This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1558689809334210v1 3/3/208    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Sandelowski, M. Articles by Knafl, G. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

On Quantitizing

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: msandelo{at}email.unc.edu.

	Abstract

Quantitizing, commonly understood to refer to the numerical translation, transformation, or conversion of qualitative data, has become a staple of mixed methods research. Typically glossed are the foundational assumptions, judgments, and compromises involved in converting disparate data sets into each other and whether such conversions advance inquiry. Among these assumptions are that qualitative and quantitative data constitute two kinds of data, that quantitizing constitutes a unidirectional process essentially different from qualitizing, and that counting is an unambiguous process. Among the judgments are deciding what and how to count. Among the compromises are balancing numerical precision with narrative complexity. The standpoints of ‘‘conditional complementarity,’’ ‘‘critical remediation,’’ and ‘‘analytic alternation’’ clarify the added value of converting qualitative data into quantitative form.

First published on April 21, 2009, doi:10.1177/1558689809334210

Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2009;3:208.

A more recent version of this article appeared on July 1, 2009


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?