Numbers and Narrative: Combining Their Strengths in Research Reviews
- 1 April 1982
- journal article
- Published by Harvard Education Publishing Group in Harvard Educational Review
- Vol. 52 (1) , 1-26
- https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.52.1.0114v8756m170618
Abstract
When several independent research studies examine the same program or treatment,conflicting findings often result, making it difficult to draw overall conclusions. Recent methodological work has created procedures, sometimes called meta-analysis, for combining quantitative results across studies. In this article, Richard Light and David Pillemer argue that qualitative information is equally important for explaining conflicting or puzzling outcomes. They discuss six ways in which qualitative information is essential to the process of literature review. The authors outline three broad strategies for combining different types of information in a review: quantifying descriptive reports, presenting quantitative outcomes narratively, and allying statistical and descriptive evidence while maintaining the integrity of each. They suggest that reviews organized to ally both forms of information will ultimately maximize our knowledge about the complexities of program success.Keywords
This publication has 30 references indexed in Scilit:
- Methods for Integrative ReviewsReview of Educational Research, 1980
- Applying the Logic of Sample Surveys to Qualitative Case Studies: The Case Cluster MethodAdministrative Science Quarterly, 1979
- Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues.Psychological Bulletin, 1978
- Combining results of independent studies.Psychological Bulletin, 1978
- Reply to Kamin.Psychological Bulletin, 1978
- Comment on Munsinger's review of adoption studies.Psychological Bulletin, 1978
- The Difference That Quality MakesSociological Methods & Research, 1976
- Using the Case Survey Method to Analyze Policy StudiesAdministrative Science Quarterly, 1975
- AN EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF SCHOOL NURSE PRACTITIONERS*Journal of School Health, 1974
- N = 1.Psychological Bulletin, 1965