Revisiting the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate: Implications for Mixed-Methods Research

Health care research includes many studies that combine quantitative and qualitative methods. In this paper, we revisit the quantitative-qualitative debate and review the arguments for and against using mixed-methods. In addition, we discuss the implications stemming from our view, that the paradigms upon which the methods are based have a different view of reality and therefore a different view of the phenomenon under study. Because the two paradigms do not study the same phenomena, quantitative and qualitative methods cannot be combined for cross-validation or triangulation purposes. However, they can be combined for complementary purposes. Future standards for mixed-methods research should clearly reflect this recommendation.     

A Strategy to Identify Critical Appraisal Criteria for Primary Mixed-Method Studies

The practice of mixed-methods research has increased considerably over the last 10 years. While these studies have been criticized for violating quantitative and qualitative paradigmatic assumptions, the methodological quality of mixed-method studies has not been addressed. The purpose of this paper is to identify criteria to critically appraise the quality of mixed-method studies in the health literature. Criteria for critically appraising quantitative and qualitative studies were generated from a review of the literature. These criteria were organized according to a cross-paradigm framework. We recommend that these criteria be applied to a sample of mixed-method studies which are judged to be exemplary. With the consultation of critical appraisal experts and experienced qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method researchers, further efforts are required to revise and prioritize the criteria according to importance.