Mixing methods as a process towards indigenous methodologies

International Journal of Social Research Methodology

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 313-325

  Botha, Louis ^a  

^a OSLO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (Norway)

Author keywords

Cultural historical activity theory; Decolonising research; Expansive learning; Indigenous research; Mixed methods; Reflective methods

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960919543     PISSN: 13645579     EISSN: 14645300     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13645579.2010.516644     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Alexander, V., Thomas, H., Cronin, A., Fielding, J., & Moran-Ellis, J. (2008). Mixed methods. In N. Gilbert (Ed.), Researching social life (pp. 126-144). London: Sage.
2. Avis, J. (2007). Engeström's version of activity theory: A conservative praxis? Journal of Education and Work, 20, 161-177.
3. Belanger, Y.D. (2001). Epistemological distinctiveness and the use of 'guide history' methodology for writing native stories. Indigenous Nations Studies Journal, 2(2), 15-35.
4. Bishop, R. (2005). Freeing ourselves from neo-colonial domination in research: A Kaupapa Maori approach to creating knowledge. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 109-138). London: Sage.
5. Brannen, J. (1992). Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: An overview. In J. Brannen (Ed.), Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research (pp. 3-37). Aldershot: Avebury.
6. Brannen, J. (2005). Mixing methods: The entry of qualitative and quantitative approaches into the research process. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 173-184.
7. Bryman, A. (1992). Quantitative and qualitative research: Further reflections on their integration. In J. Brannen (Ed.), Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research (pp. 57-78). Aldershot: Avebury.
8. Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Bryman, A. (2006a). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6, 97-113.
10. Bryman, A. (2006b). Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9, 111-126.
11. Bryman, A. (2008). The end of the paradigm wars? In P. Alasuutari, L. Bickman, & J. Brannen (Eds.), Handbook of social research methods (pp. 13-25). London: Sage.
12. Castellano, M.B. (2000). Updating aboriginal traditions of knowledge. In G.J.S. Dei, B.L. Hall, & D.G. Rosenberg (Eds.), Indigenous knowledges in global contexts: Multiple readings of our world (pp. 21-36). London: University of Toronto Press.
13. Cronin, A., Alexander, V., Fielding, J., Moran-Ellis, J., & Thomas, H. (2008). The analytic integration of qualitative data sources. In P. Alasuutari, L. Bickman, & J. Brannen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social research methods (pp. 572-584). London: Sage.
14. Dei, G.J.S. (2000). Rethinking the role of indigenous knowledges in the academy. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4(2), 111-132.
15. Dei, G.J.S., Hall, B., & Rosenberg, D. (2000). Indigenous knowledges in global contexts: Multiple readings of our world. London: University of Toronto Press.
16. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1-33). London: Sage.
17. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2008). Preface. In N. Denzin, Y. Lincoln, & L. Tuhiwai Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. ix-xv). London: Sage.
18. Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y., & Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2008). Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies. London: Sage.
19. Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. (2000). Autoethnography, personal, narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733-768). London: Sage.
20. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettienen, & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-156.
22. Engeström, Y. (2004). The new generation of expertise: Seven theses. In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller, & A. Munro (Eds.), Workplace learning in context (pp. 145-165). London: Routledge.
23. Engeström, Y., & Miettinen, R. (1999). Introduction. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettienen, & R.-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 1-16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Greene, J. (2005). The generative potential of mixed methods inquiry. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 28, 207-211.
25. Greene, J., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixedmethod evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.
26. Guba, E., & Lincoln, S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-215). London: Sage.
27. Gwyther, G., & Possamai-Inesedy, A. (2009). Methodologies à la carte: An examination of emerging qualitative methodologies in social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12, 99-115.
28. Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 274-294.
29. Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2001). The Practice of Co-operative Inquiry: Research with rather than on people. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice (pp. 179-188). London: Sage.
30. Heshusius, L. (1994). Freeing ourselves from objectivity: Managing subjectivity or turning toward a participatory model of consciousness? Educational Researcher, 23(3), 15-22.
31. Jones, A., with Jenkins, K. (2008). Working the indigene-colonizer hyphen. In N. Denzin, Y. Lincoln, & L. Tuhiwai Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 471-486). London: Sage.
32. Kidder, L.H., & Fine, M. (1987). Qualitative and quantitative methods: When stories converge. In M.M. Mark & R.L. Shotland (Eds.), Multiple methods in program evaluation: New directions for Program Evaluation 35 (pp. 57-75). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33. Lavallée, L.F. (2009). Practical application of an indigenous research framework and two qualitative indigenous research methods: Sharing circles and Anishnaabe symbol-based reflection. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 21-40.
34. Lincoln, Y., & González y González, E.M. (2008). The search for emerging decolonizing methodologies in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 14, 784-805.
35. Madley, D.L. (1982). Some benefits of integrating qualitative and quantitative methods in program evaluation, with illustrations. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4, 223-236.
36. Mark, M.M., & Shotland, R.L. (1987). Alternative models for the use of multiple methods. In M.M. Mark & R.L. Shotland (Eds.), Multiple methods in Program Evaluation 35 (pp. 95-100). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
37. Morgan, D. (2003). Appropriation, appreciation, accommodation: Indigenous wisdoms and knowledges in higher education. International Review of Education, 49, 35-49.
38. Morgan, D. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 48-76.
39. O'Byrne, P. (2007). The advantages and disadvantages of mixing methods: An analysis of combining traditional and autoethnographic approaches. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 1381-1391.
40. Odora Hoppers, C.A. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and the integration of knowledge systems. In C.A. Odora Hoppers (Ed.), Indigenous knowledge and the integration of knowledge systems: Towards a philosophy of articulation (pp. 2-22). Cape Town: New Africa Books.
41. Porsanger, J. (2004). An essay about indigenous methodology. Nordlit, 15, 105-120.
42. Reason, P. (1993). Reflections on sacred experience and sacred science. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2(3), 273-283.
43. Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 923-948). London: Sage.
44. Richardson, L., & St Pierre, E. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 959-978). London: Sage.
45. Sieber, S.D. (1973). The integration of field work and survey methods. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1335-1359.
46. Tomaselli, K., Dyll, L., & Francis, M. (2008). 'Self' and 'other': Auto-reflexive and indigenous ethnography. In N. Denzin, Y. Lincoln, & L. Tuhiwai Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 347-372). London: Sage.
47. Tuhiwai Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.
48. Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2005). On tricky ground: Researching the native in the age of uncertainty. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 85-107). London: Sage.
49. Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.