자연주의적 탐구조사(Naturalistic Inquiry)

The purposes of this article are to position mixed methods research (mixed research is a synonym) as the natural complement to traditional qualitative and quantitative research, to present pragmatism as offering an attractive philosophical partner for mixed methods research, and to provide a framework for designing and conducting mixed methods research. In doing this, we briefly review the paradigm “wars” and incompatibility thesis, we show some commonalities between quantitative and qualitative research, we explain the tenets of pragmatism, we explain the fundamental principle of mixed research and how to apply it, we provide specific sets of designs for the two major types of mixed methods research (mixed-model designs and mixed-method designs), and, finally, we explain mixed methods research as following (recursively) an eight-step process. A key feature of mixed methods research is its methodological pluralism or eclecticism, which frequently results in superior research (compared to monomethod resear...

/pdf/mixed-methods-research-a-research-paradigm-whose-time-has-gngadyc340.pdf

Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come

In recent years evaluators of educational and social programs have expanded their methodological repertoire with designs that include the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods. Such prac...

Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs

Medical practice is constantly changing. The rate of change is accelerating, and physicians can be forgiven if they often find it dizzying. How can physicians learn about new information and innovations, and decide how (if at all) they should modify their practice? Possible sources include summaries from the medical literature (review articles, practice guidelines, consensus statements, editorials, and summary articles in "throwaway" journals); consultation with colleagues who have special expertise; lectures; seminars; advertisements in medical journals; conversations with representatives from pharmaceutical companies; and original articles in journals and journal supplements. Each of these sources of information might be valuable, though each is subject to its own particular biases. 1,2 Problems arise when, as is often the case, these sources of information provide different suggestions about patient care. See also p 2093. Without a way of critically appraising the information they receive, clinicians are relatively helpless in deciding what new information

https://hopkinsmedicine.org/gim/_pdf/jama/17-screening.pdf

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature

We present a set of evolving guidelines for reviewing qualitative research, to serve four functions: to contribute to the process of legitimizing qualitative research; to ensure more appropriate and valid scientific reviews of qualitative manuscripts, theses, and dissertations; to encourage better quality control in qualitative research through better self- and other-monitoring; and to encourage further developments in approach and method. Building on a review of existing principles of good practice in qualitative research, we used an iterative process of revision and feedback from colleagues who engage in qualitative research, resulting in a set of seven guidelines common to both qualitative and quantitative research and seven guidelines especially pertinent to qualitative investigations in psychology and related social sciences. The Evolving Guidelines are subject to continuing revision and should not be used in a rigid manner, in order to avoid stifling creativity in this rapidly evolving, rich research tradition.

https://www.psy.au.dk/fileadmin/site_files/filer_psykologi/dokumenter/Forskerskolen/Kurser09/Fishman/No_7-Elliott__Fischer__Rennie__1999_Standards_Qual_Research.PDF

Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields.

The contention of this paper is that the claim of compatibility and the call for cooperation between quantitative and qualitative inquiry cannot be sustained. Moreover, these claims have the unfortunate effect of closing down an important conversation. To elaborate these points, this paper briefly reviews the transition from conflict to cooperation between the two perspectives and then notes how compatibility is based on a confusion over two different definitions of method. Finally, the discussion focuses on why this conversation, because it invokes issues crucial to our understanding of who we are and what we do as inquirers, must be reinvigorated.

/pdf/closing-down-the-conversation-the-end-of-the-quantitative-4wsfvfogi8.pdf

Closing Down the Conversation: The End of the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate Among Educational Inquirers

This paper will describe points of disagreement between quantitative research and qualitative, or interpretive, research. After a brief historical overview, the discussion will focus on how each perspective responds to three major and closely related questions: (1) What is the relationship of the investigator to what is investigated? (2) What is the relationship between facts and values in the process of investigation? and (3) What is the goal of investigation? Educational researchers have recently devoted increasing amounts of time and energy to the issue of one method versus the other. Unfortunately, much of the discussion has tended to obfuscate

Quantitative Versus Qualitative Research: An Attempt to Clarify the Issue

In this article, I hope to stimulate dialogue and reflection among sport and exercise scientists about how one might judge qualitative research. Over the last 40 or so years, much has changed in how we go about sorting out the good from the not‐so‐good social and educational qualitative research. We have left/are leaving behind the idea of method as a universal, ahistorical criterion for judging research. Instead, it has become increasingly clear that our judgments always have been, and only can be, contingent on historical time and social/cultural/political place. In this article, I discuss this transition from both a philosophical and personal perspective. I conclude that the recent philosophical changes and an understanding of oneself as a person as researcher rather than a researcher as person makes it clear that all social and educational research, including the supposedly ‘scientific’ research, is a matter of telling stories. And when it comes to judging stories, as we are all aware, there are no an...

Judging research quality: from certainty to contingency

In 1990, in the pages of Educational Researcher, McKenna, Robinson, and Miller and Edelsky engaged in an intensely argued debate over the research on language instruction. In this article, I revisit this important exchange because it remains the most important starting point we have for an attempt to characterize and clarify what is behind the increasing fragmentation of the educational research community. My claim is that the balkanization of our profession is a result of people engaging different vocabularies to tell different stories about research and the work of researchers. In examining this claim, I also examine what happened with the different vocabularies used to discuss qualitative research over the course of the 1980s and early 1990s. Finally, I end with a brief comment about what the proliferation of different vocabularies and different stories might mean for our profession.

The Stories Educational Researchers Tell About Themselves

/pdf/beyond-objectivism-and-relativism-11mxte2ya4.pdf

Beyond Objectivism and Relativism

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

John K. Smith

Author Tools

Chat about Author