Quantitizing, commonly understood to refer to the numerical translation, transformation, or conversion of qualitative data, has become a staple of mixed methods research. Typically glossed are the foundational assumptions, judgments, and compromises involved in converting disparate data sets into each other and whether such conversions advance inquiry. Among these assumptions are that qualitative and quantitative data constitute two kinds of data, that quantitizing constitutes a unidirectional process essentially different from qualitizing, and that counting is an unambiguous process. Among the judgments are deciding what and how to count. Among the compromises are balancing numerical precision with narrative complexity. The standpoints of “conditional complementarity,” “critical remediation,” and “analytic alternation” clarify the added value of converting qualitative data into quantitative form.

Abstract:The new imperative in the health disciplines to be more methodologically inclusive has generated a growing interest in mixed research synthesis, or the integration of qualitative and quantitative research findings. Qualitative metasummary is a quantitatively oriented aggregation of qualitative findings originally developed to accommodate the distinctive features of qualitative surveys. Yet these findings are similar in form and mode of production to the descriptive findings researchers often present in addition to the results of bivariate and multivariable analyses. Qualitative metasummary, which includes the extraction, grouping, and formatting of findings, and the calculation of frequency and intensity effect sizes, can be used to produce mixed research syntheses and to conduct a posteriori analyses of the relationship between reports and findings.

A model concerning the establishment and operation of cues for control was developed and tested to understand how control can be exerted over (automatic) prejudiced responses. Cues for control are stimuli that are associated with prejudiced responses and the aversive consequences of those responses (e.g., guilt). In Experiments 1 and 2, 3 events critical to the establishment of cues occurred: behavioral inhibition, the experience of guilt, and retrospective reflection. In Experiment 3, the presentation of already-established cues for control did, as expected, produce behavioral inhibition. In Experiment 4, participants were provided with an experience in which cues could be established. Later presentation of those cues in a different task resulted in behavioral inhibition and less racially biased responses.

No abstract