Triangulation, Respondent Validation, and Democratic Participation in Mixed Methods Research

Journal of Mixed Methods Research

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 111-123

  Torrance, Harry ^a  

^a MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

democratic evaluation; member checks; participative research; respondent validation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861879374     PISSN: 15586898     EISSN: 15586901     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1558689812437185     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Alcoff L.The problem of speaking for others.Cultural Critique. 1991;20:5-32.
2. Appadurai A.The right to research.Globalisation, Societies and Education. 2006;4:167-177.
3. Becker H.,Geer B.,Hughes E.,Strauss A.Boys in white: Student culture in medical school. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books; 1961:.
4. Advances in mixed methods research: Theories and applications. Bergman M., ed. London, England: SAGE; 2008:.
5. Bloor M.On the analysis of observational data: A discussion of the worth and uses of inductive techniques and respondent validation.Sociology. 1978;12:545-552.
6. Blumer H.Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1969:.
7. Bryman A.Quantity and quality in social research. London, England: Unwin Hyman; 1988:.
8. Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. London, England: Author; 2003:.
9. Caracelli V.Enhancing the policy process through the use of ethnography and other study frameworks: A mixed methods strategy.Research in the Schools. 2006;13:84-92.
10. Creswell J.Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2003:.
11. Creswell J.Mixed methods in social and behavioral research. 2010). Mapping the developing landscape of mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 45-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Tashakkori A.Teddlie C., ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2010:45-68.
12. Creswell J.,Plano Klassen A.,Clark V.,Smith K.Best practice for mixed methods research in the health sciences. Bethesda, MD: Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, National Institutes of Health; 2011:.
13. Creswell J.,Plano Clark V.Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2007:.
14. Christ T.Designing, teaching and evaluating two complementary mixed methods research courses.Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2009;3 (4): 292-325.
15. Christ T.Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. 2010). Teaching mixed methods and action research: Pedagogical, practical and evaluative considerations. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 643-676). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Tashakkori A.Teddlie C., ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2010:643-676.
16. Denscombe M.Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach.Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2008;2 (3): 270-283.
17. Denzin N.The research act. 1970). The research act (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1970:.
18. Denzin N.The research act. 1978). The research act (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1978:.
19. Denzin N.The research act. 1989). The research act (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1989:.
20. Denzin N.The qualitative manifesto: A call to arms. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press; 2010:.
21. Duncier M.Contemporary field research: Perspectives and formulations. Emerson R. M., ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press; 2001:167-188.
22. Ellis C.Emotional and ethical quagmires in returning to the field.Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 1995;24:68-98.
23. Fetterman D.Foundations of empowerment evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2001:.
24. Fielding N.,Fielding J.Linking data. Beverley Hills, CA: SAGE; 1986:.
25. Gibbons M.,Limoges C.,Nowotny H.,Schwartzman S.,Scott P.,Trow M.The new production of knowledge. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 1994:.
26. Giddings L.Mixed methods research: Positivism in drag?.Journal of Research in Nursing. 2006;11:195-203.
27. Greene J.Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry.Research in the Schools. 2006;13:93-98.
28. Greene J.Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2007:.
29. Greene J.Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology?.Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2008;2 (1): 7-22.
30. Greene J.Sage handbook of educational evaluation. Ryan K.Cousins B., ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2009:323-340.
31. Greene J.,Caracelli V. J.,Graham W. F.Toward a conceptual framework for mixed methods evaluation designs.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 1989;11:255-274.
32. Hesse-Biber S.Qualitative approaches to mixed methods practice.Qualitative Inquiry. 2010a;16:455-468.
33. Hesse-Biber S.Mixed methods in social and behavioral research. 2010b). Feminist approaches to mixed methods research: Linking theory and praxis. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 169-192). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Tashakkori A.Teddlie C., ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2010b:169-192.
34. Harrits G.More than method? A discussion of paradigm differences within mixed methods research.Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2011;5 (2): 150-166.
35. House E.,Howe K.Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 1999:.
36. Voice in qualitative inquiry. Jackson A.Mazzei L., ed. London, England: Routledge; 2009:.
37. Jang E.,McDougall D.,Pollon D.,Herbert M.,Russell P.Integrative mixed methods data analytic strategies in research on school success in challenging circumstances.Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2008;2 (3): 221-247.
38. Johnson R. B.,Onwuegbuzie A.,Turner L.Toward a definition of mixed methods research.Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2007;1 (2): 112-133.
39. Lather P.This IS your father's paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education.Qualitative Inquiry. 2004;10:15-34.
40. Lather P.Engaging science policy from the side of the messy. New York, NY: Peter Lang; 2010:.
41. Lincoln Y.Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research.Qualitative Inquiry. 1995;1:275-289.
42. Lincoln Y.,Guba E.Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE; 1985:.
43. MacDonald B.Evaluation and the control of education Evaluating education: Issues and methods Qualitative research methods in education. Murphy R.Torrance H.Torrance H., ed. Norwich, England London, England Thousand Oaks, CA: Centre for Applied Research in Education Harper & Row SAGE; 1974 1987 2010:.
44. Mason J.Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way.Qualitative Research. 2006;6 (1): 9-25.
45. Mathison S.Why triangulate?.Educational Researcher. 1988;17 (2): 13-17.
46. Mertens D.Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Tashakkori A.Teddlie C., ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2003:135-164.
47. Mertens D.Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice.Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2007;1 (3): 212-225.
48. Mertens D.,Bledsoe K.,Sullivan M.,Wilson A.Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. 2010). Utilisation of mixed methods for transformative purposes. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 193-214). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Tashakkori A.Teddlie C., ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2010:193-214.
49. Meyer J.Research methods in the social sciences. Somekh B.Lewin C., ed. London, England: SAGE; 2005:8-9.
50. Morgan D.Paradigms lost and paradigms regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods.Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2007;1 (1): 48-79.
51. Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: Author; 2002:.
52. Niglas K.Mixed methods in social and behavioral research. 2010). The multidimensional model of research methodology: An integrated set of continua. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 215-236). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Tashakkori A.Teddlie C., ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2010:215-236.
53. Patton M.Qualitative evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 1980:.
54. Schwandt T.Farewell to criteriology.Qualitative Inquiry. 1996;2:58-72.
55. Silverman D.Qualitative methodology and sociology: Describing the social world. Aldershot: Gower; 1985:.
56. Smith L.The Sage handbook of qualitative research. 2005). On tricky ground: Researching the native in the age of uncertainty. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 85-108). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Denzin N.Lincoln Y., ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2005:85-108.
57. Stake R. Paper presented at the New Trends in Evaluation conference, Goteborg University, Sweden; 1975 1980London, England: Hodder & Stoughton; 1975 1980.
58. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Tashakkori A.Teddlie C., ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2003:.
59. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. 2010). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Tashakkori A.Teddlie C., ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2010:.
60. Teddlie C.,Tashakkori A.Foundations of mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2009:.
61. Torrance H.Handbook of qualitative research. 2011). Qualitative research, science and government: Evidence, criteria, policy and politics. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 569-580). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Denzin N.Lincoln Y., ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2011:569-580.
62. Walker R.Innovation, evaluation, research and the problem of control Qualitative research methods in education. MacDonald B.Walker R.Torrance H., ed. Norwich, England Thousand Oaks, CA: University of East Anglia. SAFARI Papers SAGE; 1974 2010:.
63. Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation: New directions for evaluation No. 80. Whitmore E., ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1998:.
64. Whyte W. F.Street corner society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1943:.