English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Although there has been much optimistic discussion of integrating quantitative and qualitative findings into sociological analysis, there remains a gap regarding the application of mixed approaches. We examine the potential gains and pitfalls of such integration in the context of the growing analytic power of contemporary qualitative data analysis software (QDAS) programs. We illustrate the issues with our own research in a mixed-methods project examining low fertility in Italy, a project that combines analysis of large nationally representative survey data with qualitative in-depth interviews with women across four (4) cities in Italy. Despite the enthusiasm for mixed-methods research, the available software appears to be underutilized. In addition, we suggest that the sociological research community will want to address several conceptual and inferential issues with these approaches.

Illumination with a Dim Bulb? What Do Social Scientists Learn by Employing Qualitative Data Analysis Software in the Service of Multimethod Designs?