SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • Annells, M. (1996). Grounded theory method: Philosophical perspectives, paradigm of inquiry, and post- modernism. Qualitative Health Research, 6, 379393.
  • Barbour, R.S. (1998). Mixing qualitative methods: Quality assurance or qualitative quagmire? Qualitative Health Research, 8, 352361.
  • Berman, H., Ford-Gilboe, M., & Campbell, J.C. (1998). Combining stories and numbers: A methodologic approach for a critical nursing science. ANS: Advances in Nursing Science, 21(1), 115.
  • Borkan, J.M., Quirk, M., & Sullivan, M. (1991). Finding meaning after the fall: Injury narratives from elderly hip fracture patients. Social Science & Medicine, 33, 947957.
  • Buchanan, D.R. (1992). An uneasy alliance: Combining qualitative and quantitative research methods. Health Education Quarterly, 19, 117135.
  • Caracelli, V.J., & Greene, J.C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 195207.
  • Caracelli, V.J., & Greene, J.C. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. In J.C.Greene & V.J.Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (pp. 1932). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Chen, H. (1997). Applying mixed methods under the framework of theory-driven evaluations. In J.C.Greene & V.J.Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (pp. 6172). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Fleury, J. (1993). Preserving qualitative meaning in instrument development. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1, 135144.
  • Ford-Gilboe, M., Campbell, J., & Berman, H. (1995). Stories and numbers: Coexistence without compromise. ANS: Advances in Nursing Science, 18, 1426.
  • Greene, J.C., & Caracelli, V.J., (Eds.). (1997a). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Greene, J.C., & Caracelli, V.J. (1997b). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. In J.C.Greene & V.J.Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (pp. 517). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255274.
  • Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K.Denzin & Y.S.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Helitzer-Allen, D.L., & Kendall, C. (1992). Explaining differences between qualitative and quantitative data: A study of chemoprophylaxis during pregnancy. Health Education Quarterly 19, 4154.
  • Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 274294.
  • Leininger, M. (1994). Evaluation criteria and critique in qualitative research studies. In J.M.Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 95-115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Morgan, D.L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 362376.
  • Morse, J.M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40, 120123.
  • Morse, J.M. (1996). Is qualitative research complete? Qualitative Health Research, 6, 35.
  • Ornstein, S.M., Musham, C., Reid, A., Jenkins, R.G., Zemp, L.D., & Garr, D.R. (1993). Barriers to adherence to preventive services reminder letters: The patient's perspective. Journal of Family Practice, 36, 195200.
  • Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Pearce, J.C. (1971). The crack in the cosmic egg: Challenging constructs of mind and reality. New York: Washington Square Press.
  • Rossman, G.B., & Wilson, B.L. (1994). Numbers and words revisited: Being “shamelessly eclectic.” Quality & Quantity, 28, 315-327.
  • Rothert, M., Rovner, D., Holmes, M., Schmitt, N., Talarczyk, G., Kroll, J., & Gogate, J. (1990). Women's use of information regarding hormone replacement therapy. Research in Nursing & Health, 13, 355366.
  • Sandelowski, M. (1995). Triangles and crystals: On the geometry of qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 18, 569574.
  • Sandelowski, M., Harris, B.G., & Holditch-Davis, D. (1991). Amniocentesis in the context of infertility. Health Care for Women International, 12, 167-178.
  • Sandelowski, M., Holditch-Davis, D., & Harris, B.G. (1992). Using qualitative and quantitative methods: The transition to parenthood of infertile couples. In J.F.Gilgun, K.Daly, & G.Handel (Eds.), Qualitative methods in family research (pp. 301-322). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.
  • Sutton, R.I. (1997). The virtues of closet qualitative research. Organization Science, 8, 97106.
  • Swanson, S.C. (1992). A cross-disciplinary application of Greene, Caracelli and Grahams's conceptual framework for mixed method evaluation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.
  • Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Trost, J.E. (1986). Statistically non-representative stratified sampling: A sampling technique for qualitative studies. Qualitative Sociology, 9, 5457.
  • Weinholtz, D., Kacer, B., & Rocklin, T. (1995). Salvaging quantitative research with qualitative data. Qualitative Health Research, 5, 388397.
  • Wolfer, J. (1993). Aspects of “reality” and ways of knowing in nursing: In search of an integrating paradigm. Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 25, 141146.