler, A., McLeroy, K. R., Goodman, R. M., Bird, S. T. & McCormick, L. (1992). Toward in-
tegrating 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.