Chap11.ppt

Research students usually encounter great difficulties in setting up a viable research project mainly because, on the one hand they lack familiarity with the philosophical underpinnings of major paradigms used in educational research: quantitative, qualitative or mixed, and on the other hand , they do not associate the corresponding research types with these paradigms : experimental, non experimental for the former, and interactive or non interactive for the second and the for the latter whether it is explanatory or exploratory, in addition to the importance of triangulation in any research study . These paradigms determine not only the formulation of the problem chosen for research and the associated research questions or hypothesis but also and more importantly, the sampling procedure as well as the selection of the appropriate research tools and the way the collected data is analysed and discussed. This survey of the major paradigms in educational research and their implications for the design of any research study will hopefully provide them with the necessary guidance to approach their research project with more confidence et more efficiency.

Mixed methods (MM) involve combining qualitative (QUAL) and quantitative (QUAN) methods in program evaluation, primary research, and literature review . They are being increasingly used, specifically in health sciences. Over the years, several strategies to integrate QUAL and QUAN phases, results, and data have been proposed but rarely conceptualized and never tested in a comprehensive manner . For each MM researcher and teacher, one of the challenges is to plan, conduct, and report simply and clearly what are the applied specific MM strategies and their combinations. As a contribution for addressing this issue, the purpose of this article is to propose and test a conceptual framework of the combinations of strategies that are used in primary MM research.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIPLE RESEARCH APPROACHES

Qualitative Inquiry, 2010

Mixed methods, defined as one complete method (as the core project) plus a different simultaneous and sequential supplemental strategy, have been well explicated for combining the most difficult designs—that is, qualitative and quantitative methods. However, experts in qualitative inquiry have relatively ignored the issues that occur while describing qualitative simultaneous and sequential designs in which both components are qualitative. In this article, the author argues that qualitative mixed method designs introduce many of the incompatibility problems of mixed method design that use qualitative and quantitative components. Various qualitatively driven mixed method designs are presented. Then, using an armchair walkthrough, QUAL- qual designs are contextualized within a hypothetical project of breaking bad news, and several examples of QUAL- qual mixed method designs are discussed.

Qualitative health research, 2015

Qualitatively-Driven Mixed Methods: Editorial With increasing frequency, Qualitative Health Research (QHR) has often been receiving only the qualitative "half" of mixed-method articles, with the other half, the quantitative component, presumably submitted to another journal that accepts quantitative articles. This leaves all of us-editors, reviewers, and readers-frequently wondering and asking questions such as, "Is this the best half?" "What does the other half add?" and sometimes, "Where is the other half?" We have been frustrated at only receiving a part of the study and, therefore, having to grapple with the significance of the whole. This is especially so given that we have argued in a previous editorial, "mixed-method design consists of one complete project," and is ". .. one study that may be published by itself that includes an additional supplemental strategy that uses a different analytical technique and is not comprehensive enough to stand alone" (Morse & Cheek, 2014, p. 3). All of these questions lead us to yet another set of related questions about the submission: Have these authors violated rigor by splitting their study, thereby damaging the purpose, comprehensive design, and conduct of a mixed-method study? Or, if each part is sufficiently developed to be able to stand alone and be published in its own right, do they really have a multiple methods study? Added to these concerns, there remains the million dollar question: Where is the point of interface (i.e., "the position in the research process in which the two components meet," Morse & Niehaus, 2009, p. 55) in a mixedmethod study that is only partly reported? Mixed-method design is more than simply using two or more research approaches or parts thereof in a single study. It is the point of interface of those approaches and the consequent integration of the results of the various components in the research that makes the study a mixed-method design. By publishing the study in various pieces, the strength that comes from integration of the whole is lost. If these findings are "part of" a mixed-method study, it must be made clear how the "parts" actually interface and where their point of interface is within that mixed-method study. After all, such integration is the key in mixed designs, both to the design and to the significance of the study. Our final concern was that mixed-method studies that use both a qualitative core and supplementary component 583299Q HRXXX10.

International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 2019

Within mixed methods research, a key issue is how to mix qualitative and quantitative research orientations. Similar debates arise within a mixed method called Q methodology [Q] that has an 80-year history and strong qualitative leanings. Q is often identified with the sorting of statements and the factor analysis (grouping) of people with similar viewpoints. However, Q is a complete methodology with statistical, philosophy-of-science, epistemological, and psychological principles. This study sought to empirically study the viewpoints concerning Q's factor analytic stage using Q to reveal viewpoints that reflect divergent worldviews about research and mixed methods. Although the idea of Q as a mixed method is represented across all three perspectives, these views diverge in relation to the factor analytic stage. The three perspectives that emerged are: Inherently Mixed-Focus, Quantitative-Focus, and Skeptical Novice. Thus, viewpoints include one accepting qualitative-quantitative focused factor analysis, another accepting traditional factor analysis, and another that seems doubtful of the other viewpoints. These distinct viewpoints mirror discussions within the larger mixed methods community and in social science research in general about how research methods and philosophies can be mixed. Implications for examining debates within mixed methods communities and future research are discussed.

Nursing Research, 2006