混合研究

二十年前的文化轉向使得一整代的臺灣社會科學學生更加認同並且認真學習質化研究方法，這不是壞事，卻也使他們忽略了自己的數學程度其實遠超過歐美學生的這項優勢—在臺灣就算數學再爛的學生，出國之後往往成為系上最強的統計助教，一方面顯示臺灣的中學教育與統計教學出了問題，對社會組學生造成心理障礙，另一方面也顯示了臺灣質化與量化研究者的劃界，無助於學生的求學生涯與整體社會科學的發展。

大多數研究都不能明確歸類為質化研究或量化研究。最好的研究經常綜合了兩者的特徵。在相同研究中，研究者可能獲得某些適合統計分析的資料，也獲得一些同樣重要但不適用統計分析的資料。社會、政治或經濟行為的模式和趨勢，比人們觀念的變動或因特殊的個人領導者而產生的差異，更適於量化分析。如果我們想理解這個迅速變遷的社會世界，我們既需要包含那些不能被輕易量化的資訊，也需要擁有那些易於量化的資訊。 

a common mistake by students

A common mistake by students is to equate research strategies with quantitative or qualitative research. Too many students think that it is the research strategy that determines whether their research is quantitative, or qualitative, in nature. For instance, it is common for students to relate surveys to quantitative research and case studies to qualitative research. Although it is generally true that a case study, for example, suggests a qualitative study and that a survey, for example, suggests a quantitative piece of research, it is not necessarily the case. It is not the research strategy – case study, survey, experimental, action research, etc. – that determines whether or not your empirical study is quantitative or qualitative in nature: that is dependent on a combination of your research strategy, your individual research objectives and your data collection technique(s).