Recently, a ceaselessly incremental concern regarding the relevance of research methodology, like two basic paradigms, quantitative research and qualitative approaches in the field of translation studies. Liu(2015), concluded that “the theoretical basis of quantitative research is objectivism”, mainly an executive judgment, which produce descriptive data. The theoretical basis of qualitative research is non-objective value judgment, of which produces abundant truths from individual oral words or prominent actions. In the social sciences field, quantitative and qualitative research is often characterized as confrontational and oppositional statues. In recent years, researchers (See Bergman,2008; Leech and Onwuegbuzie, 2009) prefer to utilize a hybrid approach, the combination of qualitative and quantitative, which combines the merits of two paradigms for better interpret the real social science world and human experience.
As pointed by Wen(2011), the study on English translations of Shui Huzhuan involved in many aspects, however, the existing studies’ breadth and depth is insufficient. At the same time, basically, the study of the translation versions is in its infancy. Therefore, the twofold aim of the paper is to examine the interpretation of two individual research paradigms qualitative and quantitative dichotomy, and to dispose of the ‘third paradigm’, that is the mixed methods methodologies in research of translator style of the four English translations of Shui Huzhuan. Utilizing a parallel corpus, dissertation examines the three questions in details, 1) what are the difference in the extent to which characteristics of Shui Huzhuan’s four English translations in the aspects of language paradigm, 2) how are translations affected by translator style, 3) why does the target language (TL) be affected by the translator style?
This paper is organized into three parts. Starting off with reviews and critiques of the development of qualitative research and quantitative research and their respective characteristics, the paper as well as discuss the merits and pitfalls respectively. In the next section, the paper concentrates on the forward-pointing approach, the mix-method. Finally, this paper will present the discussion of the dissertation of mine, which is utilizing the hybrid paradigms, do a descriptive and practical research on the topic of translator style with four Shui Huzhuan translations.
1.	The theoretical base of the quantitative and qualitative methodology
In order to lay a solid foundation for the research methodology of the study about the translator style within the four English translations of Shui Huzhuan, a review of the conceptual and features of the qualitative and quantitative will proceeded initially and respectively. As for antagonism against the quantitative paradigm, the qualitative methodology is being adopted as a pragmatic one. Therefore, as the basis of the research methodology, quantitative paradigm is being analysis firstly in this part.
1.1 Quantitative methodology
As a deductive paradigm, quantitative methodology is developed from the mathematically-based methodology analysis of numerical data to proof (or disproof) the phenomena within the process of the “empirical research”.(Rasinger,2010) The quantitative methodology can be defined as an investigation on the complicated issues about anthropology and sociology, and utilizing the numerical data as samples of measurement and analysis to testify whether the theory interpret or project the phenomena.( Yilmaz, 2013; Bazeley, 2004) Originally inspired from the natural science, quantitative paradigm is named as scientific method to interpret the social reality firstly(for overviews, see Keith,2006; Hammersley, 2017), and then is applied to conduct researches in the field of applied linguistic since 1970 (Lazaraton, 2005), and sees an obvious upward trend with the following years.
The merits of quantitative methodology are manifolded into two sections. Firstly, Dorney(2007) points that quantitative supporter scrutinizes the process of QUAN and emphasize that the reliable data is produced by the “systematic, rigorous, focused, and tightly controlled” measurements, and can be duplicate to other researches. That is because a mass of samples being selected randomly in the quantitative research ensure the systematic and duplicable characteristics. Secondly, different from the qualitative data manually analysis, the quantitative research generally utilizes the algorithms software, like SPSS, QSR, ATLAS to code and retrieval data which not only increase the research’s rigor but also makes less time-consuming. (Pope, Ziebland and Mays, 2000) Quantitative research uses mathematical statistics to analyze and interpret results. Numerous of samples can be output in a blink time by using quantitative analysis software which greatly eliminate researchers’ time.
Listing to the merits above, the quantitative paradigm also owns weakness into three dimensions. First of all, the quantitative methodology likely to have the tendency of presenting the social phenomenon superficially, but defeated in ascertaining the implied interpretations. Carr(1994) highlights quantitative “facilitate the discovery of quantifiable information” but failed in further explanation. In other words, although quantitative research can complete the description of the feathers of the happenings and detect the relations between the variables. However, in explaining the reasons behind the phenomenon, quantitative research seems to be stretched. Secondly, the weakness of quantitative unfolded on the cost of sample size dealing. Normally a gigantic number of samples is required for effective quantitative research. However, to some researchers, the insufficient financial and inspiration resources can lead to the invalidity of the evaluation in the quantitative research. Thirdly, the individual experiences and career of the participants can be overlooked within the quantitatively researches for the reason that there exists a deficient connection between the participants and researchers like the qualitative research. Ignoring the individual development experience and tracking of participants can easily lead to the overlook of the particularity of the samples, and can influence the reliability and validity of the experiment.
1.2 Qualitative methodology
As an inductive one, without the consentaneous principle, qualitative methodology is underpinned with diverse paradigms utilized in social sciences results to the difficult defining. Pilstead(1970) offers a simple definition of qualitative research “firsthand involvement with the social world”. Ignoring the concern about the research design, the definition only concentrates on the sociology attributes. Corbin and Strauss(1998) underline that the qualitative paradigm cement to methodological methods of numerical gathering, analyzing, and utilizing. This definition overperforms the term with the quantitative angle and overlooks the self-characteristics. Along with many others, Yilmaz (2013) defines the qualitative methodology as an “emergent, inductive, interpretive and naturalistic” method to research on the phenomena happened within the social and human activities as to uncover “in descriptive terms the meaning that people attach to their experiences” within the world. It is noticeable that, as derived from diverse paradigms in social sciences, the qualitative methodology associates with plenty theoretical bases, like “the human ecology domain, the ecological psychology domain, the holistic ethnography domain, the cognitive of anthropology domain, the ethnography or communication domain, the symbolic interactionism domain”.  Therefore, as an overarching item, qualitative methodology covers diversiform of issues, it contains strengths and weaknesses. 
As a research methodology, qualitative paradigm obtains some strengths. First of all, qualitative paradigm (interactive methodology) owns a flexible feature which can do adjustment or reconstruction to a large degree within the process of research. Soti(1996) highlights using a qualitative paradigm can generate a radical and sufficient analysis, because the experimenter occupy adequate freedom to adjust the most appropriate research questions within the research process. Second, there exists an argument that qualitative paradigm (interpretivism) presents a more holistically view about new and uncharted areas within the world. Mansourian’s (2007) conclusion can be seen as, existing within cross-disciplinaries, qualitative research contains theories of knowledge, methodology can serve as pivotal milestones to “cope with the uncertainty, stress and ambiguity arising during exploratory research”. Third, qualitative methodology involves participants’ contact and insight which can interpret the participants’ inner self-reflection, experience and behaviors (Kelle, 2006). Through the participation into qualitative research, like the interview, as regards the interview as a security room, the participant’ self-reflection is vent and wipe away the pent-up affection. Therefore, the most authentic reflection of the respondent’s world is expressed and recorded with qualitative paradigm.
Despite the strengths mentioned above, there exist some limitations within the qualitative. Initially, compared with the QUAN , the QUAL utilizes small participant sample size which leads to the problematic issue of generalizability for qualitative research (for overviews, see Johnson,1997, Eisenhart, 2009). That is to say, the results examined by the QUAL research might be not broader generalization to other samples. Then, Rodgers and Cowles(1993) also raise the issue of the difficult and complex of the analysis and interpret the data. Different from the quantitative method which deals with numerical figures, the qualitative researchers have to collect, analyze and interpret the data happened within interviews or questionnaires. Not only have to record the data as inputs, the researchers also need to pulverize and transforming the “messy” data as output. (Ahrens & Chapman, 2006). Thirdly, Patton (2002), warns that discarding the objectivity or contextual contents, the qualitative paradigm more likely to concentrates on subjectivity as well as experiences. That is, the disclosing, interpreting and analyzing the sample’s experiences outperform the context.
1.3	Critiques on computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software
As Bringer, Johnston, and Brackenridge(2006) summarizes in qualitative research, “the computer-assisted data analysis software brings about the efficiency in time-consuming, the reduction in paper wasting as well as the accuracy of the outcome data”. Different from the dreary, time-consuming and manual works, by the means of the computer, the speedily record-and-retrieve data, the easily collect-and-gather data, conveniently sort-and-deal data could be processed by the computer-assisted data analysis software. Therefore, the generation of CAQDAS (Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software)(Valles, 2007) makes it possible to analyze qualitative data automatically.
Here are the critical understandings of mine about the CAQDAS utilized in the qualitative studies. First of all, in addition to the advantages mentioned by Bringer, Johnston and Brackenridge, like the increasing-efficiency, paper saving, and more accurate data obtaining, I want to focus critical thinking on the advantages. First of all, the advantage of the qualitative researches’ consistency improvement by auxiliary coding is overlooked by Bringer, Johnston and Brackenridge. Compared with manual coding in qualitative researches, the CAQDAS takes longer-consuming in the initial computer coding. With repeated transcripts and literature reading, side notes labeling and related paragraphs highlighting, researchers begin coding on the computer when notice a clear question-related subject appeared within the researches. Then, in future researches, the researchers can abandon the toilsome manual coding by computer assistant. Faced with new information from the qualitative researches, like the in-depth interview, ethnography, case studies, life/oral histories, the researchers only need to utilize the encoded software's automatic encoding and retroactive encoding function to process the new information. Wiping off the multi-dimensional influence factors such as the emotional factors, and cognitive standards of the researchers, the employment of CAQDAS, to a large extent, ensures the consistency of the research standards. Secondly, CAQDAS is benefit in greatly to increase the creativity and interest of researchers in the qualitative researches. When the qualitative analysis strategy is applied to the grounded theoretical framework based on coding-retrieval, qualitative analysis assistance software greatly improves the creativity and interest of researchers. With the original materials being decoded by the CAQDAS rapidly, researchers can easily investigate the truth of the problem. For example, when studying the question of “translator style”, through computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software, all the paragraphs describing the translator style are gathered through retrieval and categorized into “translator's domestication style” and “translator's foreignization style” classes. In qualitative research, through such information integration process, it is easy to provide researchers with very novel information. Thereby, creativity and research interest can be increased by the CAQDAS.
Based on my personal understanding, on the rearward of the merits by the software, there exist non-negligible drawbacks. With merely mentioned one pitfall, that is longer-time consuming of the researchers, Bringer, Johnston, and Brackenridge miss some weaknesses of the CAQDAS. Firstly, the drawback lies in the lose-contexture of the data with the qualitative analysis software. By segmenting data into different paragraphs, encoding the disassembled paragraphs, later a composite text is being integrated with inter-related paragraphs. This operation separates the encoded and interpretation process, and results to the context’s deficiency of the materials. The qualitative data is characterized with the label of richness, integrity and deepness. Through the attributes listed, the researchers are able to interpret the truthiness through investigation, that is, to analyze principles through contextual information. However, when qualitative analysis is performed with the help of computer software, instead of context, the code becomes the center of analysis. Secondly, regardless of the size of data, the computer leads to efficient and speedy research. Whereas, undoubtedly, within the process of code analysis, the significant intentional meanings contained are missing out. The researchers, who are busy calculating the occurrences, inject less energy into the analyzing intentional meanings that enfolded within the process. That is to say, the vigor is exhausted over the uncountable numerical data with less attention be resort into the analytical process. Thirdly, the computer-aided analysis of qualitative data isolates data from analysis. When facing with qualitative data, isolated from culture and contexture, decoded and reorganized by computer, that is, researchers can merely utilize the straightforward, crude and frank induction. Rather than considering the influenced-factors from culture, researchers, derived from the code, only rely on the experience to form the description of the theoretical concepts. Finally, computer-assisted qualitative analysis also easily leads researchers to develop a blind attitude to technology, viewing that computers can replace human's thinking and thus cause misuse.
Through the above analysis, depicting the merits of computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software, like time-consuming, environment protection, research continuity maintaining, and increasing researchers’ creativity maintaining, there exist the pitfalls within simultaneously. Similarly, the two representative research methodologies, the antonymy of qualitative and quantitative owns strengths and weakness respectively. Only utilizing solely methodology like qualitative or quantitative, the defects can be amplified in the experiment, and lead to the decline of reliability and validity in the research. Therefore, for a comprehensive, detailed, precise research design on the study of translator style through the analysis of four English translations of Shui Huzhuan, a multiple operation methodology, that is mixed method is adopted to the research.
2.	The theoretical base of the mixed methods 
As a forward-pointing and potentially enriching methodology, the mixed methodology has been scrutinized and arises from the pragmatist paradigm war of the quantitative and qualitative approaches. In the research of social science, the bisection method owns fewer still attributes, and the adoption of hybrid methods and triangulation methods (using multiple methods to support each other) has become an irresistible trend. Hybrid paradigm seeks to integrate the quantitative and qualitative paradigm in the sociology study. As a combined methodology, comprehensive or negotiated descriptive results could be produced which is impossible with utilizing one single methodology. Interest in, with the adoption of the mixed-method, the similar and different parts existing in the particular aspects of a situation will be emphasized. 
Caracelli(1997) broadly defined the mixed-method as “one that playfully juxtaposes or combines methods of different types (qualitative and quantitative) to provide a more elaborated understanding of the phenomenon of interest”. Mertens(2013) deems that mixed methods is to allocate to use “qualitative and quantitative methods to do data-collection about historical and contextual factors”, and “emphasis on issues of power that can influence the achievement of social justice and avoidance of oppression”. In hybrid method studies, the aim of hybrid approaches must be clearly identified, that is how interrelationships of analytical methods are forged and how the results are integrated. Besides, Kroll and Neri(2009) argue that the authentic of mixed-method studies refers to the conformity of quantitative and qualitative research results in the same stage, as the data gathering, analyzing and explaining of the process. That is to say, utilizing a concurrent data analysis approach, the researcher obtains an integrated data which enfold more comprehensive results with the dual-methodologies. As an appropriate, preferred and complementary method for social sciences, there arises bias about the merits and drawbacks of the mixed-method.
As a research methodology, mixed methodology obtains some merits. First of all, adopting the mixed methodology results in the strength increased and weakness eliminated in social science research. The utilizing of the mixed methods, that is both QUAL and QUAN approaches lead to the strength combination. Morgank(1998) provides clear examples of how “the combination maximizes the ability to bring different strengthens together”. It is noticeable that the strength of one approach can be utilized to cover the drawbacks of the other paradigm in the research. As the qualitative approach is criticized with the context-specific which result in the unrepresentative features, the mixed approach can eliminate the bias by the help of the quantitative approach included. Secondly, mixed-method results about the validity improvement. The hybrid method approach owns its own potential that is the validity of the research results can be demonstrated by the convergence and authentication of the results. Abowitz and Toole(2009) summarize that utilizing the mixed methods with the “data collection, the validity and reliability problems” exist in the research can result to counterbalance, and enable the researcher to “triangulate in on the true result”. Thirdly, the mixed-methods can resolve the complex problems. The mixed approach lies in its capability to surpass the boundaries of existing paradigm approaches, meanwhile, develop reformatory solutions to the complex problems. The interpretation of nature’s ontology serves as the complementary elements to the numerical figures, and vice versa. Proceeding from the applied linguistics perspective, the researchers permanently need to dispose with complex phenomena and “systems with adaptive, nonlinear and dynamic process and multi-dimensional outcomes”. In order to probe the complicated problems, the researchers, randomly, have to utilize the hybrid methodology which possesses systematical and complementary attributes.  
Mentioned the strengths above, the hybrid-method also owns pitfall. As a pioneer-pointing approach, the mixed-method enjoys great prestige by the combination of QUAL and QUAN within the scientific research. As Greence(1997) puts forward mixed-methods is “a challenging but immensely worthwhile approach”. With the high spreadability and eurytopic audience, the mixed method has a critical question inclusively. That is, a fundamental standard is set for the researchers, that is the own adequate research ability in QUAL and QUAN simultaneously. Virtually, a multiple number of researchers are lack of the capability to capture both qualitative and quantitative methods synchronically. 
Although there exist pitfalls of the over-stress on the researchers in mixed-method, the difficult can be disposed of properly by the continuously self-improving of the researchers. Before engaging in research, researchers can do knowledge and practice accumulation of qualitative and quantitative research methods, for laying a solid foundation for future researches. This guarantees the reliability and validity of the researches using the hybrid method. Undoubtably, absorbing the merits of QUAL and QUAN iteratively and simultaneously, mixed methods create a research outcome with higher validity and reliability. Therefore, the dissertation of mine, concentrating on the study of translator styly with the comparison of four versions, that is four English translation versions of Shui Huzhuan, own the complex attribute, choose the mixed-method to conduct the research.
3.	Mixed-method utilizing in the dissertation 
The dissertation of mine belongs to a descriptive research of four English translation versions of Shui Huzhuan from the perspective of translator style. Shui Huzhuan which is composed by Shi Nai’an, is normally be regarded as the pioneer to be written in vernacular in Chinese literature history and as one of the greatest classics’ epic in China. Each of the 180 characters depicted in Shui Huzhuan owns a distinct self-contained personality, and the personality is highlighted by the manipulative language. That is to say, the character delineation, plot description, and language utilization of the Shui Huzhuan, distinctively, achieved a superior level of artistic attainment. At present, there are four English full translation versions of Shui Huzhuan, diachronically, Pearl S. Buck's translations All Men Are Brothers, Jackson's Water Margin, Sidney Shapiro’s translation of Outlaws of the Marsh and Dent-Young's The Marshes of Mount Liang. The researchers’ overlook the four versions, and only keeping a watchful eye on the Buck’s and Shapiro’s version lead to the incomprehensive results.  
    The dissertation is identified with the analytical approaches which utilize in the mixed-methodology for drawing interpretation of translator style from the quantitative and qualitative findings. From the angle of the quantitative paradigm, the dissertation, mainly determine on the factors within the language, conducts data-based corpus analysis to study the language usage habits and syntactic structures of translators with unique and personalized features. Meanwhile, from the perspective of qualitative research, the dissertation identifies the differences in translator's style from extra-linguistic factors such as ideology, patrons, and mainstream poetics.
Based on a parallel corpus research paradigm, the dissertation does a thoroughly comprehensive and systematic comparison of four English translations and focuses on the following three questions: 1. In terms of language paradigm, what are the characteristics of Shui Huzhuan’s four English versions? Specifically, what are the features of morphology, syntax, and discourse levels? 2. How does the translation language differences influenced by the translator’s style?  3. Why does the translator's style affect the language features of the target language (TL) in translation?
The dissertation develops an integrated descriptive-explanatory framework from 3 procedures, first of all, underpinned by semantic and psycholinguistics aspects, the dissertation highlights the translator style. As the translator's language selection in the translation process is not only restricted by the style and content of the SL, meanwhile the TL is also an indispensable factor. That is to say, the translator style including both the effects of the translator's habitual subconscious language behavior (T-type) and the regularity of the translator's reproduction of the specific style of the SL or original author Strategy (S-type). Secondly, for internal language paradigm analysis, the dissertation will do quantitative approach, which is establishing a bilingual parallel corpus to discuss the equivalent degree of the stylistic of the target text and the source text. That is to say, the dissertation mainly utilizing Word-Smith tool, concentrates on the data of type-token ratio, average sentence length and vocabulary density, and high-frequency word statistics within the corpus. Through corpus-assisted translation analysis, the explicit, simplified, and generalized features are clearly illustrated. For example, for explicit, the translator tends to present the faithfully and completely original text, rather than vague or inaccurate information to the reader. Meanwhile, the type-token ratio and average sentence length can interpret whether the translator's translation is more complicated than the original text due to the need for manifestation. By quantitative comparison, the characteristics of different translators’ language selection can be unfolded with accuracy and clearness. Thirdly, from the perspective of manipulation theory, the dissertation will utilize the CAQDAS as research tool to concentrate on extralinguistic factors such as ideology, patrons, and mainstream poetics, utilizing the qualitative paradigm to interpret the differences in translators’ style. Studies in ideological studies will focus on the influence of political factors on the choice of translation. The patron, as another important factor influencing translation, mainly analyzes whether the English-Chinese translation reflects the original intention of patron publishing. The mainstream poetics mainly research on whether the translator do adjustment according to the aesthetic habits of TL readers.
This dissertation does an objectively analyze of the translator style, on one hand, utilize the corpus to retrieve statistics and analyze data within internal language; on the other hand, it from the extra-linguistic field does analyze about ideology, patrons, and mainstream poetics. Different from the onefold qualitative or quantitative methodology which is lacking certain objectivity and scientific, the dissertation organically combines quantitative and qualitative analysis approaches can avoid subjective factors, which do enhance the reliability of the research results.
4.	Conclusion
This research probed into the notion of translator style by the comparison of four English translations of Shui Huzhuan with utilizing the mixed-method. The mixed-method, combining the quantitative and qualitative approaches, amplifies the individual merits and compliment the pitfalls respectively. That is, the quantitative paradigm offers an impersonal estimate of reality, while the qualitative approach permits researchers to detect and better comprehend the complicacy of social phenomena. Relating to the translator style, this dissertation not merely limited to the quantitative approach, like research on type-token ratio, average length of word and sentence, conducted by corpus. Moreover, it combines quantitative research methods and focuses on socio-cultural parameters from a qualitative research paradigm. With the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, the dissertation could broaden and deepen the translator style researches.

 
Bibliography:
Abowitz D.A., Toole T.M., Mixed Method Research: Fundamental Issues of Design, Validity, and Reliability in Construction Research, Journal of Construction Engineering, 1(2009).
Ahrens T., Chapman C.S., Doing Qualitative Field Research in Management Accounting: 
Positioning Data to Contribute to Theory, Handbooks of Management Accounting Research, 1(2006):299-318.
Bergman M.M., Advanced in mixed methods research: Theories and applications (London: SAGE Publications, 2008).
Bringer J.D., Johnston L.H. and Brackenridge C.H., Using Computer-assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software to Develop a Grounded Theory Project, Field Methods, 3(2006):245-246.
Carr L.T., The Strengths and Weakness of Quantitative and Qualitative Research: What Method for Nursing, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 1994.
Dorney Z., Research Methods in Applied Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press,2007).
Eisenhart M., Generalization from Qualitative Inquiry, Generalizing from Educational Research (New York: Routledge, 2009).
Greene J.C., Caracelli V.J., Defining and Describing the Paradigm Issue in Mixed-method Evaluation, New Directions for Evaluation, 3(1997).
Hammersley M., Deconstructing the Qualitative-quantitative Divide, Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research, 2017.
Kelle U., Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Research Practice: Purposes and Advantages, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7(2006):293-311.
Kroll T., Neri M., Designs for Mixed Methods Research, Mixed Methods Research for Nursing and the Health Science, 2(2009):31-49.
Hashemi M.R., Babaii E., Mixed Methods Research: Toward New Research Designs, The Modern Johnson, R.B., Onquegbuzie, A.J., Mixed Methods Research: A Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher,7(2004):14–26.
Johnson J.L., Generalizability in Qualitative Research, Completing a Qualitative Project (London: SAGE Publications,1997).
Lazaraton A., Quantitative Research Methods, Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching (New York: Routledge, 2005).
Leech N.L., Onwuegbuzie AJ, A Typology of Mixed Methods Research Design, Qual Quant, 43(2009):265-275.
Liu R.Q., Research methods in Foreign Language Teaching (Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2015).
Mansourian Y., Exploratory Nature of, and Uncertainty Tolerance, Qualitative Research, New Library World, 11(2007)
Mertens D.M., Hesse-Biber S., Mixed Methods and Credibility of Evidence in Evaluation, New Directions for Evaluation, 6(2013).
Morgan D.L., Practical Strategies for Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Applications to Health Research, Qualitative Health Research,5(1998), 362-376.
Pat B., Issues in Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Research, Applying Qualitative Methods to Marketing Management Research (UK: Palgrave Macmillan,2004). 
Patton M.Q., Two Decades of Developments in Qualitative Inquiry: A Personal, Experiential Perspective, Qualitative Social Work, 1(2002).
Pilstead W.J., Qualitative Methodology: Firsthand Involvement in the Social World (Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, 1970).
Pope C., Ziebland S., Mays N., Qualitative Research in Health Care, Analyzing Qualitative Data, Education and Debate, 1(2000).
Punch F.K., Introduction to Social Research (London: Thousand Oaks, 2006).
Rasinger M.S., Quantitative Methods: Concepts, Frameworks and Issues, Research Methods in Linguistics (New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010).
Rodgers B.L., Cowles K.V., The Qualitative Research Audit Trail: A Complex Collection of Documentation, Research in Nursing& Health, 3(1993):219-226.
Sarantakos S., Social Research (Sydney: Australia Sotirios Sarantakos, 1993).
Soti G., How Research Can Change the Researcher: The Need for Sensitivity, flexibility and Ethical, British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 3(1996):329-338.
Strauss A., Corbin J., Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques (London: SAGE Publications, 1996).
Valles MS, Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) and CAQDAS: An Exercise of Autobiographical Research and Methodological Reflection, Historical Social Research Supplement, 2007:299-325.
Wen J., Luo Zhang, The Translation Research of Shui Huzhuan within 20 Years, Minority Translators Journal, 1(2011):39-45.
Yilmaz K., Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions: Epistemological, Theoretical, and Methodological Differences, European Journal of Education, 2(2013):311-325.