Over the past 10 years or so the “Field” of “Mixed Methods Research” (MMR) has increasingly been exerting itself as something separate, novel, and significant, with some advocates claiming paradigmatic status. Triangulation is an important component of mixed methods designs. Triangulation has its origins in attempts to validate research findings by generating and comparing different sorts of data, and different respondents’ perspectives, on the topic under investigation. Respondent validation has sometimes been included in such processes, but it is an element that has not attracted significant attention from the MMR community. The article argues that attention to respondent validation is a significant issue for methodological debate and that it should be an important aspect of the development of democratic participation in MMR.
AlcoffL. (1991). The problem of speaking for others. Cultural Critique, 20, 5-32.
2.
AppaduraiA. (2006). The right to research. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 4, 167-177.
3.
BeckerH.GeerB.HughesE.StraussA. (1961). Boys in white: Student culture in medical school. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
4.
BergmanM. (Ed.). (2008). Advances in mixed methods research: Theories and applications. London, England: SAGE.
5.
BloorM. (1978). On the analysis of observational data: A discussion of the worth and uses of inductive techniques and respondent validation. Sociology, 12, 545-552.
6.
BlumerH. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
7.
BrymanA. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. London, England: Unwin Hyman.
8.
Cabinet Office. (2003). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. London, England: Author.
9.
CaracelliV. (2006). Enhancing the policy process through the use of ethnography and other study frameworks: A mixed methods strategy. Research in the Schools, 13, 84-92.
10.
CreswellJ. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
11.
CreswellJ. (2010). Mapping the developing landscape of mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 45-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
12.
CreswellJ.Plano KlassenA.ClarkV.SmithK. (2011). Best practice for mixed methods research in the health sciences. Bethesda, MD: Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, National Institutes of Health.
ChristT. (2009). Designing, teaching and evaluating two complementary mixed methods research courses. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(4), 292-325.
15.
ChristT. (2010). Teaching mixed methods and action research: Pedagogical, practical and evaluative considerations. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 643-676). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
16.
DenscombeM. (2008). Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 270-283.
17.
DenzinN. (1970). The research act (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
18.
DenzinN. (1978). The research act (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19.
DenzinN. (1989). The research act (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
20.
DenzinN. (2010). The qualitative manifesto: A call to arms. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
21.
DuncierM. (2001). On the evolution of sidewalk. In EmersonR. M. (Ed.), Contemporary field research: Perspectives and formulations (pp. 167-188). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
22.
EllisC. (1995). Emotional and ethical quagmires in returning to the field. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 24, 68-98.
23.
FettermanD. (2001). Foundations of empowerment evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
24.
FieldingN.FieldingJ. (1986). Linking data. Beverley Hills, CA: SAGE.
25.
GibbonsM.LimogesC.NowotnyH.SchwartzmanS.ScottP.TrowM. (1994). The new production of knowledge. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
26.
GiddingsL. (2006). Mixed methods research: Positivism in drag?Journal of Research in Nursing, 11, 195-203.
27.
GreeneJ. (2006). Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Research in the Schools, 13, 93-98.
28.
GreeneJ. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
29.
GreeneJ. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology?Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7-22.
30.
GreeneJ. (2009). Meaningfully engaging with difference through mixed methods educational evaluation. In RyanK.CousinsB. (Eds.), Sage handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 323-340). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
31.
GreeneJ.CaracelliV. J.GrahamW. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed methods evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.
Hesse-BiberS. (2010b). Feminist approaches to mixed methods research: Linking theory and praxis. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 169-192). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
34.
HarritsG. (2011). More than method? A discussion of paradigm differences within mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(2), 150-166.
35.
HouseE.HoweK. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
36.
JacksonA.MazzeiL. (Eds.). (2009). Voice in qualitative inquiry. London, England: Routledge.
37.
JangE.McDougallD.PollonD.HerbertM.RussellP. (2008). Integrative mixed methods data analytic strategies in research on school success in challenging circumstances. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 221-247.
38.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA.TurnerL. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
39.
LatherP. (2004). This IS your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 15-34.
40.
LatherP. (2010). Engaging science policy from the side of the messy. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
41.
LincolnY. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 275-289.
42.
LincolnY.GubaE. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
43.
MacDonaldB. (1974). Evaluation and the control of education. Norwich, England: Centre for Applied Research in Education. Reprinted in MurphyR.TorranceH. (Eds., 1987) Evaluating education: Issues and methods. London, England: Harper & Row; and TorranceH. (Ed., 2010) Qualitative research methods in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
44.
MasonJ. (2006). Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 9-25.
MertensD. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The transformative-emancipatory perspective. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 135-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
47.
MertensD. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212-225.
48.
MertensD.BledsoeK.SullivanM.WilsonA. (2010). Utilisation of mixed methods for transformative purposes. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 193-214). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
49.
MeyerJ. (2005). Health research. In SomekhB.LewinC. (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 8-9). London, England: SAGE.
50.
MorganD. (2007). Paradigms lost and paradigms regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-79.
51.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: Author.
52.
NiglasK. (2010). The multidimensional model of research methodology: An integrated set of continua. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 215-236). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
SchwandtT. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2, 58-72.
55.
SilvermanD. (1985) Qualitative methodology and sociology: Describing the social world. Aldershot: Gower.
56.
SmithL. (2005). On tricky ground: Researching the native in the age of uncertainty. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 85-108). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
57.
StakeR. (1975). Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. Paper presented at the New Trends in Evaluation conference, Goteborg University, Sweden. Reprinted in Rethinking educational research (DockrellW.HamiltonD., Eds., 1980). London, England: Hodder & Stoughton.
58.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
59.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
TorranceH. (2011). Qualitative research, science and government: Evidence, criteria, policy and politics. In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 569-580). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
62.
WalkerR. (1974). The conduct of educational case study: Ethics, theory and procedures. In MacDonaldB.WalkerR. (Eds.), Innovation, evaluation, research and the problem of control. Norwich, England: University of East Anglia. SAFARI Papers. Reprinted in TorranceH. (Ed., 2010), Qualitative research methods in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
63.
WhitmoreE. (Ed.). (1998). Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation: New directions for evaluation No. 80. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
64.
WhyteW. F. (1943). Street corner society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
