Many qualitative researchers reject textual conversion based on philosophical grounds although others believe it facilitates pattern recognition and meaning extraction. This article examined interview data from 52 physicians from a large academic medical center regarding work–life balance. Analysis ranked men and women in four career tracks: Clinician-Educator, Clinician-Researcher, Clinician-Practitioner, and residents. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how a qualitatively driven (QUAL→quan) mixed method design illustrated differences between stratified groups. Although many initial codes were similar for men and women, their language was gendered and generational in context of work-life balance. Results indicated that women (and low-status men) expressed fewer strategies to successfully negotiate academic medicine. Quantitizing enhanced the interpretive description of adversity.
Mixed Methods, Work Balance, Academic Medicine, Gender, Quantitizing
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance from the following individuals: At UW-Madison: Dr. Molly Carnes for her support of Analysis 1. Abhik Bhattacharya (UW-Madison) and Barbara Lee (Keiser University) for statistical advice.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License.
Recommended APA Citation
Isaac, C., McSorley, R., & Schultz, A. (2016). Career Morph: Quantitizing Adversity in Academic Medicine. The Qualitative Report, 21(12), 2268-2283. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol21/iss12/7