Recently, a debate has arisen around what can be called the “indistinguishability thesis,” that is, the claim that it is impossible to distinguish between qualitative and quantitative research. In contrast, this article argues that the inability to define simple, sharp boundaries around qualitative and quantitative research does not eliminate the value of this distinction; instead, this difference can be understood in terms of “family resemblances.” Furthermore, it is important to recognize that the separation between qualitative and quantitative research underlies the different strengths of different methods, which is a central principle in mixed methods research design. Ultimately, we must learn to tolerate the blurry boundaries between qualitative and quantitative research, while appreciating the value this distinction has for mixed methods research.
BeistaG. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 95-118). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
BergmanM. (2008). The strawmen of the qualitative-quantitative divide and their influence on mixed methods research. In BergmanM. (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 11-21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
BowkerG.StarS. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
4.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
DenscombeM. (2008). Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 270-283. doi:10.1177/1558689808316807
6.
ErcikanK.RothW. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative?Educational Researcher, 35, 14-23. doi:10.3102/0013189x035005014
GierynT. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
GubaE.LincolnY. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). London, England: Sage.
10.
GuestG. (2013). Describing mixed methods research: An alternative to typologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 141-151. doi:10.1177/1558689812461179
11.
HammersleyM. (1992). What’s wrong with ethnography?London, England: Routledge.
12.
HammersleyM. (1996). The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: Paradigm loyalty versus methodological eclecticism. In RichardsonJ. (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences (pp. 159-174). Leicester, England: British Psychological Society.
13.
HoweK. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17, 10-16. doi:10.2307/1175845
14.
JohnsonR.OnwuegbuzieA. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14-26. doi:10.3102/0013189x033007014
15.
LeechN.OnwuegbuzieA. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43, 265-275. doi:10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3
MaxwellJ.LoomisD. (2003). Mixed methods design: An alternative approach. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 241-271). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
MorganD. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76. doi:10.1177/2345678906292462
MorganD. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry, 14, 1045-1053. doi:10.1177/1077800413513733
21.
MorseJ.NiehausL. (2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
22.
NastasiB.HitchcockJ.BrownL. (2010). An inclusive framework for conceptualizing mixed methods design typologies: Moving toward fully integrated synergistic research models. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 305-338). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
OnwuegbuzieA. (2012). Introduction: Putting the MIXED back into quantitative and qualitative research in educational research and beyond: Moving toward the radical middle. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 6, 192-219. doi:10.5172/mra.2012.6.3.192
24.
OnwuegbuzieA.LeechN. (2005). Taking the “Q” out of research: Teaching research methodology courses without the divide between quantitative and qualitative paradigms. Quality & Quantity, 39, 267-296. doi:10.1007/s11135-004-1670-0
25.
RipsL.SmithE.MedinD. (2012). Concepts and categories: Memories, meaning, and metaphysics. In HolyoakK.MorissonR. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 179-209). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
26.
RoschE. (1978). Principles of categorization. In RoschE.BrooksB. (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
RoschE.MervisC. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
28.
SandelowskiM. (2012). The weakness of the strong/weak comparison of modes of inquiry. Research in Nursing & Health, 35, 325-327. doi:10.1002/nur.21475
29.
SandelowskiM. (2014). Unmixing mixed methods. Research in Nursing & Health, 37, 3-8. doi:10.1002/nur.21570
30.
SandelowskiM. (2016). Is mixed methods research too inclusive?Keynote address at Mixed Methods International Research Association, Durham, England.
31.
SymondsJ.GorardS. (2010). Death of mixed methods? Or the rebirth of research as a craft. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23, 121-136. doi:10.1080/09500790.2010.483514
32.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
VogtW. (2008). Quantitative versus qualitative is a distraction: Variations on a theme by Brewer & Hunter (2006). Methodological Innovations Online, 3(1). doi:10.4256/mio.2008.0007
34.
WillisJ. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
