Сравнение методов

	Качественно-доминирующий многоуровневый смешанный метод исследования	Смешанный дизайн с приоритетом качественного исследования
Область	Дизайн исследования	Дизайн исследования
Семейство	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Год появления	2000s–2010s	1991–2003 (formalized in mixed methods typologies)
Автор метода	Tashakkori & Teddlie; Leech & Onwuegbuzie	Janice Morse; John W. Creswell & Vicki L. Plano Clark
Тип	Mixed methods research design	Mixed methods research design
Основополагающий источник	Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2010). SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. ISBN: 978-1412972666	Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). Sage. ISBN: 978-1483344379
Другие названия	QUAL-dominant multilevel MMR, qualitative-priority multilevel mixed methods, qual-dominant nested multilevel design, QUAL+quan multilevel design	QUAL-dominant mixed methods, qualitative-dominant mixed design, qual-priority MMR, qualitative-weighted mixed methods
Связанные	4	6
Сводка	Qualitative-dominant multilevel mixed methods design addresses research questions nested across two or more social levels — such as individuals within classrooms within schools — while assigning primary inferential weight to the qualitative strand. Quantitative data collected at one or more levels serve a supporting role: they contextualize, corroborate, or sharpen qualitative findings rather than generate the principal conclusions. The design is especially productive when understanding processes and meanings at multiple organizational layers is more important than population-level statistical estimates.	Qualitative-priority mixed methods design is a mixed methods approach in which qualitative inquiry carries the greater weight — in terms of volume, analytical depth, and interpretive authority — while a supplementary quantitative strand provides supporting evidence. The design acknowledges that the phenomenon under study is best understood through meaning-making, lived experience, or social processes, with numbers used to corroborate or contextualize, not to dominate, the research story.