Mixed methods research has emerged as a credible alternative to unitary research approaches. The authors show how a combination of a triangulation convergence model with a triangulation multilevel model was used to research an aspiring school principal development pilot program. The multilevel model is used to show the national and regional levels in the research design, whereas the convergence model illustrates how data were analyzed through a series of phases so that both formative and summative findings could emerge. The authors illustrate through some of the findings how their design contributed to adjustments to the program and to their findings. The challenges of undertaking such a mixed methods design reveal a complexity not always evident in abstract conceptual models.
AliseM. A.TeddlieC. (2010). A continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 103-126.
BrymanA. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
4.
CohenL.ManionL.MorrisonK. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). London, England: Routledge.
5.
CreswellJ. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
6.
CreswellJ. W.TashakkoriA. (2008). How do research manuscripts contribute to the literature on mixed methods?Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(2), 115-120.
7.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
8.
CrowG.LumbyJ.PashiardisP. (2008). Introduction: Why an international handbook on the preparation and development of school leaders? In LumbyJ.CrowG.PashiardisP. (Eds.), International handbook on the preparation and development of school leaders (pp. 1-20). New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
DenzinN. (1997). Triangulation in educational research. In KeevesJ. P. (Ed.), Educational research, methodology and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 318-322). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
ErcikanK.RothW. M. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative?Educational Researcher, 35(5), 14-23.
12.
FieldingN. G. (2009). Going out on a limb: Postmodernism and multiple method research. Current Sociology, 57, 427-447.
13.
GuskeyT. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
14.
Hesse-BiberS. N. (2008). Innovation in research methods design and analysis. In Hesse-BiberS. N.LeavyP. (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 359-362). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
15.
HodgenE.WylieC. (2005). Stress and well-being among New Zealand principals. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
16.
IvankovaN. V.CreswellJ. W.StickS. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(3), 3-20.
17.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
18.
LeechN. L.DellingerA. B.BrannaganK. B.TanakaH. (2008). Evaluating mixed research studies: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 17-31.
MutchC. (2009). Mixed method research: Methodological eclecticism or muddled thinking?Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 34(2), 18-30.
21.
OnwuegbuzieA.CombsJ. P. (2010). Emergent data analysis techniques in mixed methods research: A synthesis. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 397-430). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
22.
OnwuegbuzieA.LeechN. L. (2005). Taking the “Q” out of research: Teaching research methodology courses without a divide between quantitative and qualitative paradigms. Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 39, 267-296.
23.
Piggot-IrvineE.YoungsH. (2011). Aspiring principal development programme evaluation in New Zealand. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(5), 513-541.
24.
PontB.NuscheD.MoormanH. (2008). Improving school leadership policy and practice. Copenhagen, Denmark: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
25.
RallisS. F.RossmanG. B. (2003). Mixed methods in evaluation contexts: A pragmatic framework. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 491-512). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
26.
RossmanG. B.WilsonB. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9, 627-643.
27.
Russ-EftD.PreskillH. (2009). Evaluation in organizations: A systematic approach to enhancing learning, performance, and change (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.
28.
WolfF. (2010). Enlightened eclecticism or harzardous hotchpotch? Mixed methods and triangulation strategies in comparative public policy research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 144-167.
29.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
30.
YoungsH.CardnoC.CollinsJ.HowseJ.HarveyL.BushT. (2010). Evaluation report: Experienced Principal Development Programme. Auckland, New Zealand: Unitec Institute of Technology.
31.
ZaccaroS. J.HeinenB.ShufflerM. (2009). Team leadership and team effectiveness. In SalasE.GoodwinG. F.BurkeC. S. (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 83-111). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
