4 Qualitative versus Quantitative Methods, and Mixed Methods
4.1 Introduction
In sec-IWO_axiology_praxiology, I briefly mentioned that the historical preference among IWO psychologists for quantitative methods (rather than qualitative methods) likely stemmed from the prevailing culture of influential persons in the domain of IWO psychologists during its early days. Over the decades there’s been increasing interest and appreciation for the usefulness of qualitative methods and mixed methods. There isn’t enough time to go in-depth into qualitative and/or mixed methods research in a single semester together with quantitative methods, but I aim to at least provide you with a sufficient introduction to such methods. The interested reader who wants to learn more may consult the Suggested Readings section of this chapter.
4.2 What are quantitative, qualitative, and/or mixed methods?
If you search for definitions for quantitative research method and/or qualitative research method, you will likely soon realize there is no universal consensus about how to define nor distinguish between those two. Yet, many researchers feel they have an intuitive understanding about how those two are different from each other. Interestingly, a definition of mixed methods research is perhaps easier to arrive at: it is research that combines qualitative and quantitative methods. Now, all we need to do is gain some clarity on what we mean when we say qualitative or quantitative methods.
Ultimately, the best place to start is with the meaning of quantitative and qualitative. Consider the following definitions from the online Oxford Dictionary of English (2025):
quantitative (adj.)
“relating to, measuring, or measured by the quantity of something rather than its quality.”
qualitative (adj.)
“relating to, measuring, or measured by the quality of something rather than its quantity.”
Now let’s try to unpack the meaning of quantitative research methods, versus qualitative research methods. A method is a process, and a process is merely a sequence of actions or changes across time. Consider a scenario in which I give you instructions for how to calculate the sales tax for an apple (based on the sale price and the tax rate), and another scenario in which I give you instructions for how to mix yellow and red paint to create orange. In both scenarios, you go through a process. In both scenarios, you use your hands to either use a calculator or write some numbers on paper or a computer, or you use your hands to maneuver the paint brush. In both scenarios, you use your eyes and your mind to keep track of what you’re doing, and what the next step should be. In both scenarios, you reach an end-point.
However, an important difference between the two scenarios is the type of information you were operating on and producing. In the first scenario, you were combining numbers to produce another number, also known as numeric information, also known as quantitative data. In the second scenario, you were combining colors to produce another color, which is a type of qualitative information, also known as qualitative data (e.g., your eyes would notice if there was too much yellow, and your mind would conclude you need to add more red, and then re-evaluate to figure out whether you’ve arrived at orangeness).
It is unfortunate that scholars typically use the term qualitative to mean non-numeric. Perhaps a more straightforward meaning would be, “of or relating to any quality”. In the latter sense, a numeric quality is still a quality (e.g., the size of a house in squared feet), and we could therefore map numeric data and non-numeric data onto quantitative and qualitative research, respectively. However, we are unlikely to change overnight how scholars around the world use these words.
Thus, one useful perspective to help define quantitative versus qualitative research methods is to consider whether the data being analyzed and/or produced are numeric or non-numeric. However, that’s not the only important consideration in defining those terms. Often, each qualitative method and/or qualitative method is bundled with an epistemological stance, an axiological stance, and a praxiological stance. For example, when scholars describe ethnography as a qualitative method, they don’t merely mention the fact that it involves observations and interviews. Rather, they emphasize the attitudes and mindset that the researcher must have, as well as the appropriate manners with which to interact with any participants. All of that is part of the ethos of ethnographic research. Ethnographic researchers typically maintain an open mindset towards exploring phenomena they didn’t initially anticipate, and they often seek to understand by adopting the perspective of the persons they are studying. Such an orientation is often lacking in many quantitative methods.
ethos (n.): “the characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or community as manifested in its beliefs and aspirations.” (Oxford Dictionary of English, 2025)
Although there is no single universally agreed-upon definition nor typology of qualitative versus quantitative methods, I hope I’ve at least given you a conceptual framework to help you understand what scholars typically mean. With that, I will now turn to describing some of the most common types of qualitative methods you may encounter in IWO psychology.
4.3 Some of the most common types of qualitative methods
A complete list of all types of qualitative methods is likely impossible, because there are so many ways to categorize the methods. For example, some researchers consider ethnography as a topic to be studied (i.e., the study of ethnic groups and cultures), whereas other researchers consider ethnography as a set of research methods. Here’s a different example: many researchers use quantitative methods to study one individual person, and they call that a case study. However, other researchers also use the noun-phrase case study as a type of qualitative method. As you can see, there is no universal consensus on what these words mean, but you’ll eventually figure out what the people in your area of the world mean when they use those words.
Still, here I will briefly describe some common types of qualitative methods. Just keep in mind other scholars may adopt slightly different definitions for some of the labels. What’s important here is that you understand the underlying concepts in each type of method.
Narrative research focuses on stories. Those stories can be factual, fictional, or somewhere in the between (e.g., where we’re not sure whether the story is fictional). Often, the stories are about the lives of one or more persons, but the stories can also be about non-human things, such as animals, spirits, or other things in the natural or supernatural world. For a brief introduction into narrative research methods, see Clandinin and Caine (2008).
Case study research is an intensive investigation about a bounded “case” (e.g., person, team, organization, event) in its real-world context. It draws on multiple sources of evidence (e.g., documents, interviews, observations, quantitative data) to produce a rich description or explanation. The cases may be single or multiple, and the findings may be generalized into a broader theory. Of course, case studies can also be purely quantitative, but here we are describing qualitative case studies. For a brief introduction into qualitative case study research, see Blatter (2008).
Phenomenology (also known as phenomenological research) seeks to understand one or more lived phenomena across multiple persons, to distill its essential structures or meanings. Examples of lived phenomena are: what it is like to fall in love; how students acquire a self-identity as emerging experts in their domain; or what it is like be taking a research methods course. Data typically come from rich first-person accounts, and the analysis typically seeks to identify themes that characterize the lived phenomena being studied. For a brief introduction into phenomenology, see Adams and van Manen (2008).
Ethnography (also known as ethnographic research) is characterized as the prolonged, naturalistic study of a culture or group to understand shared meanings, norms, and other behaviors from the insiders’ perspectives (i.e., an emic perspective). It often involves participant observation, fieldnotes, interviews, and artifacts to generate a rich description. For a brief introduction into ethnography, see Fetterman (2008).
This is a good time to introduce the emic versus etic distinction. An emic (/ˈiːmɪk/) perspective is an insider’s first-hand view about some concept (often this is the research participant), whereas an etic (/ˈɛtɪk/) perspective is a researcher’s view as an outsider about the same concept. The goal of many qualitative research methods is to combine an emic and etic perspective.
Action research: The key feature of action research is its emphasis on partnering with community members to conduct research that will lead to action that produces good changes for the benefit of that community. Though IWO psychologists often partner with local organizations to do research, such partnerships often lack the depth with which archetypal action-research tends to involve those partners in the planning and execution of the research. For a brief introduction into action research methods, see Somekh (2008).
Grounded theory research culminates in producing a theory (i.e., the grounded theory), based on an iterative process of data-collection and data-analysis. It typically starts with analyzing qualitative data from an emic perspective, then collecting and analyzing more qualitative data until very little new emic perspectives are obtained (this point is called data-saturation). At that point, the researcher analyzes the data via an etic perspective, using their outsider concepts and terminology. Thematic patterns in the data are aggregated into broader themes. Finally, the researcher identifies relationships among the themes, thus culminating in a theory. That theory is called a grounded theory because it is based on (i.e., grounded in) the data that was rigorously analyzed. For a brief introduction into grounded theory methods, See Charmaz and Bryant (2008).
4.4 Mixed Methods
As I mentioned before, mixed methods research makes use of both qualitative and quantitative methods within either a single study or a program of studies (also known as a sequence of studies). As quantitatively-trained researchers become increasingly aware of the utility of qualitative methods, mixed-methods research has become quite popular.
A program of research is a logically organized sequence of research studies that build upon each other. This mustn’t be confused with a computer program for doing research.
Many IWO psychology scholars believe qualitative research is best suited for inquiries into topics for which we’re not confident that we know what questions to ask in the first place (i.e., a nascent area of inquiry), whereas quantitative research is best suited for inquiries into highly specific topics that we believe we already have much knowledge about (i.e. a mature area of inquiry). For a good explanation of that conceptualization from IWO psychology scholars, see Edmondson and McManus (2007). Although that may be a useful rule-of-thumb, one can make very valid arguments about why a qualitative approach is useful regardless of how nascent or mature the area of inquiry is.
4.5 A note about the remainder of this course
For better or worse, this chapter is the most in-depth we will go into qualitative research methods in this course. For the interested reader, I’ve provided many supplemental references that go into great depth on many qualitative research methods. However, the current praxis of IWO psychology focuses heavily on quantitative methods, and employers of graduates with a degree in IWO psychology often seek employees with strong quantitative skills. Thus, for the sake of your immediate employability and acclimation into the world of IWO psychology, the remainder of this course will lean heavily on quantitative research methods (though I attempt to mention qualitative methods throughout). Fortunately, you have the option to learn about qualitative methods on your own with the reference material I’ve cited here and also listed in the Suggested Readings section below. One day, standard Research Methods courses for IWO psychologists may have much greater balance in their inclusion of qualitative and quantitative methods. Unfortunately, that day is not today.
4.6 Suggested Readings
Due to copyrights, I cannot give you full-text versions of entire books without prior permission from the copyright holder. However, I can recommend the following books for anyone interested in learning much more about qualitative methods:
- Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2024). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
- Creswell and Poth present a great conceptual typology for qualitative methods. Just be sure to keep in mind there are other ways of categorizing those methods. There isn’t one single “correct” way to categorize qualitative methods.
- Willig, C., & Rogers, W. S. (Eds.). (2017). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526405555
- This is a large handbook that you can use like an encyclopedia, to give you a quick but thorough summary of many of the most important topics in qualitative research methods.
- Given, L. M. (Ed.). (2008). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (Vols. 1–2). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909
- This is an encyclopedia, which provides very brief but insightful introductions to concepts. For topics I’m less familiar with, I’ll often reach for an encyclopedia before I reach for a handbook.