Showing papers in "International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches in 2018"

“Mixed Methods in my Bones”: Transcending the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide

Abstract: Jennifer Mason (2006, p. 19) calls for thinking that transcends or even subverts the qualitative-quantitative divide. She suggests it is more helpful to think in terms of multidimensional research strategies and to develop “‘multi-nodal’ dialogic explanations that allow the distinctiveness of different methods and approaches to be held in creative tension.” In this article, I analyse the problem that she raises, provide an alternative multidimensional perspective, and describe ways mixed methods researchers can put that perspective into practice.

Learning Analytics as an Educational Research Approach

Abstract: The motivation for this article derived from the fact that in-depth contemplation is required for methodological frameworks of Learning Analytics (LA) to gain acceptance in the academic community. A search of relevant literature did not reveal robust consideration of the added value of LA in the research approach domain, more specifically, in the educational research methods field. Consequently, there is a need to supply educational researchers with an accredited overview of LA. This article aims to fill that gap as well as to carry out a review of LA studies to contribute towards a documentation of the LA research approach so far. This review includes what brings LA to the educational research field, what research questions LA have answered, and how the approach is implemented. Along with the additional methodological issues, this review also includes an investigation of LA that captures the strengths and weaknesses in data analysis and the identification of purposes of these previous studies, and thus, hopefully, motivate the research community to reconceptualize LA as a research approach for further research.

Editors’ Introduction to the International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches: Journal Aims, Scope, and Intended Practices

Abstract: aDepartment of Instructional Systems Technology, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University Bloomington, IN, USA; bDepartment of Educational Leadership, Sam Houston State University, TX, USA and Department of Educational Leadership and Management/Department of Educational Psychology, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa; cDepartment of Counseling and Instructional Sciences, College of Education and Professional Studies, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, USA; dDepartment of Educational Leadership and Management, College of Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa; eDepartment of Psychology of Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa; fDepartment of Computer Science, Sam Houston State University, TX, USA

Using Fully Integrated Bayesian Thinking to Address the 1 + 1 = 1 Integration Challenge

Abstract: aDepartment of Educational Leadership, Sam Houston State University, TX, USA and Department of Educational Leadership and Management/Department of Educational Psychology, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa; bDepartment of Instructional Systems Technology, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University Bloomington, IN, USA; cUniversity of North Texas, TX, USA; dFlorida International University, FL, USA

Skills Development and Academic Productivity of Scholars in the NIH Mixed Methods Research Training Program for the Health Sciences.

Abstract: The Mixed Methods Research Training Program (MMRTP) for the Health Sciences is a mentoring-based program to train faculty in mixed methods research. We administered a Mixed Methods Skills Self-Assessment instrument with domains of "research questions," "design/approach," "sampling," "analysis," and "dissemination." For each item (i.e., skill), we requested three ratings on a 5-point Likert-format scale drawn from an educational competency ratings scale: "My ability to define/explain," "My ability to apply to practical problems," and "Extent to which I need to improve my skill." To assess productivity, we administered a survey with questions related to grants funded, grants submitted, publications, presentations, instances of serving as an institutional resource for mixed methods, and other comments. The results showed that 29 scholars in the first two cohorts represented a diverse set of disciplines and research topics. Although scholars expressed a strong interest in learning mixed methods skills, they came into the program with limited professional experiences with mixed methods. Scholars reported statistically significantly increased confidence in ability to define or explain concepts and in ability to apply the concepts to practical problems. Only practical applications of case studies and ethical principles of research did not show statistically significant improvement after the retreat. Scholars reported substantial productivity in mixed methods and described leadership in mixed methods at their institutions. Participation in an interactive program statistically significantly improved the confidence of scholars. The MMRTP holds promise to bridge the gap between complex research questions in the health sciences and investigators suitably trained in mixed methods.

Editors’ Introduction to the Mixed Methods Manifesto Inaugural Special Issue

Abstract: aDepartment of Educational Leadership, Sam Houston State University, TX, USA and Department of Educational Leadership and Management/Department of Educational Psychology, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa; bDepartment of Instructional Systems Technology, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University Bloomington, IN, USA; cDepartment of Counseling and Instructional Sciences, College of Education and Professional Studies, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, USA; dDepartment of Educational Leadership and Management, College of Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa; eDepartment of Psychology of Education, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa; fDepartment of Computer Science, Sam Houston State University, TX, USA

Building a Community of Practice Through Adaptation and Integration of Multiple Methods and Diverse Approaches to Evaluative Inquiry

Abstract: The king of the Kingdom of Wisdom was growing old. He had two sons to whom he commissioned the task of expanding the kingdom. One traveled south and built Dictionopolis, the city of words; the other went north and built Digitopolis, the city of numbers. The two brothers and their two cities entered into a fierce rivalry. The people of Dictionopolis believed that words were wisdom and much more important than numbers. The people of Digitopolis believed that numbers were wisdom and much more important than words. The rivalry intensified. To avoid war and settle the matter, they agreed to arbitration by two independent thinkers, Rhyme and Reason, princesses who lived in the capital city of Wisdom. After lengthy and thoughtful deliberation, they pronounced that words and numbers were both essential and equally valuable. Outraged, the brothers banished Rhyme and Reason from the Kingdom of Wisdom. Eventually, after a great and dramatic rescue, Rhyme and Reason were returned to the Kingdom of Wisdom. To find out how, and why this story matters, you’ll have to enter into the Kingdom of Wisdom through The phantom tollbooth (Juster, 1961), a classic children’s book for children of all ages. Its relevance here, in setting the stage for this article, is that today, instead of commissioning just two independent evaluators, Rhyme and Reason, to adjudicate the issue, a mixed methods Delphi inquiry would have permitted crowdsourcing the answer from a community of expert and engaged practitioners using multiple research methods.

There is only research : the liberating impact of just doing research.

Abstract: Based on reading a very large number of research reports, and conducting a wide range of different projects, this article illustrates a simple yet inclusive model of research. Research is considered as a cyclical activity with various designs and methods more or less appropriate at each phase but in the same field of investigation. This leads to the realisation that designs and methods are to a very great extent entailed in the research question(s) being addressed. This approach is illustrated through a range of our own studies, including aggregated trials of literacy improvement, school choice, and adult learning. It is clear that they are just research— and that schisms/paradigms, or even attempting to resolve such schisms via ‘multiple methods’ and the like, are irrelevant in real-life research.