Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy

International Journal of Social Research Methodology

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 261-276

  Bryman, Alan ^a,d   Becker, Saul ^b   Sempik, Joe ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^c LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 51749087500     PISSN: 13645579     EISSN: 14645300     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13645570701401644     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Becker, S. (2008, in press). The approaches and methods of social policy. In P. Alcock, M. May, & K. Rowlingson (Eds.), The student's companion to social policy (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
2. Bryman, A. (2006a). Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9, 111-126.
3. Bryman, A. (2006b). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done?. Qualitative Research, 6, 97-113.
4. Bryman, A. (2007). The research question in social research: What is its role?. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 10, 5-20.
5. Dale, A. (2006). Quality issues with survey research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9, 143-158.
6. Duncan, S., & Harrop, A. (2006). A user perspective on research quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9, 159-174.
7. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
8. Niglas, K. (2004). The combined use of qualitative and quantitative methods in educational research (Dissertation on Social Sciences, Tallinn Pedagogical University, 2004).
9. Pawson, R. (2006). Digging for nuggets: How 'bad' research can yield 'good' evidence. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9, 127-142.
10. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell.
11. Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. RAE. (2006). Panel criteria and working methods: Panel J. Bristol: HEFCE, SFC, HEFCW, DEL.
13. Sale, J. E. M., & Brazil, K. (2004). A strategy to identify critical appraisal criteria for primary mixed-methods studies. Quality and Quantity, 38, 351-365.
14. Shore, S., & Wright, S. (2000). Coercive accountability: The rise of audit culture in higher education. In M. Strathern (Ed.). Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy (pp. 57-89). London: Routledge.
15. Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2003). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. London: Government Chief Social Researcher's Office.
16. Yardley, L. (2000). Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychology and Health, 15, 215-228.