This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Barbour, R. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Barbour, R. S. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Mixing Qualitative Methods: Quality Assurance or Qualitative Quagmire?

Department of Public Health and Primary Care at the University of Hull, UK

Although the advisability of combining qualitative and quantitative approaches has been questioned on the grounds of incompatibility of epistemological assumptions that underpin the two paradigms, mixing methods within the qualitative paradigm has been viewed as a more straightforward enterprise. This article challenges this view, highlighting the existence of several qualitative traditions, each with its own distinctive set of assumptions about what constitutes appropriate research questions; theoretical frameworks; research settings; relationships with those whom we study; techniques for eliciting data; form and content of data; and approaches to analyzing, presenting, and disseminating data. Multimethod qualitative approaches can be seen to occupy a contested domain. Analytical rigor would be strengthened by acknowledging and addressing the potentially contradictory assumptions on which one draws when seeking to combine qualitative methods. As qualitative researchers, it is incumbent on us to pay attention to context—not just in terms of the data collected but in terms of our own methodological positions.

Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 8, No. 3, 352-361 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/104973239800800306


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. O'Cathain, E. Murphy, and J. Nicholl Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary, or Dysfunctional? Team Working in Mixed-Methods Research Qual Health Res, November 1, 2008; 18(11): 1574 - 1585. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Mendlinger and J. Cwikel Spiraling Between Qualitative and Quantitative Data on Women's Health Behaviors: A Double Helix Model for Mixed Methods Qual Health Res, February 1, 2008; 18(2): 280 - 293. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. S. Barbour The Newfound Credibility of Qualitative Research? Tales of Technical Essentialism and Co-Option Qual Health Res, September 1, 2003; 13(7): 1019 - 1027. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. M. Thompson, M. L. Humbert, and R. L. Mirwald A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Childhood and Adolescent Physical Activity Experiences on Adult Physical Activity Perceptions and Behaviors Qual Health Res, March 1, 2003; 13(3): 358 - 377. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. S Barbour Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ, May 5, 2001; 322(7294): 1115 - 1117. [Full Text]

				R. S Barbour, V. A Featherstone, and M. o. WoReN Acquiring qualitative skills for primary care research. Review and reflections on a three-stage workshop. Part 1: using interviews to generate data Fam. Pract., February 1, 2000; 17(1): 76 - 82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Bazeley The Bricoleur with a Computer: Piecing Together Qualitative and Quantitative Data Qual Health Res, March 1, 1999; 9(2): 279 - 287. [Abstract] [PDF]