In this article, the authors attempt an initial exploration of the relevancy of the newly emerging field of mixed-methods research for educational evaluation. They give a brief introduction concerning the intent and variety of mixed-methods designs and models. They focus the analysis on some of the general issues and problems of this emerging field, including the lack of clear-cut procedural rules and differing ontological commitments. However, they argue that a particular form of mixed-methods design called quantitative-dominant sequential analysis might prove useful for some educational evaluation and policy studies.
Gatta, J. L. (2003). Mixed methodological survey research: Anested paradigm approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Loyola University, Chicago.
2.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
Lipton, P. (1993). Inference to the best explanation. New York: Routledge.
4.
Macey, S. J. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple models of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research(pp. 51-110). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
Miller, S. I. (2003). Impact of mixed methods and design on inference quality. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research(pp. 423-455). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods(2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7.
Rallis, S. F., & Rossman, G. B. (2003). Mixed methods in evaluation contexts: Apragmatic framework. In A. Tashakkori& C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research(pp. 491-512). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in survey. New York: John Wiley.
9.
Schmitt, F. F. (1995). Truth: A primer. Boulder, CO: Westview.
10.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining the qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Trout, J. D. (1998). Measuring the intentional world: Realism, naturalism, and quantitative methods in the behavioral sciences. New York: Oxford University Press.
