Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology?

Journal of Mixed Methods Research

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 7-22

  Greene, Jennifer C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Methodology; Philosophy; Practical guidelines; Sociopolitical commitments

Indexed keywords

EID: 40549141644     PISSN: 15586898     EISSN: 15586901     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1558689807309969     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Bazeley, P. (2003). Computerized data analysis for mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 385-422). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. Booth, D. (2005). Towards a better combination of the quantitative and the qualitative: Some design issues from Pakistan's participatory poverty assessment. In R. Kanbur (Ed.), Q-Squared-Qualitative and quantitative poverty appraisal: Complementarities, tensions and the way forward (pp. 59-63). Retrieved from http://www.q-squared.ca/papers01.html
3. Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Caracelli, V.J., & Greene, J.C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 195-207.
5. Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. Datta, L.-E. (1994). Paradigm wars: A basis for peaceful coexistence and beyond. In C. S. Reichardt & S. F. Rallis (Eds.), The qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives (New Directions for Program Evaluation No. 61, pp. 53-70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8. Dillman, D.A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
9. Geertz, C. (1983). "From the native's point of view": On the nature of anthropological understanding. In Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
10. Greene, J.C. (2005). Synthesis: A reprise on mixing methods. In T. S. Weisner (Ed.), Discovering successful pathways in children's development: Mixed methods in the study of childhood and family life (pp. 405-419). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11. Greene, J.C. (2006). Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 93-99.
12. Greene, J.C. (2007) Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13. Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (Eds.). (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (New Directions for Evaluation No. 74). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14. Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.
15. Howe, K.R. (2003). Closing methodological divides. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
16. Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
17. Kanbur, R. (2005a). Q-Squared - A commentary on qualitative and quantitative poverty appraisal. In R. Kanbur (Ed.), Q-Squared - Qualitative and quantitative poverty appraisal: Complementarities, tensions and the way forward (pp. 1-15). Retrieved from http://www.q-squared.ca/papers01.html
18. Kanbur, R. (2005 b). Qualitative and quantitative poverty appraisal: The state of play and some questions. In R. Kanbur (Ed.), Q-Squared - Qualitative and quantitative poverty appraisal: Complementarities, tensions and the way forward (pp. 16-20). Retrieved from http://www.q-squared.ca/papers01.html
19. Kertzer, D.I., & Fricke, T. (1997). Toward an anthropological demography. In D. I. Kertzer & T. Fricke (Eds.), Anthropological demography (pp. 1-35). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. Knigge, L., & Cope, M. (2005). Grounded visualization: Integrating the analysis of qualitative and quantitative data through grounded theory and visualization. Environment and Planning, 38, 2021-2037.
21. Lee, Y-j., & Greene, J.C. (2007). The predictive validity of an ESL placement test: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 366-389.
22. Li, S., Marquart, J.M., & Zercher, C. (2000). Conceptual issues and analytic strategies in mixed-method studies of preschool inclusion. Journal of Early Intervention, 23(1), 116-132.
23. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Louis, K.S. (1982). Sociologist as sleuth: Integrating methods in the RDU study. American Behavioral Scientist, 26(1), 101-120.
25. Marquart, J.M. (1990). A pattern-matching approach to link program theory and evaluation data. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Advances in program theory (New Directions for Evaluation No. 47, pp. 93-107). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26. Maxwell, J.A., Bashook, P.G., & Sandlow, C.J. (1986). Combining ethnographic and experimental methods in educational evaluation. In D. M. Fetterman & M. A. Pittman (Eds.), Educational evaluation: Ethnography in theory, practice, and politics (pp. 121-143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Maxwell, J.A., & Loomis, D.M. (2003). Mixed methods design: An alternative approach. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 241-271). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. McConney, A., Rudd, A., & Ayres, R. (2002). Getting to the bottom line: A method for synthesizing findings within mixed-method program evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(2), 121-140.
29. Mertens, D.M. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The transformative-emancipatory perspective. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 135-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30. Morse, J.M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31. Niglas, K. (1999, September). Quantitative and qualitative inquiry in educational research: Is there a paradigmatic difference between them? Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Lahti, Finland.
32. Niglas, K. (2004). The combined use of qualitative and quantitative methods in educational research. Dissertation, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Tallinn Pedagogical University, Tallinn, Estonia.
33. Obermeyer, C.M. (1997). Qualitative methods: A key to a better understanding of demographic behavior? Population and Development Review, 23(4), 813-818.
34. Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Johnson, R.B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.
35. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36. Phillips, D.C. (1996). Philosophical perspectives. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. Old Tappan, NJ: Macmillan.
37. Rao, V. (1997). Can economics mediate the relationship between anthropology and demography? Population and Development Review, 23(4), 833-838.
38. Reichardt, C.S., & Cook, T.D. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In T. D. Cook & C. S. Reichardt (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp. 7-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. Sandelowski, M. (2003). Tables or tableaux? The challenges of writing and reading mixed methods studies. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 321-350). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Smith, M.L. (1997). Mixing and matching: Methods and models. In J. C. Greene & V. J. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (New Directions for Evaluation No. 74, pp. 73-85). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
41. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 12-28.
44. Yin, R. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are the methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel? Research in the Schools, 13(1), 41-47.