Mixed Methods and Credibility of Evidence in Evaluation

New Directions for Evaluation

Volumn 2013, Issue 138, 2013, Pages 5-13

  Mertens, Donna M ^a   Hesse Biber, Sharlene ^b  

^a GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878914042     PISSN: 10976736     EISSN: 1534875X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ev.20053     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Biesta, G. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social research (2nd ed., pp. 95-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. Denzin, N. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80-88.
3. Giddings, L. S. (2006). Mixed-methods research: Positivism dressed in drag? Journal of Research in Nursing, 11(3), 195-203.
4. Greene, J. C. (2002). With a splash of soda, please: Towards active engagement with difference. Evaluation, 8(2), 249-258.
5. Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Greene, J. C., Benjamin, L., & Goodyear, L. (2001). The merits of mixing methods in evaluation. Evaluation, 7(1), 25-44.
6. Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (Eds.). (1997). Advances in mixed method evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 74.
7. Greene, J., & Hall, J. (2010). Dialectics and pragmatism: Being of consequence. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social research (2nd ed., pp. 119-143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth paradigm evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9. Hesse-Biber, S. (2010). Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
10. Johnson, B. (2010). A history of philosophical and theoretical issues for mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social research (2nd ed., pp. 69-94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Research, 33(7), 14-26.
12. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13. Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. (2012). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluence. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 97-128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
15. Mertens, D. M., & Wilson, A. (2012). Program evaluation theory and practice. New York, NY: Guilford.
16. Morgan, D. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76.
17. Smith, D. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
18. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.