Mixed methods research: Toward new research designs in applied linguistics

Modern Language Journal

Volumn 97, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 828-852

  Hashemi, Mohammad R ^a   Babaii, Esmat ^a  

^a KHARAZMI UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

Author keywords

Inference quality; Mixed methods research; Qualitative; Quantitative; Research design

Indexed keywords

EID: 84888070374     PISSN: 00267902     EISSN: 15404781     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12049.x     Document Type: Article

References (107)

1. Alise, M. A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). A continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4, 103-126.
2. Altman, D. G. (1991). Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall.
3. Barkaoui, K. (2010). Do ESL raters' evaluation criteria change with experience? A mixed-methods, cross-sectional study. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 31-57.
4. Bazeley, P. (2004). Issues in mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. In R. Buber, J. Gadner, & L. Richards (Eds.), Applying qualitative methods to marketing management research (pp. 141-156). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
5. Bazeley, P. (2009). Editorial: Integrating data analyses in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3, 203-207.
6. Benson, P., Chik, A., Gao, X., Huang, J., & Wang, W. (2009). Qualitative research in language teaching and learning journals, 1997-2006. Modern Language Journal, 93, 79-90.
7. Bergman, M. M. (2008). Introduction: Whither mixed methods? In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 1-7). London: SAGE.
8. Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 8-22.
9. Bryman, A. (2008). Why do researchers integrate/combine/mesh/blend/mix/merge/fuse quantitative and qualitative research? In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 87-100). London: SAGE.
10. Campbell, D. T. (1953). A study of leadership among submarine officers. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
11. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
12. Caracelli, V. J., & Greene, J. C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 195-207.
13. Caracelli, V. J., & Greene, J. C. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. 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. 19-32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
14. Chatterji, M. (2004). Evidence on "what works": An argument for extended-term mixed-method (ETMM) evaluation designs. Educational Researcher, 33, 3-13.
15. Christ, T. W. (2007). A recursive approach to mixed methods research in a longitudinal study of postsecondary education disability support services. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 226-241.
16. Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. G. (2006). Prevalence of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. Evaluation and Research in Education, 19, 83-101.
17. Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. G. (2007). A mixed methods investigation of mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 267-294.
18. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
19. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., & Garrett, A. L. (2008). Methodological issues in conducting mixed methods research designs. In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 66-83). London: SAGE.
20. Cumming, A. (1994). Alternatives in TESOL research: Descriptive, interpretive, and ideological orientations. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 673-703.
21. Datta, L. (1997). A pragmatic basis for mixed-method designs. 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. 33-46). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22. Davis, K. A. (1995). Qualitative theory and methods in applied linguistics research. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 427-453.
23. Dellinger, A. B., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Toward a unified validation framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 309-332.
24. Denscombe, M. (2008). Communities of practice: A research paradigm for mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, 270-283.
25. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
26. Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6, 80-88.
27. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28. Durham, J., Tan, B.-K., & White, R. (2011). Utilizing mixed research methods to develop a quantitative assessment tool: An example from explosive remnants of a war clearance program. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5, 212-226.
29. Egbert, J. (2007). Quality analysis of journals in TESOL and applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 157-171.
30. Ellingson, L. L. (2009). Engaging crystallization in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
31. Ellingson, L. L. (2011). Analysis and representation across the continuum. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 595-610). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
32. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New York: Collier-Macmillan.
33. Feilzer, M. Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4, 6-16.
34. Freshwater, D. (2007). Reading mixed methods research: Contexts for criticism. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 134-146.
35. Fries, C. J. (2009). Bourdieu's reflexive sociology as a theoretical basis for mixed methods research: An application to complementary and alternative medicine. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3, 326-348.
36. Giddings, L., & Grant, B. (2007). A Trojan horse for positivism? A critique of mixed methods research. Advances in Nursing Science, 30, 52-60.
37. Gorard, S. (with Taylor, C.). (2004). Combining methods in educational and social research. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
38. Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
39. Greene, J. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, 7-22.
40. Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. 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. 5-17). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
41. 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, 255-274.
42. Guest, G. (2013). Describing mixed methods research: An alternative to typologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7, 141-151.
43. Hall, B., & Howard, H. (2008). A synergistic approach: Conducting mixed methods research with typological and systemic design considerations. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, 248-269.
44. Hammersley, M. (2008). Troubles with triangulation. In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 22-36). London: SAGE.
45. Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Petska, K. S., & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 224-235.
46. Harrits, G. S. (2011). More than method? A discussion of paradigm differences within mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5, 150-166.
47. Hashemi, M. R. (2012). Reflections on mixing methods in applied linguistics research. Applied Linguistics, 33, 206-212.
48. Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2010). Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice. New York: Guilford Press.
49. Jang, E. E., McDougall, D. E., Pollen, D., Herbert, M., & Russell, P. (2008). Integrative mixed methods data analytic strategies in research on school success in challenging circumstances. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, 221-247.
50. Johnson, R. B. (2008). Living with tensions: The dialectic approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, 203-207.
51. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14-26.
52. Jung, U. O. H. (2004). Paris in London revisited or the foreign language teacher's topmost journals. System, 32, 357-361.
53. Kim, Y.-H. (2009). An investigation into native and non-native teachers' judgments of oral English performance: A mixed methods approach. Language Testing, 26, 187-217.
54. Kissau, S., & Wierzalis, E. (2008). Gender identity and homophobia: The impact on adolescent males studying French. Modern Language Journal, 92, 402-413.
55. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
56. Lamb, M. (2007). The impact of school on EFL learning motivation: An Indonesian case study. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 757-780.
57. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58. Lazaraton, A. (1995). Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A progress report. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 445-472.
59. Lazaraton, A. (2000). Current trends in research methodology and statistics in applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 175-181.
60. Lazaraton, A. (2002). Qualitative and quantitative approaches to discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 32-51.
61. Lazaraton, A. (2003). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in applied linguistics: Whose criteria and whose research? Modern Language Journal, 87, 1-12.
62. Lazaraton, A. (2005). Quantitative research methods. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 209-224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
63. Lee, Y., & Greene, J. (2007). The predictive validity of an ESL placement test: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 366-389.
64. Leeuw, E., & Hox, J. (2008). Mixing data collection methods: Lessons from social survey research. In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 138-149). London: SAGE.
65. Lieberman, E. S. (2005). Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review, 99, 435-452.
66. Long, M. H. (2005). Methodological issues in learner needs analysis. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 19-76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
67. Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 405-430.
68. Martella, R. C., Nelson, R., & Marchand-Martella, N. (1999). Research methods: Learning to become a critical research consumer. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
69. 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, 121-140.
70. Mertens, D. M. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 212-225.
71. Mertens, D. M. (2010). Philosophy in mixed methods teaching: The transformative paradigm as illustration. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 4, 9-18.
72. Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 48-76.
73. Nastasi, B. K., Hitchcock, J., Sarkar, S., Burkholder, G., Varjas, K., & Jayasena, A. (2007). Mixed methods in intervention research: Theory to adaptation. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 164-182.
74. Newman, I., & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
75. Niglas, K. (2004). The combined use of qualitative and quantitative methods in educational research. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tallinn Pedagogical University, Tallinn, Estonia.
76. Niglas, K., Kaipainen, M., & Kippar, J. (2008). Multi-perspective exploration as a tool for mixed methods research. In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 172-188). London: SAGE.
77. Norton, B. (1995). The theory of methodology in qualitative research. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 569-576.
78. O'Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2007). Integration and publications as indicators of "yield" from mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 147-163.
79. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Bustamante, R. M., & Nelson, J. A. (2010). Mixed research as a tool for developing quantitative instruments. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4, 56-78.
80. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Dickinson, W. B. (2008). Mixed methods analysis and information visualization: Graphical display for effective communication of research results. The Qualitative Report, 13, 204-225.
81. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13, 48-63.
82. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2006). Linking research questions to mixed methods data analytic procedures. The Qualitative Report, 11, 474-498.
83. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
84. Plonsky, L., & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61, 325-366.
85. Pritchard, R. M. O., & Nasr, A. (2004). Improving reading performance among Egyptian engineering students: Principles and practice. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 425-445.
86. Ridenour, C. S., & Newman, I. (2008). Mixed methods research: Exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
87. Saif, S. (2006). Aiming for positive washback: A case study of international teaching assistants. Language Testing, 23, 1-34.
88. Sale, J. E. M., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality & Quantity, 36, 43-53.
89. Sasaki, M. (2004). A multiple-data analysis of the 3.5-year development of EFL student writers. Language Learning, 54, 525-582.
90. Sechrest, L., & Sidana, S. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative methods: Is there an alternative? Evaluation and Program Planning, 18, 77-87.
91. Tan, M. (2011). Mathematics and science teachers' beliefs and practices regarding the teaching of language in content learning. Language Teaching Research, 15, 325-342.
92. Tarrow, S. (2004). Bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide. In H. E. Brady & D. Collier (Eds.), Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards (pp. 171-179). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
93. Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007a). Editorial: The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 3-7.
94. Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007b). Editorial: Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 207-211.
95. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
96. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). The past and future of mixed methods research: From data triangulation to mixed model designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 671-702). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
97. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2008). Quality of inferences in mixed methods research. In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 101-119). London: SAGE.
98. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Editorial: Putting the human back in the "human research methodology": The researcher in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4, 271-277.
99. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). The foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative techniques in the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
100. Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 77-100.
101. Vavrus, F. (2002). Postcoloniality and English: Exploring language policy and the politics of development in Tanzania. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 373-397.
102. Weber, M., & Campbell, C. M. (2004). In other professional journals. Modern Language Journal, 88, 457-466.
103. Wilhelm, K. H. (1997). Sometimes kicking and screaming: Language teachers-in-training react to a collaborative learning model. Modern Language Journal, 81, 527-542.
104. Woolley, C. M. (2009). Meeting the mixed methods challenge of integration in a sociological study of structure and agency. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3, 7-25.
105. Yin, R. K. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are the methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel? Research in the Schools, 13, 41-47.
106. Yu, M.-C. (2008). Teaching and learning sociolinguistic skills in university EFL classes in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 31-53.
107. Zhang, Y. (2011). Judgments of oral proficiency by non-native and native English speaking teacher raters: Competing or complementary constructs? Language Testing, 28, 31-50.