Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioural Sciences, C. Teddlie, A. Tashakkori. Sage Publications, Los Angeles (2008), RRP: $AUD 81.00. ISBN: 9780761930129
About: This article is published in Australasian Emergency Nursing Journal.The article was published on 2009-11-01. It has received 227 citations till now.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The purpose of this Guide is to provide medical educators with a basic understanding of how quantitative and qualitative methods contribute to the medical education evidence base through their different inquiry approaches and also how to select the most appropriate inquiry approach to answer their research questions.
Abstract: Medical educators need to understand and conduct medical education research in order to make informed decisions based on the best evidence, rather than rely on their own hunches. The purpose of this Guide is to provide medical educators, especially those who are new to medical education research, with a basic understanding of how quantitative and qualitative methods contribute to the medical education evidence base through their different inquiry approaches and also how to select the most appropriate inquiry approach to answer their research questions.
186 citations
TL;DR: The development and evaluation of complex interventions in palliative care benefit from the application of mixed methods, which enable better understanding of whether and how an intervention works (or does not work) and inform the design of subsequent studies.
Abstract: Background: there is increasing interest in combining qualitative and quantitative research methods to provide comprehensiveness and greater knowledge yield. Mixed methods are valuable in the devel...
127 citations
Cites methods from "Foundations of Mixed Methods Resear..."
...Mixed method analysis requires use of qualitative and quantitative analytic techniques either concurrently (at the same time or relatively close in time) or sequentially (one type of analysis conducted first, informing the other).(14,29) Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie(29) suggest using a combination of the seven phases of the mixed method analysis process summarized in Table 3....
[...]
TL;DR: The authors draw on extensive methods research from a diverse range of social science disciplines to identify and explore key definitions, opportunities and risks in mixed methods studies.
Abstract: Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to set the scene for this special issue by synthesising the vast array of literature to examine what constitutes mixed methods research, and the associated strengths and risks attributed to this approach.Design/methodology/approach – This paper takes the form of a literature review. The authors draw on extensive methods research from a diverse range of social science disciplines to identify and explore key definitions, opportunities and risks in mixed methods studies. They review a number of accounting studies that adopt mixed methods research approaches. This allows the authors to analyse variance in how mixed methods research is conceptualised across these studies and evaluate the perceived strengths and limitations of specific mixed methods design choices.Findings – The authors identify a range of opportunities and challenges in the conduct of mixed methods research and illustrate these by reference to both published studies and the other contributions to this spe...
76 citations
Cites background or methods from "Foundations of Mixed Methods Resear..."
...An extensive literature considers the nature of mixed methods research, how the use of mixed methods within a single study can both extend and strengthen potential findings, and the potential pitfalls of integrating methods (Bryman, 2007; Johnson et al., 2007; Modell, 2005; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009; Yin, 2006)....
[...]
...While numerous textbooks provide copious advice as to “how” to integrate the design, execution and analysis phases of mixed methods studies (Creswell and Plano-Clark, 2007; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009), much less guidance is available regarding the integration of research findings....
[...]
...…considers the nature of mixed methods research, how the use of mixed methods within a single study can both extend and strengthen potential findings, and the potential pitfalls of integrating methods (Bryman, 2007; Johnson et al., 2007; Modell, 2005; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009; Yin, 2006)....
[...]
...It is not our intention in the paper to prescribe how to perform the mixing of methods (see instead Creswell and Plano-Clark, 2007, or Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009)....
[...]
Dissertation•
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined Australian port operational vulnerabilities from a systemic perspective, encompassing multi-layered networks of internal and external stakeholders including those within the port's hinterland, and the interrelated and interdependent port users within Exclusive Economic Zone waters.
Abstract: Australian ports are crucial to the well-being of the national economy and the support of global trade. During 2015-16 Australian ports enabled 1.6 billion tonnes of two-way cargo throughput, representing AU$420 billion in value and approximately 15% by weight of global trade. A prolonged disruption to Australian port operations threatens multiple nations’ economies and related supply chains’ effectiveness. Port business continuity is important for these reasons, but few studies examine Australian port management within the context of operational vulnerabilities to evolving and unpredictable hazards, and port risk management effectiveness in treating the uncertainties and unknowns of high consequence disruptions. Conventional risk management focuses on known and quantifiable risks, but ports are increasingly challenged by a dynamic and turbulent risk environment associated with unknown, unpredictable hazards and increasingly severe natural disasters. More is required from port decision-makers than conventional risk management strategies and capabilities, and this thesis explores whether a capability gap exists, and what might be required to enable enhanced risk management capabilities.
This thesis examines Australian port operational vulnerabilities from a systemic perspective, encompassing multi-layered networks of internal and external stakeholders including those within the port’s hinterland, and the interrelated and interdependent port users within Exclusive Economic Zone waters. The primary research question (PRQ) investigates the underlying risk management concepts and practices that might result in safe port outcomes for Australian intermodal shipping operations, namely, how does the port manage risks and consequences arising from low probability/high consequence disruptions? To investigate the PRQ in finer detail, three secondary research questions (SRQs) were developed, as follow:
SRQ1: How do ports currently manage risks and unknown unknowns arising from disruptive events?
SRQ2: What do ports need to change in their practices to become more resilient? and
SRQ3: How might ports operationalise resilience to best manage/overcome risks and unknown unknowns arising from disruptive events?
The empirical research evaluates port risk management effectiveness, and preparedness to meet present and near-term future risks. The secondary research questions examine the state of port-centric resilience knowledge and its application, and what influences, drivers and impediments might affect the operationalisation and enhancement of Australian port resilience.
A mixed methods research approach is taken in designing and analysing a web-based survey of high level and authoritative Australian senior port managers. Of Australia’s 27 State government authorised port management organisations, 54 senior managers holding CEO, Harbourmaster and head of department appointments returned 37 valid responses to 28 primarily closed-ended questions. The survey is limited to Australian port managers because this narrow research focuses upon the port’s importance and reliability within the national critical infrastructure system. Questions are logic-grouped across themes broadly encompassing management demographics, port hazards and vulnerabilities, risk management and business continuity, and operationalisation aspects of resilience. Quantitative data analysis is performed to undertake non-parametric tests and descriptive statistics, while qualitative data analysis addresses open-ended survey questions. Data analysis findings confirm from self-reports that Australian port managers are capable when managing high consequences risks of a tangible nature – where physical evidence of both the hazard and the hazard outcomes are clear – but less so when a hazard involves uncertainties and unknowns emanating from technological or human threats. Importantly, some respondents acknowledge significant deficiencies within their business continuity preparations, while others report low levels of disruption management preparedness. The findings suggest that improvement to port risk management and disruption management capabilities is required before managers might effectively direct their attentions towards resilience enhancement.
Academically, the research provides a tentatively clearer understanding of the status of Australian port risk management and resilience, and an associated compendium of port risk management and resilience literature. Within a practitioner context, the research provides recommendations towards enhancing port risk management and resilience capabilities and contributes a theoretical basis for advancing management knowledge. Notional performance models are generated to provide potential means of assessing progress towards port risk management and resilience maturity.
59 citations
56 citations
Cites background or methods from "Foundations of Mixed Methods Resear..."
...Brannen, 2005), but is particularly suitable for data that have been collected through different methods at the same time (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009)....
[...]
...Ecosystem service assessment and valuation researchers may be able to learn lessons from disciplines where application and integration of mixed-methods is more commonplace (e.g. Greene 2007; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009)....
[...]
...The three methods described were applied concurrently, which allowed 301 for a parallel track analysis (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009)....
[...]
...Ecosystem service assessment and valuation researchers may be able to learn lessons from 619 disciplines where application and integration of mixed-methods is more commonplace (e.g. Greene 620 2007; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009)....
[...]
...Complementarity analysis is just one approach to combining mixed 166 method data (see e.g. Brannen, 2005), but is particularly suitable for data that have been collected 167 through different methods at the same time (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009)....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: The purpose of this Guide is to provide medical educators with a basic understanding of how quantitative and qualitative methods contribute to the medical education evidence base through their different inquiry approaches and also how to select the most appropriate inquiry approach to answer their research questions.
Abstract: Medical educators need to understand and conduct medical education research in order to make informed decisions based on the best evidence, rather than rely on their own hunches. The purpose of this Guide is to provide medical educators, especially those who are new to medical education research, with a basic understanding of how quantitative and qualitative methods contribute to the medical education evidence base through their different inquiry approaches and also how to select the most appropriate inquiry approach to answer their research questions.
186 citations
TL;DR: The development and evaluation of complex interventions in palliative care benefit from the application of mixed methods, which enable better understanding of whether and how an intervention works (or does not work) and inform the design of subsequent studies.
Abstract: Background: there is increasing interest in combining qualitative and quantitative research methods to provide comprehensiveness and greater knowledge yield. Mixed methods are valuable in the devel...
127 citations
TL;DR: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions delivered in school settings for pupils with, or at risk of, ADHD and to explore the factors that may enhance, or limit, their delivery, four systematic reviews were conducted.
Abstract: Background Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by age-inappropriate levels of inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity. School can be particularly challenging for children with ADHD. Few reviews have considered non-pharmacological interventions in school settings. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions delivered in school settings for pupils with, or at risk of, ADHD and to explore the factors that may enhance, or limit, their delivery. Data sources Twenty electronic databases (including PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Education Resources Information Centre, The Cochrane Library and Education Research Complete) were searched from 1980 to February–August 2013. Three separate searches were conducted for four systematic reviews; they were supplemented with forward and backwards citation chasing, website searching, author recommendations and hand-searches of key journals. Review methods The systematic reviews focused on (1) the effectiveness of school-based interventions for children with or at risk of ADHD; (2) quantitative research that explores attitudes towards school-based non-pharmacological interventions for pupils with ADHD; (3) qualitative research investigating the attitudes and experiences of children, teachers, parents and others using ADHD interventions in school settings; and (4) qualitative research exploring the experience of ADHD in school among pupils, their parents and teachers more generally. Methods of synthesis included a random-effects meta-analysis, meta-regression and narrative synthesis for review 1, narrative synthesis for review 2 and meta-ethnography and thematic analysis for reviews 3 and 4. Results For review 1, 54 controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. For the 36 meta-analysed randomised controlled trials, beneficial effects (p < 0.05) were observed for several symptom and scholastic outcomes. Mean weighted effect sizes ranged from very small (d+ < 0.20) to large (d+ ≥ 0.80), but substantial heterogeneity in effect size estimates across studies was reported. Moderator analyses were not able to clarify which intervention features were linked with effectiveness. For review 2, 28 included studies revealed that educators’ attitudes towards interventions ranged in positivity. Most interventions were rated positively or neutrally across different studies. The only intervention that consistently recorded positive attitudes from educators was daily report cards. For review 3, 33 studies met the inclusion criteria. Key findings included tensions regarding the preferred format of interventions, particularly how structured interventions were and the extent to which they are tailored to the child with ADHD. There were mixed views about the impact of interventions, although it was clear that interventions both influence and are influenced by the relationships held by children with ADHD and participants’ attitudes towards school and ADHD. For review 4, 34 studies met the inclusion criteria. Key findings included the importance of causal attributions that teachers, parents and pupils made about ADHD symptoms, the decisions teachers made about treatment, the self-perceptions pupils developed about themselves, the role of the classroom environment and stigma in aggravating ADHD symptoms, and the significant barrier to treatment posed by the common presence of conflict in relationships between pupils–teachers, parents–teachers and pupils–peers in relation to ADHD. An overarching synthesis of the four reviews highlighted the importance of the context affecting interventions. It suggested that ADHD psychoeducation and relationship-building skills are potential implications for interventions. Limitations The breadth of both interventions and outcomes in the reviewed studies presented a challenge for categorisation, analysis and interpretation in reviews 1–3. Across reviews, relatively few studies were conducted in the UK, limiting the applicability of findings to UK education. In reviews 1 and 2, the poor methodological quality of some included studies was identified as a barrier to establishing effectiveness or comparing attitudes. In review 3 the descriptive analysis used by the majority of studies constrained theorising during synthesis. Studies in review 4 lacked detail regarding important issues like gender, pupil maturity and school level. Conclusion Findings suggest some beneficial effects of non-pharmacological interventions for ADHD used in school settings, but substantial heterogeneity in effect sizes was seen across studies. The qualitative reviews demonstrate the importance of the context in which interventions are used. Future work should consider more rigorous evaluation of interventions, as well as focus on what works, for whom and in which contexts. Gaps in current research present opportunities for the development and testing of standardised tools to describe interventions, agreement on gold-standard outcome measures assessing ADHD behaviour and testing a range of potential moderators alongside intervention trials. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001716. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
87 citations
TL;DR: The authors draw on extensive methods research from a diverse range of social science disciplines to identify and explore key definitions, opportunities and risks in mixed methods studies.
Abstract: Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to set the scene for this special issue by synthesising the vast array of literature to examine what constitutes mixed methods research, and the associated strengths and risks attributed to this approach.Design/methodology/approach – This paper takes the form of a literature review. The authors draw on extensive methods research from a diverse range of social science disciplines to identify and explore key definitions, opportunities and risks in mixed methods studies. They review a number of accounting studies that adopt mixed methods research approaches. This allows the authors to analyse variance in how mixed methods research is conceptualised across these studies and evaluate the perceived strengths and limitations of specific mixed methods design choices.Findings – The authors identify a range of opportunities and challenges in the conduct of mixed methods research and illustrate these by reference to both published studies and the other contributions to this spe...
76 citations
Dissertation•
01 Jan 2018
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined Australian port operational vulnerabilities from a systemic perspective, encompassing multi-layered networks of internal and external stakeholders including those within the port's hinterland, and the interrelated and interdependent port users within Exclusive Economic Zone waters.
Abstract: Australian ports are crucial to the well-being of the national economy and the support of global trade. During 2015-16 Australian ports enabled 1.6 billion tonnes of two-way cargo throughput, representing AU$420 billion in value and approximately 15% by weight of global trade. A prolonged disruption to Australian port operations threatens multiple nations’ economies and related supply chains’ effectiveness. Port business continuity is important for these reasons, but few studies examine Australian port management within the context of operational vulnerabilities to evolving and unpredictable hazards, and port risk management effectiveness in treating the uncertainties and unknowns of high consequence disruptions. Conventional risk management focuses on known and quantifiable risks, but ports are increasingly challenged by a dynamic and turbulent risk environment associated with unknown, unpredictable hazards and increasingly severe natural disasters. More is required from port decision-makers than conventional risk management strategies and capabilities, and this thesis explores whether a capability gap exists, and what might be required to enable enhanced risk management capabilities.
This thesis examines Australian port operational vulnerabilities from a systemic perspective, encompassing multi-layered networks of internal and external stakeholders including those within the port’s hinterland, and the interrelated and interdependent port users within Exclusive Economic Zone waters. The primary research question (PRQ) investigates the underlying risk management concepts and practices that might result in safe port outcomes for Australian intermodal shipping operations, namely, how does the port manage risks and consequences arising from low probability/high consequence disruptions? To investigate the PRQ in finer detail, three secondary research questions (SRQs) were developed, as follow:
SRQ1: How do ports currently manage risks and unknown unknowns arising from disruptive events?
SRQ2: What do ports need to change in their practices to become more resilient? and
SRQ3: How might ports operationalise resilience to best manage/overcome risks and unknown unknowns arising from disruptive events?
The empirical research evaluates port risk management effectiveness, and preparedness to meet present and near-term future risks. The secondary research questions examine the state of port-centric resilience knowledge and its application, and what influences, drivers and impediments might affect the operationalisation and enhancement of Australian port resilience.
A mixed methods research approach is taken in designing and analysing a web-based survey of high level and authoritative Australian senior port managers. Of Australia’s 27 State government authorised port management organisations, 54 senior managers holding CEO, Harbourmaster and head of department appointments returned 37 valid responses to 28 primarily closed-ended questions. The survey is limited to Australian port managers because this narrow research focuses upon the port’s importance and reliability within the national critical infrastructure system. Questions are logic-grouped across themes broadly encompassing management demographics, port hazards and vulnerabilities, risk management and business continuity, and operationalisation aspects of resilience. Quantitative data analysis is performed to undertake non-parametric tests and descriptive statistics, while qualitative data analysis addresses open-ended survey questions. Data analysis findings confirm from self-reports that Australian port managers are capable when managing high consequences risks of a tangible nature – where physical evidence of both the hazard and the hazard outcomes are clear – but less so when a hazard involves uncertainties and unknowns emanating from technological or human threats. Importantly, some respondents acknowledge significant deficiencies within their business continuity preparations, while others report low levels of disruption management preparedness. The findings suggest that improvement to port risk management and disruption management capabilities is required before managers might effectively direct their attentions towards resilience enhancement.
Academically, the research provides a tentatively clearer understanding of the status of Australian port risk management and resilience, and an associated compendium of port risk management and resilience literature. Within a practitioner context, the research provides recommendations towards enhancing port risk management and resilience capabilities and contributes a theoretical basis for advancing management knowledge. Notional performance models are generated to provide potential means of assessing progress towards port risk management and resilience maturity.
59 citations