Choosing Between Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods
The classic question of “the chicken or the egg” is often used to illustrate how some decisions resist simple sequencing. Similarly, the thought experiment of the Ship of Theseus—asking whether an object remains the same after all of its parts have been replaced—highlights how identity, structure, and purpose can become difficult to disentangle.
Choosing a dissertation methodology presents a comparable kind of problem. Doctoral students are often asked to identify a methodological approach early in the research process, even as the research questions, data, and theoretical framing continue to evolve. This can make the decision feel circular: does the method shape the question, or does the question determine the method?
In practice, committees recognize this tension. Methodological decisions are rarely made in isolation, and they are best understood as part of an iterative process rather than a single, fixed choice. Understanding how committees evaluate methodological fit can help students navigate this complexity more confidently and make decisions that are both coherent and defensible.
Starting With the Research Question
Methodological decisions are strongest when they follow directly from the research questions. Committees routinely evaluate whether a chosen approach is appropriate for the type of knowledge the study seeks to generate.
Questions focused on measurement, relationships between variables, or estimation of effects often lend themselves to quantitative approaches. Questions aimed at understanding experiences, meanings, processes, or context are typically better suited to qualitative designs. When questions require both numeric patterns and contextual explanation, a mixed-methods approach may be appropriate.
Beginning with the question rather than the method helps avoid misalignment and strengthens the overall coherence of the study.
When Quantitative Approaches Are a Good Fit
Quantitative methods are well suited for studies that examine relationships, comparisons, trends, or predictive patterns using numerical data. Committees expect quantitative dissertations to demonstrate clear operationalization of constructs, appropriate analytic techniques, and transparent interpretation of results.
However, quantitative approaches are not inherently stronger or more rigorous than other methods. Committees evaluate quantitative work based on alignment, justification, and defensibility, not on complexity or statistical sophistication.
Choosing a quantitative design because it “sounds more scientific” or because software is readily available often leads to methodological challenges later in the process.
When Qualitative Approaches Are Appropriate
Qualitative methods are particularly valuable when the goal is to explore perspectives, experiences, or processes that are not easily captured through numerical measures. These approaches allow for depth, nuance, and contextual understanding.
Committees evaluating qualitative dissertations look for clear articulation of epistemological stance, thoughtful sampling strategies, systematic analytic procedures, and reflexivity. As with quantitative work, rigor is demonstrated through transparency and coherence rather than volume of data or analytic complexity.
Qualitative approaches are especially well suited for exploratory research or for examining phenomena that are under-theorized or poorly understood.
Understanding Mixed-Methods Designs
Mixed-methods designs intentionally integrate quantitative and qualitative approaches within a single study. When used appropriately, they can provide complementary insights that neither approach could offer alone.
However, mixed-methods dissertations often face heightened scrutiny. Committees expect students to justify not only each method individually, but also the rationale for combining them. Simply including both types of data does not constitute a mixed-methods design.
Students should consider whether integration meaningfully advances the research questions or whether a single approach would be more coherent and feasible.
Feasibility and Scope Matter
Beyond conceptual alignment, committees also evaluate whether a chosen approach is feasible given time, resources, and access to data or participants. Ambitious designs that are theoretically appealing but practically unrealistic often require substantial revision.
A methodologically sound dissertation is one that can be completed responsibly within program constraints. Committees generally prefer well-executed, appropriately scoped studies over overly complex designs that are difficult to manage or defend.
Methodological Fit Over Preference
Many students feel pressure to choose methods based on advisor preferences, disciplinary norms, or perceived hierarchy among approaches. While context matters, committees are ultimately evaluating whether methodological choices are appropriate for the study’s aims.
Clear articulation of why a particular approach was selected—and why alternatives were not—often matters more than the approach itself. Defensible reasoning is consistently valued across methods.
A Final Thought
Choosing between quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods approaches is less about selecting the “best” method and more about identifying the approach that best serves the research questions. When methods follow from purpose and are clearly justified, committees are far more likely to view the study as coherent and defensible.
Interested in Support?
If you are working to clarify your methodological approach or navigating feedback related to research design, structured guidance can be helpful.
You can learn more about my approach to dissertation consulting or schedule a consultation through the link below:
