Abstract: The present essay outlines how mixed methods research can be used to enhance the interpretation of significant findings. First, we define what we mean by significance in educational evaluation research. With regard to quantitative-based research, we define the four types of significance: statistical significance, practical significance, clinical significance, and economic significance. With respect to qualitative-based research, we define a significant finding as one that has meaning or representation. Second, we describe limitations of each of these types of significance. Finally, we illustrate how conducting mixed methods analyses can be used to enhance the interpretation of significant findings in both quantitative and qualitative educational evaluation and policy research. Consequently, mixed methods research represents the real "gold standard" for studying phenomena. Key Words: Quantitative Research, Qualitative Research, Mixed Methods, Significance, Meaning and Verstehen ********** Setting the Scene One argument posited by proponents of mixed methods studies is that they address much more comprehensive research purposes than do quantitative or qualitative research alone (Newman, Ridenour, Newman, & DeMarco, 2003). Consistent with this assertion, and expanding on Rossman and Wilson's (1985) work, Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989) categorized the following five general purposes of mixed-methodological studies: (a) triangulation (i.e., seeking convergence and corroboration of findings from different methods that study the same phenomenon); (b) complementarity (i.e., seeking elaboration, illustration, enhancement, and clarification of the findings from one method with results from the other method); (c) development (i.e., using the findings from one method to help inform the other method); (d) initiation (i.e., discovering paradoxes and contradictions that lead to a re-framing of the research question); and (e) expansion (i.e., seeking to expand the breadth and range of inquiry by using different methods for different inquiry components). As observed by Greene et al. (1989), every mixed methodological study can be classified as having one or more of these five purposes. In recent years, the advantages of mixed methods research have been increasingly recognized. In particular, as noted by Onwuegbuzie and Leech (in press), combining quantitative and qualitative research enables evaluation researchers to be more flexible and holistic in their investigative techniques, as they endeavor to address a range of complex research questions that arise. Further, mixed methods research helps investigators to develop a conceptual framework, to validate quantitative results by linking the information extracted from the qualitative phase of the study, and to construct indices from qualitative data that can be utilized to analyze quantitative data (Madey, 1982). Also, by conducting mixed methods studies, researchers are in a better position to combine empirical precision with descriptive precision (Onwuegbuzie, 2003a). In addition, by employing a pragmatist lens (i.e., using both quantitative and qualitative techniques), rather than using a single lens (i.e., conducting monomethod studies), investigators are able to zoom in to microscopic detail or to zoom out to indefinite scope (Willems & Raush, 1969). As such, mixed research investigations afford researchers with the opportunity to combine macro and micro levels of a study (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, in press). Compared to their monomethod counterparts, mixed methods researchers are more able to utilize quantitative research to inform the qualitative portion of research studies, and vice versa. For example, the inclusion of qualitative data can help investigators to explain relationships emerging from quantitative data. Similarly, the inclusion of quantitative data can help compensate for the fact that qualitative data typically cannot be generalized (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2004). …