Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
relations due to their complexity. Thus, reasons for the superiority of qualitative research
are found both on the level of the research program and at the level of the appropriateness
to the issue under study.
In the first design, both strategies are pursued in parallel. Continuous observation
of the field provides a basis on which, in a survey, the several waves are related or
from which these waves are derived and shaped in the second design.
FIGURE 3.1 Research Designs for the Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative
Research
Source: Adapted from Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 41)
suggest using qualitative research for developing hypotheses, which afterwards will be
tested by quantitative approaches. In their argumentation, they do not focus only on the
limits of qualitative research (compared to quantitative) but they explicitly see the strength
of qualitative research in the exploration of the phenomenon under study. Following this
argumentation, both areas of research are located at different stages of the research process.
finally, none of the methods combined is seen as superior or preliminary. Whether or not
the methods are used at the same time or one after the other is less relevant compared to
when they are seen as equal in their role in the project. Some practical issues are linked to
these combinations of different methods in the design of one study (e.g., on which level the
triangulation is concretely applied). Two alternatives can be distinguished. Triangulation of
qualitative and quantitative research can focus the single case. The same people are
interviewed and fill in a questionnaire. Their answers in both are compared to each other,
put together, and referred to each other in the analysis. Sampling decisions are taken in two
steps (seeChapter 11). The same people are included in both parts of the study, but in a
second step, it has to be decided which participants of the survey study are selected for the
interviews. But a link can be established on the level of the data set as well. The answers to
the questionnaires are analyzed for their frequency and distribution across the whole
sample. Then the answers in the interviews are analyzed and compared, and, for example, a
typology is developed. Then the distribution of the questionnaire answers and the typology
are linked and compared (see Figure 3.2 and Flick 2007b).
center at the time of the first data collection (2004, p. 95). Furthermore, contrasting cases to
this sample were included: people living by themselves, couples with both partners being
ill, or cases in which the patient's partner had died more than a year ago. The quantitative
data were first analyzed using several factor analyses and then in relation to the research
question. In the presentation of the questionnaire results, "a
link to the case studies is made, if their structural features match findings from the
questionnaire" (2004, p. 87) or, "if they show exceptions or a deviance." All in all, the
authors highlight the gains of differentiation due to the combination of survey and case
studies:
Thus, the case studies not only allow for a differentiation and a deeper understanding of the
relatives' response patterns to the questionnaire. Their special relevance is that analyzing
them made it possible to discover the links between subjective meaning making (in the
illness narratives) as well as the decisions and coping strategies that were reported and the
latent meaning structures. Going beyond the psychological coping concepts, it became clear
that it were less the personality traits or single factors, which make it easy or difficult to
stabilize a critical life situation. Above all, the structural moments and the learned
capacities to integrate the situational elements in one's own biography and in the one shared
with the partner were important, (p. 202) This study can be seen as an example for
combining qualitative and quantitative methods (and data), in which both approaches were
applied consequently and in their own logic. They provide different aspects in the findings.
The authors also show how the case studies can add substantial dimensions to the
questionnaire study. Unfortunately, the authors do not refer to which findings from the
questionnaires were helpful for understanding the single cases or what the relevance of the
quantitative finding was for the qualitative results.
Repeatedly, there have been attempts to quantify statements of open or narrative interviews.
Observations can also be analyzed in terms of their frequency. The frequencies in each
category can be specified and compared. Several statistical methods for calculating such
data are available. Hopf (1982) criticizes a tendency in qualitative researchers to try to
convince their audiences by an argumentation based on a quantitative logic (e.g., "five of
seven interviewees have said ...";"the majority of the answers focused ...") instead of
looking for a theoretically grounded interpretation and presentation of findings. This can be
seen as an implicit transformation of qualitative data into quasi-quantitative findings.
The problems in combining qualitative and quantitative research nevertheless have not yet
been solved in a satisfying way. Attempts to integrate both approaches often end up in a
one-after-the-other (with different preferences), a side-by-side (with various degrees of
independence of both strategies), or a dominance (also with different preferences)
approach. The integration is often restricted to the level of the research designa
combination of various methods with different degrees of interrelations among them.
However, the differences of both ways of research concerning appropriate designs (see
Chapter 8) and appropriate forms of assessing the procedures, data, and results (see Chapter
28) continue to exist. The question of how to take these differences into account in the
combination of both strategies needs further discussion.
There are some guiding questions for assessing examples of combining qualitative and
quantitative research:
Are both approaches given equal weight (in the plan of the project, in the relevance of the
results, and in judging the quality of the research, for example)?
Are both approaches just applied separately or are they really related to each other? For
example, many studies use qualitative and quantitative methods rather independently, and
in the end, the integration of both parts refers to comparing the results of both.
What is the logical relation of both? Are they only sequenced, and how? Or are they really
integrated in a multi-methods design?
What are the criteria used for evaluating the research all in all? Is there a domination of a
traditional view of validation or are both forms of research evaluated by appropriate
criteria? Answering these questions and taking their implications into account allows the
development of sensitive designs of using qualitative and quantitative research in a
pragmatic and reflexive way.
KEY POINTS
The linking of qualitative and quantitative research is a topic that attracts much
attention.
The combination of qualitative and quantitative research occurs on different
levels.
In this context it is very important that the combination is treated not merely as
an issue of pragmatics, but also as an issue requiring reflection.
The central point of reference is the appropriateness of the methods to the issue
under study.