The use of mixed methods models and designs in the human sciences: Problems and prospects

Quality and Quantity

Volumn 40, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 595-610

  Miller, S I ^a   Gatta, J L ^a  

^a LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Diverse and severe testing; Epistemological link; Placeholder effects; Procedural rules; Triangulation

Indexed keywords

EID: 33747036470     PISSN: 00335177     EISSN: 15737845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11135-005-1099-0     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edn., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. Denzin, N. (1978). The logic of naturalistic inquiry. In N.K. Denzin (ed.), Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
3. Gatta, J. (2003). Mixed methodological survey research: A nested paradigm approach. Doctoral Dissertation, Loyola University Chicago.
4. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
5. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd edn., (pp. 163-188).
6. Mathison, S. (1998). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher. 17(2): 13-17.
7. Maxcy, S.J. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple models of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, (pp. 51-89).
8. Maxwell, J.A. and Loomis, D.M. (2003). Mixed Methods Design: An Alternative Approach. In Tashakkori A. and C. Teddlie (eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, (pp. 241-271).
9. Mayo, D.G. (1997). Duhem's problem, the Bayesian way, and error statistics, or "what's belief got to do with it?" Philosophical of Science 64(2): 222-244.
10. McCall, R.B. (1970). Fundamental Statistics for Psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
11. Miller, S.I. (1994). Evidence as an idealized cognitive model. Social Epistemology 8(2): 163-165.
12. Miller, S.I. (2003). Impact of mixed methods and design on inference quality. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, (pp. 423-454).
13. Quine, W.V.O. (1969). Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press.
14. Sandelowski, M. (2003). Tables or tableaux? The challenges of writing and reading mixed method studies. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, (pp. 321-350).
15. Schmitt, F.F. (1995). Truth: A Primer. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
16. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (eds.) (2003). Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Trout, J.D. (1998). Measuring the Intentional World: Realism, Naturalism, and Quantitative Methods in the Behavioral Sciences. Oxford, MA: Oxford University Press.
19. Venables, W.N. and Ripley, B.D. (1999). Modern Applied Statistics with S-PIUS. New York: Springer-Verlag.