TO ADD: Mixed methods lunchtime clipping
Ponce, O.A. and Pagán-Maldonado, N., 2015. Mixed methods research in education: Capturing the complexity of the profession. International journal of educational excellence, 1(1), pp.111-135.
Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J., 2004. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational researcher, 33(7), pp.14-26.
Caruth, G.D., 2013. Demystifying mixed methods research design: A review of the literature. Online Submission, 3(2), pp.112-122.
Creswell, J.W., 1999. Mixed-method research: Introduction and application. In Handbook of educational policy (pp. 455-472). Academic press.
A mixed-method study is one in which the researcher incorporates both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection and analysis in a single study (Creswell, 1999).
Creswell, J.W., 2011. Controversies in mixed methods research. The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 4(1), pp.269-284.
>>>Caruth (2013):
Mixed methods research has
become a valid alternative to either quantitative or qualitative
research designs. It offers richer insights into the phenomenon
being studied and allows the capture of information that might be
missed by utilizing only one research design, enhances the body of
knowledge, and generates more questions of interest for future
studies
Quantitative researchers have been referred to as positivists and
qualitative researchers have been referred to as hermeneutists. Furthermore, quantitative
researchers have often claimed that qualitative research was difficult to generalize, interpret,
and duplicate. On the other hand, qualitative researchers have claimed quantitative
researchers utilized immaterial hypotheses and shallow descriptions. (p.112)
MMR, defined as a method of both quantitative
and qualitative designs in the same research study, evolved in response to the observed
limitations of both quantitative and qualitative designs (p.113)
It is thought that the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods presents a
more enhanced insight into the research problem(s) and question(s) than using one of the
methods independently (Creswell, 2012; Frels & Onwuegbuzie, 2013; Hong & Espelage,
2011) (p.113)
Venkatesh et al., (2013) presented seven purposes for MMR. The seven purposes are:
complementarity, completeness, developmental, expansion, corroboration/confirmation,
compensation, and diversity (p.113).
Completeness - to ensure total representation of experiences or associations is
attained.
Expansion - to clarify or elaborate on the knowledge gained from a prior method.
Corroboration/Confirmation - to evaluate the trustworthiness of inferences gained
from one method.
Compensation - to counter the weaknesses of one method by employing the other. (p.113).
Most important is the possibility
of enhanced understanding of a phenomenon being studied by combining quantitative and
qualitative primary level findings and the two distinct research methods. Research can result
in complementary findings and stronger results by combining quantitative and qualitative
methods in a single synthesis (p.114).
they can present a more robust conclusion;
d) they offer enhanced validity through triangulation (cross validation) (p.115)
Me: to add extra to the qualitative data, to uphold, not as a primary data set.
Thus, MMR potentially produces more enhanced understandings than utilizing either
quantitative or qualitative methods designs independently. (p.117).
(Truscott et al., 2010) maintained that just using quantitative and qualitative
methods designs in the same study does not improve research without careful combination,
justification, and explanation. (p.119) #
Truscott, D. M., Swars, S., Smith, S., Thornton-Reid, F., XZhao, Y., Dooley, C., Williams,
B., Hart, L., & Matthews, M. (2010). A cross-disciplinary examination of the
prevalence of mixed methods in educational research: 1995–2005. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(4), 317–328.
>>>Burke
A disturbing feature of the paradigm wars has been the relentless focus on the
differences between the two orientations. Indeed, the two dominant research paradigms have resulted in two research cultures,
“one professing the superiority of ‘deep, rich observational data’
and the other the virtues of ‘hard, generalizable’ . . . data”
(Sieber, 1973, p. 1335). (p.14).
Our purpose in writing this article is to present mixed methods research as the third research paradigm in educational research.5 We hope the field will move beyond quantitative versus
qualitative research arguments because, as recognized by mixed
methods research, both quantitative and qualitative research are
important and useful. The goal of mixed methods research is not
to replace either of these approaches but rather to draw from the
strengths and minimize the weaknesses of both in single research
studies and across studies. (p.14).
If you visualize a continuum with
qualitative research anchored at one pole and quantitative research anchored at the other, mixed methods research covers the
large set of points in the middle area. (P.15).
Pragmatism also helps to shed light on how research approaches can be mixed
fruitfully (Hoshmand, 2003); the bottom line is that research approaches should be mixed in ways that offer the best opportunities for answering important research questions. (P.16)
Dewey (1948, 1920
original) stated that “in order to discover the meaning of the idea
[we must] ask for its consequences” (p. 132). (P.17)
In many situations, researchers can put together insights
and procedures from both approaches to produce a superior product (i.e., often mixed methods research provides a more workable
solution and produces a superior product). We are advocating a
needs-based or contingency approach to research method and
concept selection. (P.17)
Me: Ontologically this research still sees multiple realities and sees interpretivism as main paradigm.
it offers a method for
selecting methodological mixes that can help researchers better
answer many of their research questions. (p.17).
Its logic of inquiry includes the use of induction
(or discovery of patterns), deduction (testing of theories and
hypotheses), and abduction (uncovering and relying on the
best of a set of explanations for understanding one’s results) (e.g.,
de Waal, 2001). (p.17)##
Mixed methods research also is an attempt to legitimate the
use of multiple approaches in answering research questions, rather
than restricting or constraining researchers’ choice (P.17)
Human inquiry (i.e., what we do in our day-to-day lives as we
interact with our environments) is viewed as being analogous
to experimental and scientific inquiry. We all try out things to see what works, what solves problems, and what helps us to
survive. We obtain warranted evidence that provides us with
answers that are ultimately tentative (i.e., inquiry provides the
best answers we can currently muster), but, in the long run,
use of this “scientific” or evolutionary or practical epistemology moves us toward larger Truths.(P.18)
Endorses practical theory (theory that informs effective practice; praxis (P.18).
Effective use of this principle
is a major source of justification for mixed methods research because the product will be superior to monomethod studieS (P.18)
There are five major purposes or rationales for conducting mixed methods research: (a) triangulation (i.e., seeking convergence and corroboration of results from different methods and
designs studying the same phenomenon); (b) complementarity
(i.e., seeking elaboration, enhancement, illustration, and clarification of the results from one method with results from the other
method); (c) initiation (i.e., discovering paradoxes and contradictions that lead to a re-framing of the research question); (d) development (i.e., using the findings from one method to help
inform the other method); and (e) expansion (i.e., seeking to expand the breadth and range of research by using different methods for different inquiry components) (p.20)
Data
correlation involves the quantitative data being correlated with the
qualitized data or the qualitative data being correlated with the
quantitized data. This is followed by data consolidation, wherein
both quantitative and qualitative data are combined to create new
or consolidation (p.22)
We
hope we have made the case that mixed methods research is here
to stay and that it should be widely recognized in education, as
well as in our sister disciplines in the social and behavioral sciences, as the third major research paradigm (p.23)
As noted by Sechrest and Sidana (1995), growth in the mixed
methods (i.e., pragmatist) movement has the potential to reduce
some of the problems associated with singular methods. By utilizing quantitative and qualitative techniques within the same
framework, mixed methods research can incorporate the
strengths of both methodologies. Most importantly, investigators who conduct mixed methods research are more likely to select methods and approaches with respect to their underlying
research questions, rather than with regard to some preconceived
biases about which research paradigm should have (p.23)
Sechrest, L., & Sidana, S. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative methods:
Is there an alternative? Evaluation and Program Planning, 18, 77–87.
Comments
Post a Comment