Onwuegbuzie Anthony J
Faculty of Education, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Front Psychol. 2025 Jan 23;15:1421525. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1421525. eCollection 2024.
This article builds on the highly cited 2009 article authored by Professor Emerita Margarete Sandelowski and her colleagues by critically reevaluating the process of quantitizing-transforming qualitative data into quantitative forms-a technique that has surprisingly not proliferated in academic research, presumably due to a shortage of methodological exploration in this area. This article responds to this shortfall by proposing a comprehensive meta-framework using the 5W1H approach, which outlines why, when, what, where, how, and who should engage in quantitizing, thereby integrating several frameworks and models across both mixed and multiple methods research. Central to this framework is the , which categorizes quantitizing into escriptive, nferential, easurement, and xploratory types, each enhancing the utility and precision of quantitizing. This innovative model supports the article's broader advocacy for quantitizing as a crucial methodological tool across diverse research traditions. This article explores the application and value of quantitizing across qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research traditions, demonstrating its broad relevance and transformative potential. It discusses the variable adoption of quantitizing based on differing philosophical perspectives related to ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology. Despite these differences, only a few research philosophies completely reject quantitizing. The article advocates for a balanced use of quantitizing to complement qualitative analyses and to enhance research clarity and applicability without compromising the richness of qualitative data. It serves as a comprehensive resource for understanding the complexities and utility of quantitizing, aiming to inspire researchers to consider this approach to enrich their analytical tools and to enhance the depth and applicability of their research findings.
本文以玛格丽特·桑德洛斯基名誉教授及其同事2009年发表的高被引文章为基础,对将定性数据量化转化为定量形式的过程进行批判性重新评估。这一技术在学术研究中出人意料地未得到广泛应用,大概是因为该领域缺乏方法学探索。本文通过提出一个使用5W1H方法的综合元框架来回应这一不足,该框架概述了为何、何时、何事、何地、如何以及谁应该参与量化,从而整合了混合方法研究和多方法研究中的多个框架和模型。该框架的核心是将量化分为描述性、推断性、测量性和探索性类型,每种类型都提高了量化的效用和精度。这个创新模型支持了本文更广泛的主张,即量化作为一种关键的方法工具适用于各种研究传统。本文探讨了量化在定性、定量和混合方法研究传统中的应用和价值,展示了其广泛的相关性和变革潜力。它讨论了基于与本体论、认识论、价值论和方法论相关的不同哲学观点对量化的不同采用情况。尽管存在这些差异,但只有少数研究哲学完全拒绝量化。本文主张平衡使用量化来补充定性分析,提高研究的清晰度和适用性,同时不损害定性数据的丰富性。它是理解量化的复杂性和效用的综合资源,旨在激励研究人员考虑这种方法来丰富他们的分析工具,提高研究结果 的深度和适用性。