Quality Criteria for Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research: A View from Social Policy

By Alan Bryman, S. Becker, J. Sempik. 2008

395 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This article reports some findings from an investigation of social policy researchers in the UK. The findings relate to the quality criteria that social policy researchers deem to be appropriate to quantitative research, qualitative research and mixed methods research. The data derive from an e‐survey of researchers which was followed up by semi‐structured interviews with a purposively selected sample from among those e‐survey respondents who agreed to be interviewed. The article emphasises the findings that relate to quality criteria for mixed methods research, since this is an area that has not attracted a great deal of attention. Greater agreement was found regarding the criteria that should be employed for assessing quantitative than qualitative research. The findings relating to mixed methods research point to a preference for using a combination of quantitative and qualitative research criteria and for employing different criteria for the quantitative and the qualitative components.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/725cc2057d9766405dbefaae2162a0ab78191ce9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Developing mixed methods research in sport and exercise psychology: critical reflections on five points of controversy. (2015, background): “Bryman et al. (2008), however, argue that the criterion regarding the need for the findings to be integrated is more specific to MMR.”
Critical Appraisal of Mixed Methods Studies (2013, methodology): “, 2008), and more generally answering to the rising audit culture with a concern for judging quality of studies and research projects (Bryman et al., 2008; Caracelli & Riggin, 1994).”