The Qualitative–Quantitative Distinction: Some comments

Kinds of Generalizations in Educational and Psychological Research

“…This qualitative pattern may be causal or-more often-descriptive (Guba & Lincoln, 2005;Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Note that when the qualitative pattern is causal, the causality concept involved will not be different from that in quantitative research (Lund, 2005a). Hence, whereas qualitative and quantitative approaches differ in many respects, the kinds of generalizations in the former approach can be considered special cases of the set of generalizations in the latter.…”

Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches: Some Arguments for Mixed Methods Research

“…For example, Teddlie and Tashakkori (2003) are sceptical about the concept of validity, and propose instead an alternative set of quality criteria related to inferences in mixed methods research. The position taken in the present paper is that, since it can be argued that the Campbellian validity system for quantitative research (Shadish et al, 2002) is relevant also for the qualitative approach (Lund, 2005a), this system is applicable in mixed methods research as well. However, the validity system should be revised on some points, especially concerning the definition of causal inferences and the related internal validity, as argued by Cronbach (1982), Kruglanski and Kroy (1976), Lund (2010), and Reichardt (2008).…”

“…The Campbellian system is based on critical realism (Cook & Campbell, 1979). Since critical realism can be considered a sound philosophical paradigm in both quantitative and qualitative cases (Lund, 2005a), this paradigm is regarded here as adequate for mixed methods research, too. Pragmatism has often been proposed as the best paradigm, primarily because mixed methods studies are typically characterized by a strong focus on research questions and practical use of results (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998), but this focus is not incompatible with critical realism.…”

Dancing the Tightropes: Rhizoanalysis revisited

“…I did not draw traditional inferences from the data; hence evaluating the work through traditional concepts of validity would be pointless. Maybe the most fruitful conclusion to such a mission impossible would be that poststructuralist research is not science -at least in the sense that the founders of theories on inferences, and thus validity, did in the mid nineteen hundreds (Lund, 2005). But, then again, would research focused on drawing causal inferences, for instance, be legitimized through concepts of validity after poststructuralism?…”

“…A brief glance at the main types of inferences in quantitative research might visualize this gap. According to Lund (2005) all research has to, in one way or another, deal with these four main inferences: statistical inferences (is the tendency significant or trivial? ), causal inferences (does one variable cause the other?…”