This article addresses three controversial issues related to mixed methods research and policy. First, “Scientific-Based Research” promoted by “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) reinforces diametrically opposed paradigmatic views and research methodologies. As policy, NCLB prioritizes specific methodologies prescribing what counts as scientific evidence. Second, from a critical stance, federal policies shape and control decisions that funding agencies make regarding methodologies (Randomized Controlled Trials—Gold Standard). Third, top-down policies are currently framed in postpositivist ontological and epistemological conceptions and should include constructivist, critical, transformative, and emancipatory paradigms supporting alternative methodologies. This article challenges current practices of prioritizing specific research methodologies used to evaluate interventions. As an alternative, logical purpose statements and research questions should be the standard used to guide decisions about appropriate methodologies and procedures.
AbryT.Rimm-KaufmanS.LarsenR.BrewerA. (2011, September9). Applying new methods to the measurement of fidelity of implementation: Examining the critical ingredients of the responsive classroom approach in relation to mathematics achievement. Paper presented at the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Washington, DC.
2.
AlexanderK.AlexanderM. D. (2009). American public school law. New York, NY: West Publishing Company.
3.
BiestaG. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 95-118). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
4.
BilliesM.FranciscoV.KruegerP.LinvilleD. (2010). Participatory action research: Our methodological roots. International Review of Qualitative Research, 3, 277-286.
5.
BradyB.O’ReganC. (2009). Meeting the challenge of doing an RCT evaluation of youth mentoring in Ireland: A journey in mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3, 265-280. doi:10.1177/1558689809335973
6.
CartwrightN. (2007). Hunting causes and using them: Approaches in philosophy and economics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
7.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
8.
ChatterjiM. (2005). Evidence on “what works”: An argument for extended-term mixed-method (ETMM) evaluation designs. Educational Researcher, 34(5), 14-24. doi:10.3102/0013189X034005014
9.
ChristT. (2007). A recursive approach to mixed methods research in a longitudinal study of postsecondary education disability support services. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 226-241. doi:10.1177/1558689807301101
10.
ChristT. (2009). Designing, teaching and evaluating two complementary mixed methods research courses. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3, 292-325. doi:10.1177/1558689809341796
11.
ChristT. (2010). Teaching mixed methods and action research: Pedagogical, practical and evaluative considerations. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 643-676). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
12.
ChristT. (2012a, April14). Grant funding strategies for action research designs. Paper presented at American Education Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
13.
ChristT. (2012b, April16). Policy, scientifically based research, and randomized control trials: The “Gold Standard?”Paper presented at American Education Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
14.
ChristT. (2013). The worldview matrix as a strategy when designing mixed methods research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 7, 86-94. doi:10.5172/mra.2013.2458
15.
ChristT.ElmetaherH. (2012). Research teaching pedagogy: Lessons learned from an Arabic language intervention pilot study. Research in the Schools, 19, 62-75.
16.
ChristT.GreeneJ.JohnsonR. B.LipscombM.MaxwellJ.TashakkoriA.. . .OnwuegbuzieA. (2011, April11).Evolving paradigms in mixed methods research. American Education Research Association Symposium, New Orleans, LA.
17.
CreswellJ. (2009). Mapping the field of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3, 95-108. doi:10.1177/1558689808330883
18.
CreswellJ.Plano ClarkV. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods Research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
19.
DahlbergB.WittinkM.GalloJ. (2010). Funding and publishing integrated studies: Writing effective mixed methods manuscripts and grant proposals. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 775-802). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20.
DanermarkB.EkströmM.JakobsenL.KarlssonJ. C. (2002). Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences. London, England: Routledge.
21.
DenzinN. (1970). The research act. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
22.
DenzinN. (2008). The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21, 315-325. doi:10.1080/09518390802136995
FeuerM. J.TowneL.ShavelsonR. J. (2002, November). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4-14. doi:10.3102/0013189X031008004
25.
FlickU. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
26.
FrauleyJ.PearceF. (Eds.). (2007). Critical realism and the social sciences: Heterodox elaborations. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
27.
GlaserB. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
28.
GoffR. (2004). Critical realism, post-positivism and the possibility of knowledge. London, England: Routledge.
29.
GorardS. (2010). Research design, as independent of methods. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 237-252). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
30.
GreeneJ. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
31.
GreeneJ. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology?Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7-22. doi:10.1177/1558689807309969
32.
GreeneJ.HallJ. (2010). Dialectics and pragmatism: Being of consequence. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 119-144). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
33.
Hesse-BiberS. (2012, April15). Enhancing the credibility of evidence based practice: Moving RCT towards a mixed methods design. AERA SIG Distinguished Business Meeting Speaker, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
JohnsonR. B.GrayR. (2010). A history of philosophical and theoretical issues for mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 69-94). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
36.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. doi:10.3102/0013189X033007014
37.
KemmisS.McTaggartR. (Eds.). (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Geelong, Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
38.
KuhnT. S. (1962). The structures of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39.
LewinK. (1948). Action research and minority problems. In LewinG. W. (Ed.), Resolving social conflicts (pp. 201-216). New York: Harper & Row. (Original work published 1946)
40.
LipscombM. (2010). Events and event identity: Under-explored topics in nursing. Nursing Philosophy, 11, 88-99. doi:10.1111/j.1466-769X.2010.00435.x
41.
MaxwellJ. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3-11. doi:10.3102/0013189X033002003
42.
MaxwellJ. A. (2011). A realist approach for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
43.
MaxwellJ. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
44.
MaxwellJ. A.MittapalliK. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed method research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 145-168). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
45.
MertensD. M. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 212-225. doi:10.1177/1558689807302811
46.
MertensD. M. (2010). Divergence and mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 3-5. doi:10.1177/1558689809358406
47.
MertensD. M.BledoeK. L.SullivanM.WilsonA. (2010). Utilization of mixed methods for transformative purposes. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 193-214). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
48.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education (ShavelsonR. J.TowneL., Eds.). Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
49.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110.
50.
OnwuegbuzieA.CombsJ. (2010). Emerging data analysis techniques in mixed methods research: A synthesis. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 397-430). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
51.
Plano ClarkV. (2010). The adoption and practice of mixed methods: US trends in federally funded health-related research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 428-440. doi:10.1177/1077800410364609
52.
RossmanG. B.WilsonB. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combing quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9, 627-643.
53.
SayerA. (1992). Method in social science: A realist approach. London, England: Routledge.
54.
SchwartzI.BaerD. (1991). Social validity assessment: Is current practice state of the art?Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 189-204. doi:10.1901/jaba.1991.24-189
55.
ScrivenM. (2008). A summative evaluation of RCT methodology and an alternative approach to causal research. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 5(9), 11-24.
56.
TashakkoriA.CreswellJ. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 207-211. doi:10.1177/1558689807302814
57.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
58.
TorranceH. (2012). Triangulation, respondent validation, and democratic participation in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6, 111-123. doi:10.1177/1558689812437185
59.
WeisnerT. S. (Ed.). (2005). Discovering successful pathways in children’s development: Mixed methods in the study of childhood and family life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
60.
WeissR. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interviewing. New York, NY: Free Press.
