104627547-“on-the-face-of-it-there-would-seem-to-be-little-to-the-quantitative-qualitative-distinction-other-than-the-fact-that-quantitative-researchers-employ.pdf...

7/28/2019 104627547-On-the-face-of-it-there-would-seem-to-be-little-to-the-quantitative-qualitative-distinction-other-than-th

http:///reader/full/104627547-on-the-face-of-it-there-would-seem-to-be-little-to-the-quantitative-qualitative-distinc 1/13

Marketing Research MK514Coursework 1

On the face of it, there would seem to be little to thequantitative/qualitative distinction other than the fact that quantitativeresearchers employ measurement and qualitative researchers do not.

Bryman & Bell 2007, p.28

a. Prepare a document that discusses this statement. Give examples of when eachcould be conducted, on which topics and with what audiences to inform theclients decision making. Include a section or table on the limitations as well asthe benefits of both (1000 words).

b. Create an argument for the methodology (either quantitative or qualitative) whichyou believe to be the most relevant for todays business environment. Provideexamples to support your argument and use academic references (no less than15 in total) to support your key points (1500 words).

Abstract

Section A of this paper will critically evaluate Bryman and Bells statement (2007, p.28)

through a review of literature on the subjects of qualitative and quantitative research. The

discussion will highlight a number of fundamental differences between the two approaches,

which scholars have termed paradigm wars, thereby refuting the statement made by

Bryman and Bell (2007, p.28).

In Section B an argument will be presented in favour of the pragmatic approach to research

methodology which incorporates a mix of qualitative and quantitative research. This writer

agrees with the proponents of mixed method research that it is the most relevant approach for

todays business environment.



2

Section A

Introduction

To critically evaluate Bryman and Bells statement this paper will draw upon literature to

conduct a discussion on the subject of quantitative and qualitative research.

Discussion

To perform a meaningful discussion of Bryman and Bells statement and the subject of

qualitative and quantitative research, it is necessary to explore the theoretical framework or

paradigms to which these forms of research are aligned. Khun (1962) refers to paradigms as

long periods ofnormal puzzle solving separated by brief periods of paradigm shift. Offering

an account of Khuns historical description, Potter (2000, p.70) states that:

Normal science proceeds from a single paradigm, a set of agreed-upon problems andmeans of solving them. However, scientific revolutions occur when a radically differentparadigm is conceived and established. Adherents of different paradigms frequentlytalk past one another because of how fundamentally different their assumptions are.

Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004, p.14) agree that alternative paradigms are the subject of

quarrel amongst many researchers, For more than a century, the advocates of quantitative

and qualitative research paradigms have engaged in ardent dispute. Smith (1983 cited

Newman and Benz, 1998, p.112) states:

the assumption that the two approaches are little more than alternative methodologieswhose varied employment responds simply to what works and not to epistemologicalconsiderations, must not be accepted at face value.

The references to debate by the authors above would suggest that there are greater

distinctions between the two research paradigms than the simple presence or absence of

measurement as indicated in the statement by Bryman and Bell (2007, p.28). Indeed, further

reading reveals that Bryman and Bell (2007, p.29) do not stand by their earlier statement, and

identify that:

a number of distinguishing features flow from the commitment of the quantitativeresearch strategy to a positivist epistemology, and from the rejection of thatepistemology by the practitioners of the qualitative research strategy.

According to Mackenzie and Knipe (2006, p.194) the chosen paradigm, sets down the intent,

motivation and expectations for the research, and without nominating a paradigm as a firststep, there is no basis for subsequent choices regarding methodology, methods, literature or

research design. These authors use the term paradigm to refer to the philosophical intent or



3

underlying framework and motivation of the researcher with regard to research. Creswell

(2003) employs the term knowledge claim in place of paradigm, and discusses four main

schools of thought: post-positivism (includes positivism); constructivism (also known as

interpretivism); advocacy/ participatory; and pragmatism, explored further in the table below

(Creswell, 2003, p.6):

Post-positivism Constructivism/Interpretivism

Advocacy/Participatory

Pragmatism

Determination Reductionism Empirical

observation &measurement

Theory verification

Understanding Multiple participant

meanings Social and historical

construction Theory Generation

Political Empowerment

issue-orientated Collaborative Change-orientated

Consequences ofactions

Problem-centred Pluralistic Real-world practice

orientated

Sale et al. (2002, p.45) go further and suggest that:

the underlying assumptions of the quantitative and qualitative paradigms result indifferences which extend beyond philosophical and methodological debates. The twoparadigms have given rise to different journals, differing sources of funding, differentexpertise, and different methods.

Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) identify three approaches to research: quantitative, qualitative

and mixed methods. In addition to the stance taken on paradigm, Creswell (2003)

characterises each approach by the strategies employed for the design and method of data

collection. Therefore particular strategies and methods have a propensity to be associated

with a particular approach. The practice of researchers adopting a primarily qualitative or

quantitative approach to design and methodology in reflection of a dominant set of associated

paradigm beliefs, whether post-positivist or interpretivist is termed by Tashakkori and Teddlie

(1998) as the mono method era, which spawned a debate known as the paradigm wars.

Glesne and Peshkin (1992, p.9) agree that:

because the positivist and the interpretivist paradigms rest on different assumptionsabout the nature of the world, they require different instruments and procedures to findthe type of data desired.

The literature suggests that research under the positivist or post-positivist paradigm favours

the use of quantitative methods which include strategies of inquiry such as (though not

necessarily exclusively) experimentation, surveys, and methods of data collection that have

pre-determined measures resulting in numeric data (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006; Creswell,

2003). Described also by the term empiricism (Malhotra and Birks, 2007, p.155), quantitative



4

research originated in the natural sciences such as biology, chemistry and physics from which

it borrows the penchant for objective observation and measurement which can be repeated by

other researchers (Charoenruk, ca. 2010).

The interpretivist/constructivist paradigm sees the application of predominantly qualitative

methods (Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006). Descended from the social sciences, such as

psychology and social anthropology, qualitative research seeks to increase the understanding

of our social world, not least why people act the way they do (Marshall and Rossman, 1999)

through studies of human behaviour and the social world inhabited by human beings

(Morgan, 1983). Qualitative research employs strategies such as case study or narrative and

uses methods of data collection such as interviews that yield open ended data (Creswell,

2003).

Newman and Benz (1998) argue that qualitative approaches are used generally when

observing and interpreting reality with the aim of developing a theory that will explain what

was experienced, whereas a quantitative approach might be used when one begins with a

theory (or hypothesis) and tests for confirmation or disconfirmation of that hypothesis. A

further explanation of the main assumptions and characteristics associated with each

approach is included in Appendix 1.

Constable et al. (2005) highlight the shortcomings of each approach, citing that quantitative

research often "forces" responses or people into categories that might not "fit" in order to

make meaning, and qualitative research sometimes focuses too closely on individual results

and fails to make connections to larger situations or possible causes of the results. Further

strengths and weaknesses as identified by Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) are included in

Appendix 2.

Conclusions

It could be argued that, in general, quantitative researchers have a greater propensity to

employ measurement than their qualitative colleagues, however, the literature demonstrates

that, in addition to the application of measurement, there are many distinctions between

quantitative and qualitative strategies, not least the fundamental assumptions held within thepositivist or interpretivist paradigm. In practice this paradigm divergence gives rise to different

sources of funding, different journals and of course different methods, which extend beyond



5

the choice of whether or not to use measurement. This writer therefore disagrees with the

premise contained within Bryman and Bells statement (2007, p.28), but would agree with the

proposition by Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) that a paradigm shift towards the third

wave of pragmatism and mixed methods may begin to narrow the divide between

quantitative and qualitative researchers.

Section B

Introduction

This paper will build upon the review of literature conducted within Section A to address the

question of whether a qualitative or quantitative methodology is more relevant to todays

business environment. In addition to qualitative and quantitative approaches, the preceding

discussion introduced the concept of mixed methods. Constable et al. (2005) suggest that

instead of discounting individual approaches for their drawbacks, researchers should find the

most effective ways to incorporate elements of both to ensure that their studies are as

accurate and thorough as possible (2005, approx. 3 screens). This paper will therefore

present an argument not for one or other methodology (quantitative or qualitative), but for the

combination of both (mixed methods).

Discussion

The traditional view of the social sciences saw researchers preoccupied with discovering laws

concerning human behaviour for which quantitative date are needed to base generalisations.

The more recent view tends to emphasise how people differ from one another, which involves

studying individuals in depth using mainly qualitative techniques (Schulze, 2003). An analysis

of the strengths and limitations of both methodologies is contained in Appendix 2.

The emergence of the mixed methods approach in the 1960s followed by the mixed model

era in the 1990s saw researchers first employ a mix of quantitative and qualitative

approaches to methods of data collection within one study, and then a mix at multiple stages

of research, for example design, collection and analysis (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998;

Armitage, 2003). Known philosophically as the third wave, pragmatism moved past the

paradigm wars by offering a logical and practical alternative (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie,

2004). This pragmatic approach provides for "multiple methods, different worldviews, and

different assumptions, as well as different forms of data collection and analysis in the mixed

methods study" (Creswell, 2003, p.12).



6

Newman and Benz (1998) also reject the dichotomy assumed by the qualitative-quantitative

debate offering an alternative proposition of interactive places on a methodological and

philosophical continuum based on the philosophy of science (Newman and Benz, 1998, p.xi).

The authors further assert that:

The decision about what data to collect, as well as what to do with that data after theyare collected, should be dictated by the research question (Newman and Benz, 1998,p.15).

Barker et al. (2001, p.2) agree:

that while it is typical to present the extreme positions, associated assumptions andpractices, it is probably more useful to think of a continuum along which assumptionsand features may change depending on the nature of the research problem.

An illustration from Niglas (1999, approx. 18 screens) outlines various possibilities for mixing

quantitative and qualitative at each level of research:

Gorard and Taylor (2004) describe combined or mixed methods research as a key element

in the improvement of social science... requires a greater level of skill... can lead to less waste

of potentially useful information... and creates researchers with an increased ability to make

appropriate criticisms of all types of research (2004, p.7). Gorard and Taylor assert that

research is strengthened by the use of a variety of methods, and findings often have greater

impact:

because figures can be very persuasive to policy-makers whereas stories are moreeasily remembered and repeated by them for illustrative purposes (Gorard and Taylor,2004, p.7).



7

However, O'Leary (2004 cited Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006) warn that what was relatively

simple to define thirty or forty years ago has become far more complex in recent times due to

a dramatic increase in research methods, "particularly in the social/applied sciences".

Reymenyi (2002) agrees that the apparent latitude in the choice of the research strategies,

techniques and tools is perhaps one of the greatest challenges which Business and

Management Studies faces. The authors use of the word apparent is critical, as he claims

that on close examination, often only one of the apparent research alternatives may in fact be

appropriate for a particular inquiry. Reymenyi (2002) states that in some instances it would

not make sense for a researcher to use quantitative tools to explore certain types of

questions:

it might be inappropriate for a researcher interested in personal attitudes towardsleadership issues to use a blunt instrument such as a questionnaire. In a similar way itmight not be sensible to use interpretivist techniques to understand the relationshipbetween corporate debt and profit margins. Thus the initial interesting thought and thesubsequent research question is all-important in directing the course of the researchprocess.

Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003) identify three specific instances where a mixed methods

approach is superior to a mono methods approach: mixed methods can answer

simultaneously confirmatory and exploratory questions (which other approaches cannot); they

provide stronger conclusions through depth and breadth in answer to complex social

phenomena; and they provide the opportunity through divergent findings for an expression of

differing viewpoints.

In order to demonstrate mixed-methods in practice, Weinreich (1996) provides an example of

the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods in social marketing, which:

relies upon consumer-focused research to learn as much about the target audienceas possible by looking at their lives from many different angles both quantitatively aspart of a larger group, and qualitatively to investigate individual attitudes, reactions,behaviours and preferences.

According to Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), the strengths of a mixed methods approach

also include the ability to employ words, pictures and narrative to add meaning to numbers

and vice versa, using numbers to add precision to words, pictures, and narrative. A mixed

methods researcher can generate and test a grounded theory, and can answer a broader and

more complete range of research questions because the researcher is not confined to a



8

single method or approach. In combining qualitative and quantitative methods in one study,

the researcher can use the strengths of one method to overcome the weaknesses in the

other, add insights and understanding that might be missed when only a single method is

used and mixed methods can be used to increase the generalisability of the results. It is

generally agreed amongst the proponents of mixed methods that using qualitative and

quantitative research together produces more complete knowledge which is necessary to

inform theory and practice. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) also agree with the view of

Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003) that mixed research can provide stronger evidence for a

conclusion through convergence and corroboration of findings.

Schulze (2003) asserts that by combining qualitative and qualitative research methods,

researchers can simultaneously conform to and transcend dominant research conventions,

making use of the most valuable features of each (2003, p.19).

However, Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) highlight limitations in the mixed methods

approach, not least the difficulty faced by a single researcher attempting to carry out both

qualitative and quantitative research, especially if two or more approaches are expected to

be used concurrently, which may require a research team. The mixed methods researcher

also has to learn about multiple methods and approaches and understand how to mix them

appropriately, though Gorard and Taylor (2004) identify the possession of such skills as a

strength of the mixed methods approach. Other limitations include the expense of mixed

methods; it can be more time consuming; and methodological purists contend that one

should always work within either a qualitative or a quantitative paradigm. Some of the details

of mixed research are also yet to be worked out fully, including problems of paradigm mixing;

how to qualitatively analyse quantitative data; and how to interpret conflicting results.

In relation to the relevance for todays business environment, Johnson and Onwuegbuzie

(2004, p.15) state that:

Todays research world is becoming increasingly interdisciplinary, complex, anddynamic; therefore, many researchers need to complement one method with another,and all researchers need a solid understanding of multiple methods used by otherscholars to facilitate communication, to promote collaboration, and to provide superiorresearch. Taking a non-purist or compatibilist or mixed position allows researchers to

mix and match design components that offer the best chance of answering theirspecific research questions.



9

Malhotra and Birks (2007) concur that qualitative and quantitative research should be viewed

as complementary, stating that business and marketing decision-makers use both

approaches and will continue to need both (2007, p.175) and therefore seeking a singular

and uniform approach to supporting decision-makers by focusing on one approach is futile

(2007, p.152).

Conclusions

The business environment of today is more dynamic and complex than ever and calls for

creative solutions to research questions. Combining the most valuable features of both

qualitative and quantitative methodologies in a pragmatic approach facilitates such creativity,

providing for "multiple methods, different worldviews, and different assumptions, as well as

different forms of data collection and analysis in the mixed methods study" (Creswell, 2003,

p.12). The concept of a continuum allows research practitioners to take as little or as much

as is relevant from each approach, enabling them to apply a flexible framework of what

works to the research problems presented by todays hypercompetitive world. This writer

would therefore agree with the proponents of mixed methods that the use of both qualitative

and quantitative research is most relevant for todays business environment.


http:///reader/full/104627547-on-the-face-of-it-there-would-seem-to-be-little-to-the-quantitative-qualitative-distin 10/13

10

Appendix 1 Assumptions and Characteristics

Post-positivism (Quantitative) Interpretivism (Qualitative)

Assumptions: Social facts have an objective reality

Primacy of method Variables can be identified and relationships

measured

Etic (outsider's point of view)

Assumptions: Reality is socially constructed

Primacy of subject matter Variables are complex, interwoven, and difficult to

measure

Emic (insider's point of view)

Purpose: Broad Generalisation Prediction

Causal explanations

Purpose: Contextualisation Interpretation

Understanding actors' perspectives

Approach: Begins with hypotheses and theories Manipulation and control

Uses formal instruments eg tests, scales,structured questionnaires

Large Samples

Pre-coded response categories Low flexibility in data collection

Statistical Analysis

Experimentation

Deductive

Component analysis

Seeks consensus, the norm

Reduces data to numerical indices Abstract language in write-up Report statistical eg percentages, tables, graphs

etc

Approach: Ends with hypotheses and grounded theory Emergence and portrayal , rich in-depth insights

Researcher as instrument

Focus groups or in-depth interviews, observations,document reviews, visual data analysis

Small samples High flexibility in data collection

Naturalistic

Inductive

Searches for patterns

Content analysis of respondent statements fromaudio recording (post-coded)

Seeks pluralism, complexity Makes minor use of numerical indices

Descriptive write-up, underlying themes illustratedby quotes from respondents; summary statements

Audience/Topic: Conducting descriptive research eg consumer or

market characteristics.

Surveys and quantitative observation.

Audience/Topic: Conducting research on children, the vital

informality and child-friendly atmosphere is easilyfacilitated by qualitative methods.

Capturing sensitive information; exploringsubconscious feelings, complex phenomena andholistic outlook.

Researchers Role: Detachment and impartiality Objective portrayal

Researchers Role: Personal involvement and partiality Empathic understanding

(Adapted from Glesne and Peshkin,1992; Mackenzie and Knipe, 2006; Malhotra and Birks, 2007)



11

Appendix 2 Strengths and Limitations

Post-positivism (Quantitative)

Strengths:

Testing and validating already constructed theories about how (and to a lesser degree, why) phenomena occur. Testing hypotheses that are constructed before the data are collected. Can generalise research findings when

the data are based on random samples of sufficient size.

Can generalise a research finding when it has been replicated on many different populations andsubpopulations.

Useful for obtaining data that allow quantitative predictions to be made.

The researcher may construct a situation that eliminates the confounding influence of many variables, allowingone to more credibly assess cause-and-effectrelationships.

Data collection using some quantitative methods is relatively quick (e.g., telephone interviews).

Provides precise, quantitative, numerical data. Data analysis is relatively less time consuming (using statistical software). The research results are relatively independent of the researcher (e.g., effect size, statistical significance).

It may have higher credibility with many people in power (e.g., administrators, politicians, people who fundprograms).

It is useful for studying large numbers of people.

Limitations:

The researchers categories that are used may not reflect local constituencies understandings.

The researchers theories that are usedmay not reflect local constituencies understandings. The researcher may miss out on phenomena occurring because of the focus on theory or hypothesis testing

rather.

than on theory or hypothesis generation (called the confirmation bias). Knowledge produced may be too abstract and general for direct application to specific local situations, contexts,

and individuals.(Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p.19)

Interpretivism (Qualitative)

Strengths:

The data are based on the participants own categories of meaning.

It is useful for studying a limited number of cases in depth. It is useful for describing complex phenomena.

Provides individual case information. Can conduct cross-case comparisons and analysis. Provides understanding and description of peoples personalexperiences of phenomena (i.e., the emic or

insiders viewpoint). Can describe, in rich detail, phenomena as they are situated and embedded in local contexts.

The researcher identifies contextual and setting factors as they relate to the phenomenon of interest. The researcher can study dynamic processes (i.e., documenting sequential patterns and change). The researcher can use the primarily qualitative method ofgrounded theory to generate inductively a tentative

but explanatory theory about a phenomenon. Can determine how participants interpret constructs (e.g., self-esteem, IQ). Data are usually collected in naturalistic settings in qualitative research.

Qualitative approaches are responsive to local situations, conditions, and stakeholders needs. Qualitative researchers are responsive to changes that occur during the conduct of a study (especially during

extended fieldwork) and may shift the focus of their studies as a result.

Qualitative data in the words and categories of participants lend themselves to exploring how and whyphenomena occur.

One can use an important case to demonstrate vividly a phenomenon to the readers of a report.

Determine idiographic causation (i.e., determination of causes of a particular event).

Limitations:

Knowledge produced may not generalise to other people or other settings (i.e., findings may be unique to therelatively few people included in the research study).

It is difficult to make quantitative predictions.

It is more difficult to test hypotheses and theories. It may have lower credibility with some administrators and commissioners of programs. It generally takes more time to collect the data when compared to quantitative research.

Data analysis is often time consuming. The results are more easily influenced by the researchers personal biases and idiosyncrasies.

(Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p.20)



12

References

Armitage, A. 2007. Mutual Research Designs: Redefining Mixed Methods Research Design. In: TheBritish Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Institute of Education, September 5-8,2007, University of London, London. Available from:http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aQIWAUmMahwJ:www.ethiopia-ed.net/images/1602209283.doc+pragmatic+paradigm&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk[Accessed 23October 2010].

Barker, B., Nancarrow, C. and Spackman, N., 2001. Informed Eclecticism: A Research Paradigm forthe Twenty First Century. International Journal of Market Research, 43 (1),1-11. Available from:http://www.warc.com/ArticleCenter/Default.asp?CType=A&AID=34839&Tab=A[Accessed 17 October2010].

Bryman, A. and Bell, E., 2007. Business Research Methods. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Charoenruk, D., ca. 2010. Communication Research Methodologies: Qualitative and Quantitative

Methodology. Available from:http://utcc2.utcc.ac.th/localuser/amsar/PDF/Documents49/quantitative_and_qualitative_methodologies.pdf[Accessed 17 October 2010].

Constable, R., Cowell, M., Crawford, S., Golden, D., Hartvigsen, J., Morgan, K., Mudgett, A., Parrish,K., Thomas, L., Thompson, E.Y., Turner, R., and Palmquist, M., 2005. Ethnography, ObservationalResearch, and Narrative Inquiry. Colorado State University Department of English. Available from:http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/observe/[Accessed 16 October 2010].

Creswell, J.W., 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rded. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Glesne, C. and Peshkin, A., 1992. Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains,NY: Longman.

Gorard, S. and Taylor, C., 2004. Combining Methods in Educational and Social Research. Berkshire:Open University Press.

Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J., 2004. Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm WhoseTime Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14-26.

Kuhn, T.S.,1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mackenzie, N. and Knipe, S., 2006. Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology.

Issues in Educational Research, 16, 193-205.

Malhotra, N.K. and Birks, D.F., 2007. Marketing Research. An applied approach. 3rd ed. Harlow:Pearson.

Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B., 1999. Designing qualitative research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: SagePublications.

Newman, I. and Benz, C.R., 1998. Qualitative-Quantitative Research Methodology: Exploring theInteractive Continuum. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Niglas, K. 1999. Quantitative and Qualitative Inquiry in Educational Research: Is There A ParadigmaticDifference Between Them? In: European Conference on Educational Research, September 22-251999, Lahti, Finland. Available from:http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001487.htm[Accessed 24 October 2010].
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aQIWAUmMahwJ:www.ethiopia-ed.net/images/1602209283.doc+pragmatic+paradigm&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ukhttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aQIWAUmMahwJ:www.ethiopia-ed.net/images/1602209283.doc+pragmatic+paradigm&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ukhttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aQIWAUmMahwJ:www.ethiopia-ed.net/images/1602209283.doc+pragmatic+paradigm&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ukhttp://www.warc.com/ArticleCenter/Default.asp?CType=A&AID=34839&Tab=Ahttp://www.warc.com/ArticleCenter/Default.asp?CType=A&AID=34839&Tab=Ahttp://utcc2.utcc.ac.th/localuser/amsar/PDF/Documents49/quantitative_and_qualitative_methodologies.pdfhttp://utcc2.utcc.ac.th/localuser/amsar/PDF/Documents49/quantitative_and_qualitative_methodologies.pdfhttp://utcc2.utcc.ac.th/localuser/amsar/PDF/Documents49/quantitative_and_qualitative_methodologies.pdfhttp://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/observe/http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/observe/http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001487.htmhttp://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001487.htmhttp://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001487.htmhttp://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001487.htmhttp://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/observe/http://utcc2.utcc.ac.th/localuser/amsar/PDF/Documents49/quantitative_and_qualitative_methodologies.pdfhttp://utcc2.utcc.ac.th/localuser/amsar/PDF/Documents49/quantitative_and_qualitative_methodologies.pdfhttp://www.warc.com/ArticleCenter/Default.asp?CType=A&AID=34839&Tab=Ahttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aQIWAUmMahwJ:www.ethiopia-ed.net/images/1602209283.doc+pragmatic+paradigm&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ukhttp://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aQIWAUmMahwJ:www.ethiopia-ed.net/images/1602209283.doc+pragmatic+paradigm&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk



13

Reymeni, D., 2002. Research Strategies Beyond the Differences. Electronic Journal of BusinessResearch Methods, 1 (1), 38-41.

Sale, J., Lohfield, L. and Brazil, K., 2002. Revisiting the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate: Implicationsfor Mixed-Methods Research. Quality & Quantity, 36, 43-53.

Schulze, S., 2003. Views on the Combination of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Approaches.Progressio, 25 (2), 8-20.Available from:http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/10500/195/1/ar_schulze_viewsoncombination.pdf[Accessed 17October 2010]

Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C., 1998. Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and QuantitativeApproaches. London: Sage.

Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C., 2003. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and BehaviouralResearch. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Weinreich, N.K., 1996. Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Social Marketing Research.Available from:http://www.social-marketing.com/research.html[Accessed 15 October 2010].
http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/10500/195/1/ar_schulze_viewsoncombination.pdfhttp://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/10500/195/1/ar_schulze_viewsoncombination.pdfhttp://www.social-marketing.com/research.htmlhttp://www.social-marketing.com/research.htmlhttp://www.social-marketing.com/research.htmlhttp://www.social-marketing.com/research.htmlhttp://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/10500/195/1/ar_schulze_viewsoncombination.pdf