Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Pilcher, Nick.; Cortazzi, Martin. (2016)
Publisher: College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences, Nova Southeastern University
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: ethnographic dialogue, Information Society, Z665, Languages, qualitative methods, 001 Knowledge, QA76, quantitative research, Z665 Library Science. Information Science, Research
Qualitative researchers commonly perceive that positivist hard-science researchers and policies of governments deprecate qualitative methods and approaches. Curiously though, we could not see anyone asking quantitative researchers ‘What do you think about qualitative approaches and methods?’ We did this in interviews with 17 assumed quantitative researchers in the fields of advanced materials construction, civil engineering, transport modelling, computer science, and geotechnics. Surprisingly, these researchers rarely described themselves as purely quantitative, and were rarely against the five qualitative methods discussed. Moreover, many actually used qualitative methods, often in ways we had not anticipated. Drawing on a Bakhtinian grounded framework, we present our analysis as a performed ethnographic dialogue between data extracts and research literature. We present evidence that the alleged qualitative-quantitative divide does not apply here, and suggest dialogic ways to see teach "qualitative" and "quantitative" and some associated terms.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Alasuutari, P. (1995). Researching culture: Qualitative method and cultural studies. London, UK: Sage Publications.
    • Atkinson, P. A., Coffey, A. J., & Delamont, S. (2001). A debate about our canon. Qualitative Research, 1(1), 5-21.
    • Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
    • Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Rabelais and his world. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
    • Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. (Trans. Vern W. McGee; Ed. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
    • Babbie, E. (2001). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomas Learning.
    • Barone, T. (2007). A return to the gold standard? Questioning the future of narrative construction as educational research. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(4), 454-470.
    • Beach, D. (2003). A problem of validity in education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(6), 859- 873.
    • Bird, C. M. (2005). How I stopped dreading and learned to love transcription. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(2), 226-248.
    • Bloch, M. (2004). A discourse that disciplines, governs, and regulates: The national research council's report on scientific research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(1), 96-110.
    • Bloor, M., & Wood, F. (2006). Keywords in qualitative methods: A vocabulary of research concepts. London, UK: Sage Publications.
    • Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97-113.
    • Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    • Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2009). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS 14, 15 and 16: A guide for social scientists. London, UK: Routledge.
    • Carey, J. W. (1989). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.
    • Ceglowski, D., Bacigalupa, C., & Peck, E. (2011). Aced out: Censorship of qualitative research in the age of "scientifically based research." Qualitative Inquiry, 17(8), 679-686.
    • Charmaz, K. (2011). Grounded theory methods in social justice research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 359-380). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    • Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. L. (2012). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In The sage handbook of interview research, the complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 147-365) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    • Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research, 6(3), 319-340.
    • Christ, T. W. (2014). Scientific-based research and randomized controlled trials, the "gold" standard? Alternative paradigms and mixed methodologies. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(1), 72-80.
    • Christians, C. G. (2011). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 61-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    • Clough, P., & Nutbrown, C. (2002). A student's guide to methodology: Justifying enquiry. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
    • Conquergood, D. (1998). Beyond the text: Toward a performative cultural politics. The Future of Performance Studies: Visions and Revisions, 25-36.
    • Daly, K. J. (2007). Qualitative Methods for Family Studies and Human Development. London, UK: Sage.
    • Dawson, C., (2006). A practical guide to research methods: A user-friendly manual for mastering research techniques and projects (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: How To Books.
    • Denzin, N. K. (2003). Performance ethnography: Critical pedagogy and the politics of culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
    • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1998). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
    • Denzin, N. (2010). Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 419-427.
    • de Vaus, D. (2001). Research design in social research. London, UK: Sage.
    • Donmoyer, R. (2012). Can qualitative researchers answer policymakers' what-works question? Qualitative Inquiry, 18(8), 662-673.
    • Eisner, E. W. (2001). Concerns and aspirations for qualitative research in the new millennium. Qualitative Research, 1(2), 135-145.
    • Fairweather, J., & Rinne, T. (2012). Clarifying a basis for qualitative generalization using approaches that identify shared culture. Qualitative Research, 12(4), 473-485.
    • Galasinski, D., & Kozlowska, O. (2009). Questionnaires and lived experience: Strategies of coping with the quantitative frame. Qualitative Inquiry 16(4), 271-284.
    • Grix, J. (2004). The foundations of research. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
    • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (191-215). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
    • Hammersley, M. (1992). What's wrong with ethnography?: Methodological explorations. London, UK: Routledge.
    • Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30(3), 287-305.
    • Hammersley, M. (2013). What is qualitative research? London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic.
    • Harman, W. W. (1996). The shortcomings of western science. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(1), 30- 38.
    • Holloway, I., & Todres, L. (2003). The status of method: Flexibility, consistency and coherence. Qualitative Research, 3(3), 345-357.
    • Howe, K. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative inquiry, 10(1), 42-61.
    • Howe, K. R. (2009). Isolating science from the humanities: The third dogma of educational research. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(4), 766-784.
    • Howe, K. R. (2011). Mixed methods, mixed causes? Qualitative Inquiry, 17(2), 166-171.
    • Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2004). Impossibilities of reconciliation: Validity in mixed theory projects. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(4), 601-621.
    • Kvale, S. (1995). The social construction of validity. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(1), 19-40.
    • Kumar, R. (1996). Research methodologies: A step-by-step guide for beginners. London, UK: Sage.
    • Lather, P. (2004). This is your father's paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(1), 15-34.
    • Liamputtong, P. (2010). Qualitative research methods. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
    • Mason, J. (2006). Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 9-25.
    • Maxwell, J. (2010). Using numbers in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 475- 482.
    • Mazzei, L. A. (2014). Beyond an easy sense: A diffractive analysis. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, 742-746.
    • Moore, N. (2006). How to do research: A practical guide to designing and managing research projects (3rd ed.). London, UK: Facet.
    • NTNU. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.ntnu.edu/bat/geotechnics Accessed Nov. 2014
    • O'Reilly, M., & Parker, N. (2013). Unsatisfactory saturation: A critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 13(2), 190-197.
    • Poland, B. D. (2001). Transcription quality. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 629-649). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
    • Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of enquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 923-948). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    • Rugg, G., & Petre, M. (2007). A gentle guide to research methods. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
    • Sandelowski, M. (1997). "To be of use": Enhancing the utility of qualitative research. Nursing Outlook, 45(3), 125-132.
    • Saunders, C. M. (2008). Forty seven million strong, weak, wrong, or right living without health insurance. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(4), 528-545.
    • Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5, 465-478.
    • Schwandt, T. (1997). Qualitative inquiry, a dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    • Silverman, D. (2010). Doing qualitative research. London, UK: Sage.
    • St. Pierre, E. A. (2004) Refusing alternatives: A science of contestation. Qualitative Inquiry 10(1), 130-139.
    • Tierney, W., Blumberg, & Corwin, Z. (2007). The tensions between academic freedom and institutional review boards. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(3), 388-398.
    • Torrance, H. (2008). Building confidence in qualitative research: Engaging the demands of policy. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(4), 507-527.
    • Tracy, S. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight "big-tent" criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851.
    • University of Bristol. (2014). Earthquake engineering centre. Retrieved from http://www.bris.ac.uk/civilengineering/research/dynamics/eerc/
    • University of Glasgow. (2014). Basic research skills in computing science. Retrieved from http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~johnson/teaching/research_skills/basics.html
    • University of Newcastle. (2014). CEG8423 analytical methods for transport research. Retrieved from http://www.ncl.ac.uk/module-catalogue/module.php?code=CEG8423
    • Vice, S. (1997) Introducing Bakhtin. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
    • Chase, S.E (2005) Narrative inquiry: Multiple lenses, approaches, voices. In Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Pp 651 - 680 Reliability
    • study can be reproduced under a similar methodology, then the research instrument is considered to be reliable.” (Joppe, 2000, p.1) Joppe, M. (2000). The Research Process. Retrieved February 25, 1998, from http://www.ryerson.ca/~mjoppe/rp.htm cited in
    • Golafshani, N (2003) Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research The Qualitative Report Volume 8 Number 4 December 2003 597-607 http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf Validity:
    • “Validity determines whether the research truly measures that which it was intended to measure or how truthful the research results are. In other words, does the research instrument allow you to hit "the bull's eye" of your research object? Researchers generally determine validity by asking a series of questions, and will often look for the answers in the research of others.” (Joppe, 2000, p.1). Joppe, M. (2000). The Research Process. Retrieved February 25, 1998, from http://www.ryerson.ca/~mjoppe/rp.htm cited in
    • Golafshani, N (2003) Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research The Qualitative Report Volume 8 Number 4 December 2003 597-607 http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf
    • Pilcher, N., & Cortazzi, M. (2016). Dialogues: QUANT research on QUAL methods. The Qualitative Report, 21(3), 450-473. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol21/iss3/1
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article