Skip to Content
Authors Sandelowski M, Voils CI, Knafl G
Author Profile(s)
Journal J Mix Methods Res Volume: 3 Issue: 3 Pages: 208-222
Publish Date 2009 Jul 01
PubMed ID 19865603
PMC ID 2768355
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.

Full Text Full text available on PubMed Central
webmaster@surgery.wisc.edu Copyright © 2017 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System