Showing papers in "Journal of Mixed Methods Research in 2007"

Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research

Abstract: The purpose of this article is to examine how the field of mixed methods currently is being defined. The authors asked many of the current leaders in mixed methods research how they define mixed methods research. The authors provide the leaders' definitions and discuss the content found as they searched for the criteria of demarcation. The authors provide a current answer to the question, What is mixed methods research? They also briefly summarize the recent history of mixed methods and list several issues that need additional work as the field continues to advance. They argue that mixed methods research is one of the three major “research paradigms” (quantitative research, qualitative research, and mixed methods research). The authors hope this article will contribute to the ongoing dialogue about how mixed methods research is defined and conceptualized by its practitioners.

Mixed Methods Sampling A Typology With Examples

Abstract: This article presents a discussion of mixed methods (MM) sampling techniques. MM sampling involves combining well-established qualitative and quantitative techniques in creative ways to answer research questions posed by MM research designs. Several issues germane to MM sampling are presented including the differences between probability and purposive sampling and the probability-mixed-purposive sampling continuum. Four MM sampling prototypes are introduced: basic MM sampling strategies, sequential MM sampling, concurrent MM sampling, and multilevel MM sampling. Examples of each of these techniques are given as illustrations of how researchers actually generate MM samples. Finally, eight guidelines for MM sampling are presented.

Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained Methodological Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

Abstract: This article examines several methodological issues associated with combining qualitative and quantitative methods by comparing the increasing interest in this topic with the earlier renewal of interest in qualitative research during the 1980s. The first section argues for the value of Kuhn’s concept of paradigm shifts as a tool for examining changes in research fields such as social science research methodology. The next two sections consider the initial rise of the “metaphysical paradigm” that justified the renewed interest in qualitative research and the subsequent problems that have encouraged efforts to replace that paradigm. The final section of the paper advocates a “pragmatic approach” as a new guiding paradigm in social science research methods, both as a basis for supporting work that combines qualitative and quantitative methods and as a way to redirect our attention to methodological rather than metaphysical concerns.

Barriers to Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research

Abstract: This article is concerned with the possibility that the development of mixed methods research is being hindered by the tendency that has been observed by some researchers for quantitative and qualitative findings either not to be integrated or to be integrated to only a limited extent. It examines findings from 20 interviews with U.K. social researchers, all of whom are practitioners of mixed methods research. From these interviews, a wide variety of possible barriers to integrating mixed methods findings are presented. The article goes on to suggest that more attention needs to be given to the writing of mixed methods articles.

Transformative Paradigm Mixed Methods and Social Justice

Abstract: The intersection of mixed methods and social justice has implications for the role of the researcher and choices of specific paradigmatic perspectives. The transformative paradigm with its associat...

A Mixed Methods Investigation of Mixed Methods Sampling Designs in Social and Health Science Research

Abstract: A sequential design utilizing identical samples was used to classify mixed methods studies via a two-dimensional model, wherein sampling designs were grouped according to the time orientation of ea...

Editorial: Exploring the Nature of Research Questions in Mixed Methods Research

Abstract: • demonstrate the need for mixed methods to answer research questions that include clearly interconnected qualitative and quantitative components, • present distinctly identifiable qualitative and quantitative data (or one transformed to the other) that are analyzed and presented separately, • make identifiable inferences or conclusions on the basis of the results of appropriate qualitative and quantitative data analyses, and • clearly integrate the results of the two or more (qualitative and quantitative) strands of the study into coherent conclusions or inferences that are more comprehensive and meaningful than those of the qualitative or quantitative strands alone.

Toward a Unified Validation Framework in Mixed Methods Research

Abstract: The primary purpose of this article is to further discussions of validity in mixed methods research by introducing a validation framework to guide thinking about validity in this area. To justify the use of this framework, the authors discuss traditional terminology and validity criteria for quantitative and qualitative research, as well as present recently published validity terminology for mixed methods research. The authors discuss the rationale for their framework and how it unifies thinking about validity in mixed methods research. Finally, they discuss how the framework can be used.

Editorial: Differing Perspectives on Mixed Methods Research:

Abstract: I n our first editorial, we mentioned how scholars define and conceptualize mixed methods. In the two following editorials, a core assumption in our discussions has been that the terms qualitative, quantitative, and mixed ‘‘methods’’ or ‘‘approaches’’ are used by scholars as proxies representing different meanings, concepts, or dimensions of the research process. Such meanings have included different worldviews (e.g., postpositivism, constructivism, transformative), types of questions (e.g., inductive, deductive, hybrids), types of data collection and analysis strategies (e.g., statistical, thematic analysis), types of mixing (e.g., at many stages in the process of research, at the analysis stage or interpretation stage), and inferences (e.g., meta-inferences, inferences within quantitative and qualitative strands). In response to these many meanings, some authors have begun to conceptualize domains of discussion (Creswell, 2007; Gilbert, 2006; Greene, 2006) about what constitutes mixed methods research. In this editorial, we would like to expand conceptualizations on mixed methods by examining various perspectives that mixed methods scholars have taken when discussing and writing about this topic. We have identified four different (but not necessarily mutually exclusive) perspectives. The first is a method perspective, in which scholars view mixed methods as focused on the process and outcomes of using both qualitative and quantitative methods and types of data. The second is a methodology perspective, in which writers discuss mixed methods as a distinct methodology that integrates aspects of the process of research such as worldview, questions, methods, and inferences or conclusions. The third is a paradigm perspective, in which researchers discuss an overarching worldview or several worldviews that provide a philosophical foundation for mixed methods research. The final and fourth perspective is the practice perspective, in which scholars view mixed methods research as a means or set of procedures to use as they conduct their research designs, whether these designs are survey research, ethnography, or others. By reviewing these four perspectives, we hope to stress the importance of divergent views and discourses as the field of mixed methods research continues to develop (see Freshwater, 2007).

Editorial: Developing Publishable Mixed Methods Manuscripts:

Abstract: With an increasing interest in mixed methods research, an issue of considerable importance has emerged: How do authors report these studies effectively and in publishable form? Although there are some general guidelines for writing manuscripts (e.g., Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Sandelowski, 2003), little formal information is available for guiding authors. It seems to us that up to now, a discussion of what constitutes a strong mixed methods report has, by and large, been pushed to the background, favoring paradigmatic, methodological, and political issues surrounding mixed methods. As also observed by Stange, Crabtree, and Miller (2006), ‘‘The dramatic advances in the scope and sophistication of conducting mixed methods research have not been met with parallel progress in ways of disseminating the results of mixed methods studies’’ (p. 292). When we reflect on this issue, we cannot help but note that we have received numerous requests from scholars across the globe, asking us for exemplary manuscripts that may be used as models for writing publishable mixed manuscripts. Two (not mutually exclusive) groups of scholars are usually identifiable in these requests: (a) those who are trying to write manuscripts that might be accepted for publication and (b) instructors of research and evaluation methodology in graduate programs who are trying to teach their students how to report mixed methods studies. We believe that it is timely to bring this issue to the forefront of our discussions about mixed methods. Stange et al. (2006) have suggested various strategies for effectively disseminating mixed methods studies, ranging from publishing the qualitative and quantitative components in separate journals to developing online discussion forums. Publication of JMMR provides an outlet for disseminating mixed methods findings and discussions. An issue in need of discussion is how to effectively present the mixed methods results in a single manuscript with the potential to be accepted for publication. Therefore, we are writing this editorial with two related purposes: (a) to start a dialog among scholars about the attributes of strong mixed methods manuscripts and (b) to provide some general guidelines for authors who are planning to submit papers to JMMR. We feel that attention to this issue builds on our last editorial in Volume 1, Issue 1 exploring the definition of mixed methods research. One way to start this discussion is to summarize the attributes of successful and unsuccessful submissions to JMMR and use manuscripts published as specific illustrations. We have had a full year to review manuscripts submitted to JMMR, and we are delighted with the outpouring of responses by authors and the submission of high-quality manuscripts. We have reflected on the types of manuscripts submitted, and we have examined extensive feedback from our Editorial Board and external reviewers to more than 100 manuscripts that we have received thus far. We broadly classify the manuscripts that we have received into the two categories of original studies (or empirical research studies) and theoretical and Journal of Mixed Methods Research Volume 1 Number 2 April 2007 107-111 2007 Sage Publications 10.1177/1558689806298644 http://jmmr.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Mixed Methods in Intervention Research: Theory to Adaptation

Abstract: The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the application of mixed methods research designs to multiyear programmatic research and development projects whose goals include integration of cultural specificity when generating or translating evidence-based practices. The authors propose a set of five mixed methods designs related to different phases of program development research: (a) formative research, Qual →/+ Quan; (b) theory development or modification and testing, Qual → Quan →/+ Qual → Quan ... Qual → Quan; (c) instrument development and validation, Qual → Quan; (d) program development and evaluation, Qual →/+ Quan →/+ Qual →/+ Quan ... Qual →/+ Quan, or Qual →← Quan; and (e) evaluation research, Qual + Quan. We illustrate the application of these designs to creating and validating ethnographically informed psychological assessment measures and developing and evaluating culturally specific intervention programs within a multiyear research program conducted in the country of Sri Lanka.

Social Influences on Fertility: A Comparative Mixed Methods Study in Eastern and Western Germany.

Abstract: This article uses a mixed methods design to investigate the effects of social influence on family formation in a sample of eastern and western German young adults at an early stage of their family ...

The Predictive Validity of an ESL Placement Test A Mixed Methods Approach

Abstract: This study investigated the relationships between graduate students' placement test scores for English as a second language (ESL) and three measures of academic performance (grade point average [GPA], faculty evaluations, and student self-assessments) Qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques (archival, questionnaires, and interviews) were used to collect data from 100 students and 55 faculty members Although nonsignificant correlations were found between test scores and GPA, qualitative findings indicated that English skills are an important factor affecting students' course performance Additional mixed methods analyses found that variations in students' views of academic success and their relevant background knowledge can help explain the overall insignificant relationship between ESL placement test scores and GPA This mix of methods thus illuminated particular strands of the complex relationships between English proficiencies and graduate-level academic performance

Reading Mixed Methods Research: Contexts for Criticism

Abstract: Health and social care researchers, in their haste to ``belong'' to academia, have adopted the system of mixed methodology research, overestimating its ability to reveal the truth and occasionally ...

A Recursive Approach to Mixed Methods Research in a Longitudinal Study of Postsecondary Education Disability Support Services.

Abstract: Mixed methods research has increased in popularity over the past 20 years. Literature reveals that exploratory qualitative analysis followed by confirmatory survey research is common and concurrent...

Social Support in Widowhood: A Mixed Methods Study.

Abstract: Although social support is assumed to be an important factor following loss, the mechanisms by which it influences outcomes are not well understood. This study explored the nature of social support following loss using mixed methods. Widows participated in semistructured interviews 1 and 4 months after loss; a subsample completed 98 days of questionnaires between interviews. Interviews were analyzed using the constant comparative method; themes included the importance of supportive groups and the meaning of support. Social support trajectories were examined using hierarchical linear modeling; perceived social control explained differences in trajectories. Additional interviews were selected by their maximally divergent plots. The findings of these analyses were integrated to contribute a more detailed description of social support in the transition to widowhood.

"What About People Our Age?" Applying Qualitative and Quantitative Methods to Uncover How Political Ads Alienate College Students

Abstract: This study uses a sequential transformative mixed methods research design to explain how political advertising fails to engage college students Qualitative focus groups examined how college students interpret the value of political advertising to them, and a quantitative manifest content analysis concerning ad framing of more than 100 ads from the 2004 presidential race revealed why focus group participants felt so alienated by political advertising By not selecting issues and people to which youth can relate, political advertising is framed to decrease the salience of young voters, thereby promoting an interpretation among college students that the messages within candidate ads are not relevant to them Suggestions are made for building more engaging ads The utility of this research design is also discussed in terms of its benefits for data analysis and validity

Advance Consent in Japanese During Prenatal Care for Epidural Anesthesia During Childbirth

Abstract: The authors developed advance consent in Japanese for epidural anesthesia for pregnant Japanese-speaking women. Their explanatory, sequential mixed methods design involved a survey (QUAN) and telep...

Media Review: Atlas.ti Software to Assist With the Qualitative Analysis of Data

Abstract: Atlas.ti Version 5 is a program for Windows PC that assists with the analysis of qualitative data. Two or three programs now dominate in this field, and Atlas.ti is one of them. Version 5 was released in June 2004 and while keeping the major aspects of the interface and functionality of the previous version, 4.2, it brought in some key revisions in usability and output to what was already a very powerful program. The main way in which Atlas.ti assists in qualitative analysis is in its support for coding. In Atlas.ti, the text being worked on appears on the left of the main window, and in the margin area to the right of it, colored brackets can be displayed to indicate (by the displayed name) which lines of text have been coded to which codes. It is easy to see while reading the text what text has already been coded. Atlas.ti thus has a very visual and convivial way of showing both coding and its context. Texts can be imported into Atlas.ti in .txt, .rtf, or MS Word .doc formats. Unlike most other programs, Atlas.ti also supports the coding of digital images, audio, and video, and a very wide range of different media formats can be used. In the case of images, rectangular areas can be selected and coded. With audio and video, portions of the time line can be selected and coded. At the moment, there is no way of selecting an area of a video image for coding. One of the strongest aspects of Atlas.ti is its search facility. Searching can be done for text and combined with auto coding, whereby all the finds (and any surrounding text if required) are automatically coded. With careful formatting, this can be used to quickly code answers to open-ended questions in a survey. The other major form of searching is using codes. This enables, for example, the retrieval of text that is coded as X and also coded as Y. Such combinations can be Boolean (and, or, not, xor), semantic (associated with, causes, etc.), or proximity (within, overlap, etc.). Complex searches can be constructed by combining these terms. These are some of the significant ways Atlas.ti can be used in qualitative analysis. But how might it be used in mixed methods research? There are two main approaches that the program can support. First, research may be mixed at the level of the overall design; thus, a large-scale survey might identify certain respondents for additional qualitative interviews, or variables might be generated from the analysis of qualitative interviews and then combined with other quantitative data about the same cases. Atlas.ti provides some functions that enable the exchange of data with statistical packages like SPSS. Variable data in Atlas.ti is handled by using ‘‘families,’’ which are collections of documents, memos, or codes. A family can be thought of as a single value of a particular variable as in ‘‘town of origin: London.’’ In the case of a quantitative survey combined with interviews with selected respondents, you might want to import some categorical data from the survey to enable you to establish some basic information about the interviews. Variable data from the survey can be saved in the Comma Separated Values (CSV) format and then imported into Atlas.ti as document families. Several variables Bergman / Media Reviews 103

Media Review: WordStat Version 5.1.

Abstract: wondering how this would be achieved in practice. To a certain extent, this relates to the intended audience for this book, which left me somewhat perplexed. For example, is the fundamental aim of this book to generate the greatest impact on researchers from the qualitative or quantitative tradition or from both of these groups? Alternatively, is the target audience intended to include those who are engaged in professional practice, teaching, or training associated with higher level or advanced research? Whereas the author makes no specific reference to an intended audience, the inclusion of discussion starters and practical exercises throughout the text suggest that postgraduate research students constitute her primary target. There is no doubt that the lucid and accessible writing style of this author will ensure that her text has the capacity to reach multiple audiences. However, it is possible that the contents will resonate most strongly with those who, like myself, are from the social sciences and/or are already predisposed to the power of narrative. Hopefully, it will encourage those from the quantitative tradition to consider and explore its possibilities, although it is more likely to have significant impact on those with an interest in mixed methods research. Although Elliott suggests that it is the role of social scientists to ‘‘engage with both approaches,’’ I was left wondering if this could be seen to be letting researchers from the quantitative tradition off the hook. Surely, researchers from both sides of the contemporary divide need to embrace the power of narrative and realize the potential of mixed methods research. My conclusion, however, is that this is a scholarly and original piece of work that warrants the attention and response of those who are committed to enhancing the quality of research within, across, and beyond conventional disciplines and fields of endeavor.

Media Review: Rihoux, B., & Grimm, H. (2006). Innovative Comparative Methods for Policy Analysis: Beyond the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide. New York: Springer

Abstract: This is a higher level book that covers an intensely interesting topic: How do we systematically use qualitative data across cases to assess public policies and to strengthen public policy analysis? The monograph is written largely for a specialized audience of researchers studying small numbers of cases. It will also be relevant for the majority of researchers working on mixed methods analysis, because it addresses more fundamental questions, such as how to account for the validity of qualitative data or, even more generally, how to use quantitative tools to analyze qualitative information. My review begins with a summary of the book, including a discussion of its place in the field of mixed methods. The review continues with an assessment of the readability of the text, the style of its presentation, and the potential audience for the text. Innovative Comparative Methods for Policy Analysis is organized into three parts, with an introduction and a conclusion. Part 1, ‘‘Systematic Comparative Case Studies: Design, Methods and Measures,’’ focuses on methodological foundations for systematic comparative case studies that bridge the qualitative–quantitative divide. The initial section is hugely important to understanding the following papers, because many of the techniques used in later sections will not be commonly used by readers. The first paper, by Charles Ragin of the University of Arizona, offers a rationale for the need to expand research on public policy to include more rigorous qualitative methods and indeed to make the rigor of quantitative research more apparent. His fundamental critique of regular quantitative analysis is that regression-based studies are limited in their rigor because they actually force the testing of linear frameworks or theories. In contrast, Ragin proposes that we use alternative models based on tools such as fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis (fs/QCA). In fs/ QCA, the interrelationships of variables are determined through the construction of a ‘‘truth table’’ in which algebraic (rather than statistical) combinations of dichotomized variables are related to the presence or absence of an outcome. The remaining papers in Part 1 deal with extensions of the fs/QCA methodology and similar alternatives that all attempt to quantify qualitative data. The paper by Sakura Yamasaki and Astrid Spreitzer, ‘‘Beyond Methodological Tenets: The Worlds of QCA and SNA and Their Benefits to Policy Analysis,’’ is particularly valuable, introducing some of the software used in these analyses. In the public policy literature, we make an important distinction between studies that investigate the formulation of policies and those that emphasize the assessment of their implementations or outcomes. Both of these are areas in which mixed methods practitioners often work. Part 2 of this book is broadly focused on describing a range of situations in which the hybrid qualitative–quantitative approaches in Part 1 are applied to analyses of public policy making. Lasse Cronqvist and Dirk Berg-Schlosser’s study is particularly interesting for those readers focused on traditional quantitative techniques, because the authors combine features of the qualitative case framework introduced by Ragin in Part 1 to study differences in the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in Africa. Their most interesting modification is to adjust the QCA framework to include continuous variables. Journal of Mixed Methods Research Volume 1 Number 4 October 2007 390-394 2007 Sage Publications http://jmmr.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Media Review: Page, S. E. (2007). The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

Abstract: accomplish many of the same generalizations that fs/QCA focuses on. However, for researchers interested in quantifying their analyses of case studies, this is an appropriate alternative. The audience for this text will be limited to advanced researchers working on projects that require them to quantify case studies. In the rare instance, it might be appropriate for an occasional topics course in an evaluation department. Mixed methods scholars would find it of particular use, followed by those working specifically in quantitative areas. Linguistic barriers aside, this is a thought-provoking text. The authors managed to reinvigorate my thinking about a wide range of mixed methods issues. What is the appropriate use of the case study? Can one (and should one) quantify qualitative data? The book would have been improved with a strong chapter introducing the software, but as a whole, it would be useful for advanced researchers interested in extending their own knowledge bases.