The quantitative/qualitative divide is frequently assumed rather than empirically examined, particularly in studies of disciplinary writing. Corpus and genre analyses offer insights into epistemological differences across traditions (Gao et al., 2022), but examine only observable textual usage, overlooking the sociocultural aspects of disciplinary practice (Cutting, 2021)—including how scholars themselves understand and negotiate the conventions they follow. This paper interrogates whether the qual/quant divide is reflected in scholars’ rhetorical practices, or whether it operates more as an epistemological identity than as a visible feature of disciplinary writing.

This article reports on a mixed methods study examining scholars’ understanding and usage of two rhetorical moves in applied linguistics research: acknowledging limitations and recommending future research. The current study extends a prior corpus and genre analysis study of these moves in 200 published studies (Montgomery, 2023). That study operationalized a qual/quant binary by excluding mixed methods work, an important decision worth revisiting. Here, I present survey and interview data from 114 applied linguists varying in geographic location, career stage, and methodological orientation. The corpus findings revealed a significant paradigmatic difference: limitations and future directions sections appeared in 94% of quantitative studies but only 76–79% of qualitative studies (p<.001), with quantitative studies also exhibiting greater prominence across four target journals. This motivated the central question of the current study: do scholars’ own understandings of these moves reflect a similar divide?

A thematic analysis (Miles et al., 2020) of written survey responses (n=84) and semi-structured interviews (n=20) produced 27 codes across six themes. Quantitative survey data revealed strong cross-paradigm correlations between scholars’ reported use of the two moves (r=.85, p<.001), suggesting they are deeply intertwined regardless of paradigm. Following a quantitizing approach (Sandelowski et al., 2009), a normalized frequency analysis of qualitatively-derived codes revealed selective but meaningful paradigmatic differences. Qualitative scholars were more likely to view limitations as risky and in need of deeper manuscript integration—reflecting an interpretive orientation toward knowledge as situated and negotiated. Quantitative scholars more often described both moves instrumentally, framing peer review as a compliance exercise. Yet notable paradigm differences appeared in only three of 27 codes. Across both groups, scholars described tensions between authentic critical reflection and performative convention (e.g., “ticking the box” or “covering your ass”). Career stage, editorial experience, and mentoring environment emerged as equally or more influential than paradigm, pointing to a socialization-based explanation that cuts across the qual/quant binary.

The study makes three contributions to this special issue. It triangulates corpus and genre evidence with qualitative scholar perspectives, directly enacting the methodological dialogue the issue seeks to encourage. It finds that excluding mixed methods work in corpus studies may inadvertently reify the binary under investigation, thereby raising broader questions about how research designs construct the divides they claim to describe. Finally, it argues that socialization into rhetorical practice may matter more than paradigm membership, with implications for how graduate programs approach disciplinary writing instruction.