Across the methodological spectrum, social inquirers today are challenged by a set of critical issues. These include the complexity of human phenomena, the location of context in human action, the role of values in inquiry, and the role of inquiry in society. Different methodological traditions offer different responses to these challenges, responses that, in turn, shape the knowledge generated from a study and the warrants for that knowledge. This article presents a mixed methodological response to these challenges and a primary argument that a mixed methods approach offers dialogic opportunities to generate better understanding of important social phenomena precisely because it legitimizes and respects multiple responses to these critical issues and invites dialogue among them. The argument is illustrated by imagining a mixed methods approach to two empirical studies, each conducted originally with a single methodological framework.
BerlinerD. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20.
2.
BissetS.DanielM.PotvinL. (2009). Exploring the intervention-context interface: A case from a school-based nutrition intervention. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(4), 554–471.
3.
CarterF. D.MandellM.MatonK. I. (2009). The influence of on-campus, academic year undergraduate research on STEM PhD outcomes: Evidence from the Meyerhoff Scholarship Program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 441–462.
4.
CookT. D. (1985). Postpositivist critical multiplism. In ShotlandR. L.MarkM. M. (Eds.), Social science and social policy (pp. 21–62). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
5.
CronbachL. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30(1), 116–127.
6.
CronbachL. J.GleserG. C.NandaH.RajaratnamN. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurement. Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York, NY: Wiley.
7.
DattaL.-E. (1997). A pragmatic basis for mixed-method designs. In GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J. (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (New Directions for Evaluation 74, pp. 33–46). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8.
FineM. (1994). Working the hyphens: Reinventing self and other in qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 70–82). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11.
HoweK. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis (or dogmas die hard). Educational Researcher, 17(8), 10–16.
12.
HoweK. R. (2003). Closing methodological divides. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
13.
Koro-LjungbergM.Yendol-HoppeyD.SmithJ. J.HayesS. B. (2009). (E)pistemological awareness, instantiation of methods, and uninformed methodological ambiguity in qualitative research projects. Educational Researcher, 38(9), 687–699.
14.
LeeY.-J.GreeneJ. C. (2007). The predictive validity of an ESL placement test: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(4), 366–389.
15.
LincolnY. S. (1991). The arts and sciences of program evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 12(1), 1–7.
MaxwellJ. A.MittapalliK. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 145–167). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
18.
MohrL. B. (1996). The causes of human behavior. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
19.
MossP. A.PhillipsD. C.EricksonF. D.FlodenR. E.LatherP. A.SchneiderB. L. (2009). Learning from our differences: A dialogue across perspectives on quality in education research. Educational Researcher, 38(7), 501–517.
20.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
21.
PhillipsD. C. (1996). Philosophical perspectives. In BerlinerD. C.CalfeeR. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 1005–1019). Old Tappan, NJ: Macmillan.
22.
PhillipsD. C.BurbulesN. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
23.
PillowW. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16, 175–196.
RaginC. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
26.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.; Advanced Quantitative Techniques in the Social Sciences). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
27.
SandelowskiM.VoilsC. I.KnaflG. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 208–222.
28.
SchwandtT. A. (2007). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
29.
SechrestL. (1992). Roots: Back to our first generations. Evaluation Practice, 13(1), 1–7.
30.
ShavelsonR. J.WebbN. M.RowleyG. L. (1989). Generalizability theory. American Psychologist, 44(6), 922–932.
31.
SmithJ. K. (1989). The nature of social and educational inquiry: Empiricism versus interpretivism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
32.
SmithM. L. (1987). Publishing qualitative research. American Educational Research Journal, 24(2), 173–183.
33.
SmithM. L. (1997). Mixing and matching: Methods and models. In GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J. (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (New Directions for Evaluation74, pp. 73–85). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
34.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
35.
StronachI.PiperH.PiperJ. (2004). Re-performing crises of representation. In PiperH.StronachI. (Eds.), Educational research, difference and diversity (pp. 129–154). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
36.
WolcottH. F. (1990). On seeking—and rejecting validity in qualitative research. In EisnerE. W.PeshkinA. (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 121–156). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
