Making Paradigms Meaningful in Mixed Methods Research

Journal of Mixed Methods Research

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 319-334

  Shannon Baker, Peggy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

Author keywords

guidelines; mixed methods research; paradigms

Indexed keywords

EID: 84987788687     PISSN: 15586898     EISSN: 15586901     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1558689815575861     Document Type: Article

References (39)

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(2), 103-126.
2. Arnon S., Reichel N., (2009). Closed and open-ended question tools in a telephone survey about “the good teacher.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 172-196.
3. Biesta G., (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In Tashakkori A., Teddlie C., (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 95-118). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Bisman J., (2010). Postpositivism and accounting research: A (personal) primer on critical realism. Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal, 4(4), 3-25.
5. Bryman A., (2006). Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodologies, 9(2), 111-126.
6. Canales G., (2013). Transformative, mixed methods checklist for psychological research with Mexican Americans. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(1), 6-21.
7. Chilisa B., (2005). Educational research within postcolonial Africa: A critique of HIV/AIDS research in Botswana. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18, 659-684.
8. Clark A. M., MacIntyre P. D., Cruickshank J., (2007). A critical realist approach to understanding and evaluating heart health programmes. Health (London), 11, 513-539.
9. Creswell J. W., (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Creswell J. W., Plano Clark V. L., (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Douglas F. C. G., Gray D. A., van Teijlingen E. R., (2010). Using a realist approach to evaluate smoking cessation interventions targeting pregnant women and young people. BMC Health Services Research, 10, 49.
12. 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(1), 6-16.
13. Frels J. G., Frels R. K., Onwuegbuzie A. J., (2011). Geographic information systems: A mixed methods spatial approach in business and management research and beyond. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 5, 367-386.
14. Freshwater D., Cahill J., (2013). Paradigms lost and paradigms regained. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(3), 3-5.
15. Greene J., (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16. Greene J. C., Caracelli V. J., (Eds.). (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (New Directions for Evaluation, Vol. 74). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
17. 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.
18. Greene J. C., Hall J. N., (2010). Dialectics and pragmatism: Being of consequence. In Tashakkori A., Teddlie C., (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 119-143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Guba E. G., (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In Guba E. G., (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17-28). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20. Healy M., Perry C., (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research within the realism paradigm. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(3), 118-126.
21. Hesse-Biber S., Johnson R. B., (2013). Coming at things differently: Future directions of possible engagement with mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 103-109.
22. Jensen D., (2008). Transferability. In Given L., (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (p. 886). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. Johnson R. B., (2011). Do we need paradigms? A mixed methods perspective. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 24(2), 31-40.
24. Johnson R. B., Onwuegbuzie A., (2006). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
25. Johnson R. B., Stefurak T., (2013). Considering the evidence-and-credibility discussion in evaluation through the lens of dialectical pluralism. New Directions for Evaluation, 138, 37-48.
26. Mathison S., (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13-17.
27. Maxwell J. A., (2011). Paradigms or toolkits? Philosophical and methodological positions as heuristics for mixed methods research. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 24(2), 27-30.
28. Maxwell J. A., Mittapalli K., (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In Tashakkori A., Teddlie C., (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 145-167). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Mertens D. M., (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The transformative-emancipatory perspective. In Tashakkori A., Teddlie C., (Eds.), Handbook of mixed method social & behavioral research (pp. 135-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30. Mertens D. M., (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212-225.
31. Mertens D. M., (2010). Transformative mixed methods research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 469-474.
32. Mertens D. M., (2012). What comes first? The paradigm or the approach? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(4), 255-257.
33. Modell S., (2009). In defense of triangulation: A critical realist approach to mixed methods research in management accounting. Management Accounting Research, 20, 208-221.
34. 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.
35. Morse J. M., Niehaus L., (2009). Mixed methods design: Principles and procedures. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
36. O’Cathain A., (2010). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Towards a comprehensive framework. In Tashakkori A., Teddlie C., (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 531-555). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37. Sharp J. L., Mobley C., Hammond C., Withington C., Drew S., Stringfield S., Stipanovic N., (2012). A mixed methods sampling methodology for a multisite case study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(1), 34-54.
38. Tashakkori A., Teddlie C., (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. Wiener C., (2007). Making teams work in conducting grounded theory. In Bryant A., Charmaz K., (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 293-310). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.