373 31. Combining qualitative and quantitative research: semiotics, structuralism, and content analysis Leanne White INTRODUCTION Qualitative research methods ‘emphasize empirical, inductive, and interpretive approaches applied to interaction within a specific context’ (Keyton, 2001, p. 63). On the other hand, quantitative research might best be described as the measuring and observing of ‘amounts, frequencies, degrees, values, or intensity’ (Keyton, 2001, p. 39) of the subject(s) under investigation. Both research methodologies have particular strengths, and using both methods strengthens the research outcome. In A Companion to Qualitative Research, the editors state that ‘qualitative research claims to describe life-worlds from the inside out’ and ‘seeks to contribute to a better understanding of social realities and to draw attention to processes, meaning patterns and structural features’ (Flick et al., 2004, p. 3). Qualitative research is known for its precise and ‘thick’ descriptions. Silverman argues that the ‘distinctive contribution qualitative research can make is by utilizing its theoretical resources in the deep analysis of small bodies of publicly shareable data’ (Silverman, 2001, p. 290). Neuman contends that qualitative researchers are bricoleurs – they improvise by drawing on diverse materials (Neuman, 2006, p. 158). The term ‘bricolage’ means to work with one’s hands using an assortment of materials (often whatever comes to hand) in an inventive manner to achieve a particular objective, and this to some extent describes the overarching methodology that this chapter puts forward. As Strauss and Corbin explain, both qualitative and quantitative research ‘have roles to play in theorizing. The issue is not whether to use one form or another but rather how these might work together to foster the development of theory’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p. 34). Similar thoughts are echoed by Alasuutari, who claims that ‘qualitative and quanti- tative analysis can be seen as a continuum, not as opposites or mutually exclusive models of analysis’ (Alasuutari, 1995, p. 7). One of the key differences between qualitative and quantitative analysis arises as a result of the nature of the data under examination. ‘Soft data, in the form of impressions, words, sentences, photos, symbols, and so forth, dictate different research strategies and data collection techniques than hard data’ (Neuman, 2000, p. 122). Data examined in tourism and hospitality research can be both soft (such as in the form of images, music, and symbols) and hard (in terms of the number of times various signifiers are presented). The method of combining qualitative and quantitative research methodologies has been referred to as ‘triangulation’. ‘Here, the different methodological perspectives complement each other in the study of an issue and this is conceived as complementary compensation of the weaknesses and blind spots of each single method’ (Flick, 1998, p. 259). In triangulation, one type of data is used to corroborate another type of data;