Isaac Scientific Publishing

Journal of Advances in Education Research

Not a One-Size-Fits-All Methodology: A Survey of Mixed Methods

Download PDF (142.9 KB) PP. 97 - 102 Pub. Date: May 18, 2017

DOI: 10.22606/jaer.2017.22005

Author(s)

  • Liping Wei*
    School of Education, Health Professions, and Human Development University of Houston-Victoria, TX, USA
  • Hsin-Hui Lin
    School of Education, Health Professions, and Human Development University of Houston-Victoria, TX, USA

Abstract

Situated in a historical development of mixed methods, this paper aims to present a holistic picture of mixed methods through providing a survey of previous literature. It examines the various dimensions of mixed methods, including its definition, rationale, sampling, research designs, procedures, strengths and weaknesses, and conflicting views of using mixed methods. The paper concludes by pointing out that though mixed methods have advantages in conducting a wide range of research through capitalizing on both quantitative and qualitative methods and reducing the limitations associated with singular methods, researchers should be aware that they do not provide the best research practices and hence terminate all the debates over research methods. Researchers should never cease their efforts in seeking alternative philosophies and research methods in gaining a more complete and accurate understanding of the world, and the collaboration between the quantitative and qualitative researchers is highly recommended in this undertaking.

Keywords

Triangulation, pragmatism, “third paradigm”, strengths and weaknesses, pluralistic

References

[1] Ayer, A. J. (1959). Logical positivism. New York: The Free Press.

[2] Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105.

[3] Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[4] Denzin, N. K. (1978). The logic of naturalistic inquiry. In N. K. Denzin (Ed.), Sociological methods: A sourcebook. New York: McGraw-Hill.

[5] Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[6] Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2008). How to design and evaluate research in education. (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

[7] Gergen, M., & Gergen, K. (2000). Qualitative inquiry, tensions and transformations. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 1025-1046). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[8] Greene, J. C. (2005). The generative potential of mixed methods inquiry. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 28(2), 207-211.

[9] Greene, J. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7-22.

[10] Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed method evaluation. In J. C. Greene & V. J. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (New Directions for Evaluation, No. 74, pp. 5-17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

[11] Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Gragam, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.

[12] Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.

[13] Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

[14] Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Tuner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.

[15] Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

[16] Maxwell, J. A., & Delaney, J. D. (2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[17] Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76.

[18] Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Routledge.

[19] Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Number and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9(5), 627-643.

[20] Spratt, C., Walker, R., & Robinson, B. (2004). Module A5: Mixed research methods. Commonwealth of Learning[Online]. Retrieved from http://www.col.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/A5.pdf.

[21] Symonds, J. E., & Gorard, S. (2010). Death of mixed methods? Or the rebirth of research as a craft. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(2), 121-136.

[22] Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.) (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[23] Webb, E., Campbell, D., Schwartz, R., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

[24] Wheeldon, J. (2010). Mapping mixed methods research: Methods, measures, and meaning. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 87-102.