定量研究还是定性研究:一场徒劳的争论

E. Naderi, Maryam Seifnaraghi
{"title":"定量研究还是定性研究:一场徒劳的争论","authors":"E. Naderi, Maryam Seifnaraghi","doi":"10.4172/2167-1222.1000401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article seeks to decrease discrepancies on the disputes about quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method research, using clear explanations and drawing on well-evidenced examples. All in the hope that it might do justice to a better understanding of the act of research as the sole approach available to any scholar for the protection of their preferentiality and authoritativeness.","PeriodicalId":90636,"journal":{"name":"Journal of trauma & treatment","volume":" ","pages":"1-2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantitative or Qualitative Research: A Futile Dispute\",\"authors\":\"E. Naderi, Maryam Seifnaraghi\",\"doi\":\"10.4172/2167-1222.1000401\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article seeks to decrease discrepancies on the disputes about quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method research, using clear explanations and drawing on well-evidenced examples. All in the hope that it might do justice to a better understanding of the act of research as the sole approach available to any scholar for the protection of their preferentiality and authoritativeness.\",\"PeriodicalId\":90636,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of trauma & treatment\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-2\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of trauma & treatment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-1222.1000401\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of trauma & treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-1222.1000401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文试图用清晰的解释和充分证据的例子来减少关于定量、定性和混合方法研究的分歧。所有这些都是希望它能公正地更好地理解研究行为,作为任何学者保护其优先权和权威性的唯一途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quantitative or Qualitative Research: A Futile Dispute
This article seeks to decrease discrepancies on the disputes about quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method research, using clear explanations and drawing on well-evidenced examples. All in the hope that it might do justice to a better understanding of the act of research as the sole approach available to any scholar for the protection of their preferentiality and authoritativeness.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信