Qualitative, quantitative & mixed methods

START HERE

The essential idea

Quantitative research measures variables and examines numerical patterns, differences, or associations. Qualitative research investigates meaning, experience, and process using systematic collection and interpretation. Mixed methods intentionally connects both approaches; adding a comment box to a survey does not by itself demonstrate a coherent mixed-methods design.

Phenomenological inquiry may explore lived experience; grounded theory seeks to develop an explanatory account of a process; case study examines a bounded case in depth. These traditions have different assumptions and methods. Reflexivity, transparent procedures, and attention to disconfirming evidence matter when judging qualitative work.

Experimental designs can strengthen causal inference through manipulation and assignment, while observational designs can address questions that cannot be ethically or practically randomized. Action research links inquiry with iterative local change; practice-based research examines questions arising from real service delivery. Neither label removes the need for ethical review and methodological care.

For example, “How do trainees experience their first placement?” differs from “Does this training improve a defined skill score?” Select methods based on the claim you want to support. Plan sampling, analysis, consent, confidentiality, and reporting with attention to power and cultural context.

BUILD THE REASONING · 01

Build a method from the question

A quantitative question asks about a numerical pattern: “Do students offered structured rehearsal improve on a case rubric more than those offered reading?” A qualitative question asks about meaning or process: “How do commuting trainees negotiate access to peer practice?” A mixed-methods question deliberately combines inferences: “Why does rehearsal participation differ across schedules, and how does that difference help explain measured outcomes?”

For an original proposal, specify the population and access frame, recruitment, variables or phenomena, collection procedures, analysis, ethics, and limits. The literature review should build a reason for the question from actual studies, not decorate an already chosen method. Define the outcome operationally: “quality of case reasoning” might be a rubric with evidence use, alternative explanation, and justified action, scored with training and agreement checks. Do not substitute satisfaction for a skill simply because it is easier to collect.

BUILD THE REASONING · 02

A small qualitative analysis you can inspect

The following excerpts are invented for a practice thematic analysis of peer-practice access. Begin by reading the whole account, noting context and your assumptions. Code meaningful segments, compare similarities and differences, and develop a candidate pattern that answers the research question. A code names a feature of a segment; a theme makes a broader interpretive claim. Counting a word is not sufficient evidence of a theme.

BUILD THE REASONING · 03

Move from codes to a mixed-methods explanation

A candidate theme is “Access requires both usable conditions and a tolerable way to enter the practice.” It connects transport/privacy barriers with the risk of visible inexperience. Check it against the full dataset, look for accounts it fails to explain, and retain differences rather than forcing all excerpts into one story. Keep an analytic memo explaining how your role as a trainee or instructor may shape interpretation. Different qualitative traditions use different quality procedures; agreement between coders is not a universal substitute for reflexivity and coherent analysis.

In an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, first analyze participation and rubric outcomes, then purposefully invite participants with contrasting patterns for interviews. For example, low attendance/high motivation and high attendance/low gain are informative contrasts. Integrate findings in a joint display: numeric pattern → interview explanation → combined inference → next question. Interviews can explain plausible mechanisms and exceptions; they do not retroactively randomize an observational comparison.

BUILD THE REASONING · 04

Make the proposal implementable and accountable

A proposal must name who invites participants, how declining affects grades/services, what data are collected, who can access them, how identifiers are separated, and how adverse experiences or withdrawal are handled. Instructors recruiting their own students introduce power concerns. Use institutional review/determination processes before actual research; labeling work “program evaluation” or “class practice” does not by itself determine its regulatory status.

Write an analysis plan before inspecting results, while allowing transparently documented qualitative iteration appropriate to the chosen approach. For mixed methods, budget enough time and expertise for both components and integration. A limitations paragraph should state the implications of recruitment, missingness, positionality, measurement, and context for the specific claim, not list generic imperfections.

FROM CONCEPT TO DECISION

Why did the rehearsal program help only some students?

1. 1

   State the mixed question

   Ask how access and participation experiences help explain variation in the observed outcomes. This requires both numerical pattern and process information.

2. 2

   Choose contrasting interview cases

   Invite, voluntarily, commuters with low and high participation and attendees with high and low gains. This purposeful follow-up is for explanatory depth, not a representative prevalence estimate.

3. 3

   Analyze systematically

   Develop codes for usable access, entry into rehearsal, feedback, and alternative explanations; also permit unexpected codes. Compare cases and actively examine contradictions.

4. 4

   Integrate and bound the claim

   The joint display suggests schedule/privacy and exposure concerns as distinct targets. A revised program can test those targets; the pilot does not prove they caused the measured score differences.

MAKE THE REASONING YOURS

Work through a new situation

READ WITH A PURPOSE

Best references

These readings deepen the specific models, evidence, and decisions in this lesson.

1. 01
   NIH OBSSR: Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research

   Read the NIH methodological guidance on design, integration, team expertise, and quality; its original guidance dates to 2011 and is a methodological foundation, not a new effectiveness finding.

2. 02
   APA: Journal Article Reporting Standards

   Select the quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods standards to check whether a report explains the design, data collection, analysis, and limits needed to assess its claims.

3. 03
   Tong, Sainsbury, and Craig: COREQ (2007)

   Use the original interviews/focus-groups reporting checklist to inspect researcher role, sampling, collection, analysis, and supporting evidence. Reporting completeness does not itself establish a strong interpretation.

4. 04
   HHS OHRP: 45 CFR 46

   Locate the official human-subjects framework and seek the institution’s required determination for a real project; do not infer status solely from the label “evaluation.”