Assessing legitimation in mixed research: A new framework

Quality and Quantity

Volumn 45, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1253-1271

  Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J ^a   Johnson, R Burke ^b   Collins, Kathleen M T ^c  

^a SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessing legitimation; Dynamic process; Mixed research; Research paradigm

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960448654     PISSN: 00335177     EISSN: 15737845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11135-009-9289-9     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Bhaskar R.: A Realist Theory of Science. Harvester Press, Sussex (1978).
2. Bracht G. H., Glass G. V.: The external validity of experiments. Am. Edu. Res. J. 5, 437-474 (1968).
3. Brandom, R. B. (eds): Rorty and his Critics. Blackwell, Malden, MA (2000).
4. Campbell D. T.: Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychol. Bull. 54, 297-312 (1957).
5. Campbell D. T., Stanley J. C.: Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Rand McNally, Chicago (1963).
6. Collins, K. M. T.: Advanced sampling designs in mixed research: Current practices and emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds.) The Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (in press).
7. Collins K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie A. J., Sutton I. L.: A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed methods research in special education and beyond. Learn. Disabil. A Contemp. J. 4, 67-100 (2006).
8. Cook T. D., Campbell D. T.: Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Rand McNally, Chicago (1979).
9. Curtis S., Gesler W., Smith G., Washburn S.: Approaches to sampling and case selection in qualitative research: examples in the geography of health. Soc. Sci. Med. 50, 1001-1014 (2000).
10. Dellinger A.: Validity and the review of the literature. Res. Sch. 12(2), 41-54 (2005).
11. Eisenhart M. A., Howe K. R.: Validity in educational research. In: LeCompte, M. D., Millroy, W. L., Preissle, J. (eds) The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education, pp. 643-680. Academic Press, San Diego, CA (1992).
12. Ely M., Anzul M., Friedman T., Garner D., Steinmetz A. C.: Doing Qualitative Research: Circles within Circles. Falmer, New York (1991).
13. Etheredge, C.: Living in guild wars: a cultural analysis of the discourse, dance and evolution of an MMOG phenomenon. Unpublished master's thesis, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama (2006).
14. Glaser B. G., Strauss A. L.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine De Gruyter, New York (1967).
15. Greene J. C.: Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Res. Sch. 13(1), 93-98 (2006).
16. Greene J. C.: Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology?. J. Mix. Method Res. 2, 7-22 (2008).
17. Greene J. C., Caracelli V. J.: Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. In: Greene, J. C., Varacelli, J. C. (eds) Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms. New Directions for Evaluation, vol. 74, pp. 5-17. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA (1997).
18. Greene J. C., Caracelli V. J.: Making paradigmatic sense of mixed methods practice. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 91-110. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003).
19. Greene J. C., Caracelli V. J., Graham W. F.: Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Edu. Eval. Policy Anal. 11, 255-274 (1989).
20. Greene J. C., Benjamin L., Goodyear L.: The merits of mixing methods in evaluation. Evaluation 7(1), 25-44 (2001).
21. Guba E. G., Lincoln Y. S.: Fourth Generation Evaluation. Sage, Newbury Park, CA (1989).
22. Guba E. G., Lincoln Y. S.Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In: Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd edn, pp. 191-215. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2005).
23. Hammersley M.: What's Wrong with Ethnography. Routledge, London (1992).
24. Howe K. R.: Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Edu. Res. 17(8), 10-16 (1988).
25. Huck S. W., Sandler H. M.: Rival Hypotheses: Alternative Interpretations of Data Based Conclusions. Harper Collins, New York (1979).
26. Johnson R. B.: Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education 118, 282-292 (1999).
27. Johnson R. B.: Editorial: living with tensions. J. Mix. Method Res. 2, 203-207 (2008).
28. Johnson R. B.: Toward a more inclusive scientific research in education. Edu. Res. 38, 449-457 (2009).
29. Johnson R. B., Christensen L. B.: Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2008).
30. Johnson R. B., Turner L. A.: Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 297-319. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003).
31. Johnson R. B., Onwuegbuzie A. J.: Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Edu. Res. 33(7), 14-26 (2004).
32. Johnson R. B., Onwuegbuzie A. J., Turner L. A.: Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J. Mix. Method Res. 1(2), 1-22 (2007).
33. Kuhn T.: Postscript-1969. In: Kuhn, T. (eds) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn, pp. 174-210. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1970).
34. Kuhn T.: The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1974).
35. Kuhn T.: The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1996) (Original work published 1962).
36. Kuhn T.: The Road Since Structure. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2000).
37. Kvale S.: The social construction of validity. Qual. Inq. 1, 19-40 (1995).
38. Lather P.: Issues of validity in openly ideological research: between a rock and a soft place. Interchange 17, 63-84 (1986).
39. Lather P.: Fertile obsession: validity after poststructuralism. Soc. Q. 34, 673-693 (1993).
40. Li S., Marquart J. M., Zercher C.: Conceptual issues and analytical strategies in mixed-method studies of preschool inclusion. J. Early Interv. 23, 116-132 (2000).
41. Lincoln Y. S.: Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qual. Inq. 1, 275-289 (1995).
42. Madey D. L.: Some benefits of integrating qualitative and quantitative methods in program evaluation, with some illustrations. Edu. Eval. Policy Anal. 4, 223-236 (1982).
43. Maxcy S. J.: Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 51-89. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003).
44. Maxwell J. A.: Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harv. Edu. Rev. 62, 279-299 (1992).
45. Maxwell J. A.: Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Edu. Res. 33(2), 3-11 (2004a).
46. Maxwell, J. A.: Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 2004b.
47. McLean, J. E.: Foreword: From qualitative to quantitative and half way back. Res. Sch. 13(1), iii-iv (2006).
48. McMillan, J. H.: Examining categories of rival hypotheses for educational research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 2000.
49. Mertens D.: Mixed methods and the politics of human research: the transformative-emancipatory perspective. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 135-164. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003).
50. Messick S.: Validity. In: Linn, R. L. (eds) Educational Measurement, 3rd edn, pp. 13-103. Macmillan, Old Tappan, N. J (1989).
51. Messick S.: Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. Am. Psychol. 50, 741-749 (1995).
52. Miles M. B., Huberman A. M.: Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: toward a shared craft. Edu. Res. 13, 20-30 (1984).
53. Morgan D. L.: Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J. Mix. Method Res. 1(1), 48-76 (2007).
54. Newman I., Ridenour C. S., Newman C., DeMarco G. M. P.: A typology of research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 167-188. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003).
55. Onwuegbuzie A. J.: Effect sizes in qualitative research: a prolegomenon. Qual. Quant. Int. J. Methodol. 37, 393-409 (2003).
56. Onwuegbuzie A. J.: Mixed methods research in sociology and beyond. In: Ritzer, G. (eds) The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, vol. VI, pp. 2978-2981. Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford (2007).
57. Onwuegbuzie A. J., Johnson R. B.: The validity issue in mixed research. Res. Sch. 13(1), 48-63 (2006).
58. Onwuegbuzie A. J., Leech N. L.: On becoming a pragmatist researcher: the importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. Theory Pract. 8, 375-387 (2005).
59. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L.: Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures. Qual. Rep. 11, 474-498. http://www. nova. edu/ssss/QR/QR11-3/onwuegbuzie. pdf (2006) Accessed 29 Nov 2006.
60. Onwuegbuzie A. J., Leech N. L.: A call for qualitative power analyses. Qual. Quant. Int. J. Methodol. 41, 105-121 (2007).
61. Onwuegbuzie A. J., Witcher A. E., Collins K. M. T., Filer J. D., Wiedmaier C. D., Moore C. W.: Students' perceptions of characteristics of effective college teachers: A validity study of a teaching evaluation form using a mixed methods analysis. Am. Edu. Res. J. 44, 113-160 (2007).
62. Onwuegbuzie A. J., Daniel L. G., Collins K. M. T.: Problems associated with student teaching evaluations. Qual. Quant. Int. J. Methodol. 43, 197-209 (2009).
63. Patton, M. Q.: Foreword: Trends and issues as context. Res. Sch. 13(1), i-ii (2006).
64. Phillips D. C.: Validity in qualitative research: why the worry about warrant will not wane. Edu. Urban Soc. 20, 9-24 (1987).
65. Putnam H.: The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (2002).
66. Reichardt C. S., Rallis S. F.: Qualitative and quantitative inquiries are not incompatible: a call for a new partnership. In: Reichardt, C. S., Rallis, S. F. (eds) The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: New Perspectives, pp. 85-91. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA (1994).
67. Rescher N.: Realistic Pragmatism: An Introduction to Pragmatic Philosophy. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY (2000).
68. Sandelowski M.: Real qualitative researchers don't count: the use of numbers in qualitative research. Res. Nurs. Health 24, 230-240 (2001).
69. Sandelowski M.: Tables or tableaux? The challenges of writing and reading mixed methods studies. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 321-350. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003).
70. Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., Barroso, J.: Defining and designing mixed research synthesis studies. Res. Sch. 13(1), (2006).
71. Smith M. L., Glass G. V.: Research and evaluation in education and the social sciences. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1987).
72. Tashakkori A., Teddlie C.: Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol. 46. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (1998).
73. Tashakkori A., Teddlie C.: The past and future of mixed methods research: from data triangulation to mixed model designs. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 671-701. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003a).
74. Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds): Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003b).
75. Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C.: Validity issues in mixed methods research: calling for an integrative framework. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American educational research association. San Francisco, CA, April, 2006.
76. Teddlie C., Stringfield S.: Schools Make a Difference: Lessons Learned from a 10-year Study of School Effects. Teachers College Press, New York (1993).
77. Teddlie C., Tashakkori A.: Major issues and controversies in the issue of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 3-50. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003).
78. Willems E. P., Raush, H. L.: Naturalistic Viewpoints in Psychological Research. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York (1969).
79. Williams D. D.: Naturalistic evaluation: potential conflicts between evaluation standards and criteria for conducting naturalistic inquiry. Edu. Eval. Policy Anal. 8, 87-99 (1986).
80. Yanchar S. C., Williams D. D.: Reconsidering the compatibility thesis and eclecticism: five proposed guidelines for methods use. Edu. Res. 35(9), 3-12 (2006).