How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design;Wie man ein Mixed Methods-Forschungs-Design konstruiert

Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie

Volumn 69, Issue , 2017, Pages 107-131

  Schoonenboom, Judith ^a   Johnson, R Burke ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA   (United States)

Author keywords

Design complexity; Methods of social research; Mixed methods; Mixed methods design; Mixing purpose; Point of integration; Qualitative methods; Quantitative methods; Research design; Timing of mixing

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SCIENTIST; THEORETICAL STUDY; VALIDITY;

EID: 85029628651     PISSN: 00232653     EISSN: 1861891X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Bazeley, Pat, and Lynn Kemp. 2012. Mosaics, triangles, and DNA: Metaphors for integrated analysis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 6:55–72.
2. Bryman, Alan. 2006. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research 6:97–113.
3. Cook, Thomas D. 1985. Postpositivist critical multiplism. In Social science and social policy, Eds. R. Lance Shotland and Melvin M. Mark, 21–62. Beverly Hills: Sage.
4. nd ed.. Los Angeles: Sage.
5. Erzberger, Christian, and Gerald Prein. 1997. Triangulation: Validity and empirically-based hypothesis construction. Quality and Quantity 31:141–154.
6. Greene, Jennifer C. 2007. Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7. Greene, Jennifer C. 2015. Preserving distinctions within the multimethod and mixed methods research merger. In Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry, Eds. Sharlene Hesse-Biber and R. Burke Johnson. New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Greene, Jennifer C., Valerie J. Caracelli, and Wendy F. Graham. 1989. Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11:255–274.
9. nd, 119–167. Los Angeles: Sage.
10. Guest, Greg. 2013. Describing mixed methods research: An alternative to typologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 7:141–151.
11. Hesse-Biber, Sharlene. 2010. Qualitative approaches to mixed methods practice. Qualitative Inquiry 16:455–468.
12. Johnson, R. Burke. 2017. Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has come. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 11:156–173.
13. th Los Angeles: Sage.
14. Johnson, R. Burke, and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie. 2004. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher 33(7):14–26.
15. Johnson, R. Burke, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, and Lisa A. Turner. 2007. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1:112–133.
16. Mathison, Sandra. 1988. Why triangulate? Educational Researcher 17:13–17.
17. rd Los Angeles: Sage.
18. Maxwell, Joseph A., and Diane M. Loomis. 2003. Mixed methods design: An alternative approach. In Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, Eds. Abbas Tashakkori and Charles Teddlie, 241–271. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
19. McMahon, Sarah. 2007. Understanding community-specific rape myths: Exploring student athlete culture. Affilia 22:357–370.
20. Mendlinger, Sheryl, and Julie Cwikel. 2008. Spiraling between qualitative and quantitative data on women’s health behaviors: A double helix model for mixed methods. Qualitative Health Research 18:280–293.
21. Morgan, David L. 2014. Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. Los Angeles: Sage.
22. Morse, Janice M. 1991. Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research 40:120–123.
23. Morse, Janice M., and Linda Niehaus. 2009. Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
24. Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J., and R. Burke Johnson. 2006. The “validity” issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools 13:48–63.
25. Roth, Louise Marie. 2006. Selling women short: Gender and money on Wall Street. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
26. Schoonenboom, Judith. 2016. The multilevel mixed intact group analysis: A mixed method to seek, detect, describe and explain differences between intact groups. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 10:129–146.
27. Schoonenboom, Judith, R. Burke Johnson, and Dominik E. Froehlich. 2017, in press. Combining multiple purposes of mixing within a mixed methods research design. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches.
28. Teddlie, Charles B., and Abbas Tashakkori. 2009. Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Los Angeles: Sage.
29. Yanchar, Stephen C., and David D. Williams. 2006. Reconsidering the compatibility thesis and eclecticism: Five proposed guidelines for method use. Educational Researcher 35(9):3–12.
30. th Los Angeles: Sage.