BermanA. (2011, February7). Obama: Triangulation 2.0?The Nation, pp. 22-26.
2.
CreswellJ. W. (2011). Controversies in mixed methods research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 269-284). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
3.
DenzinN. K. (1970). The research act. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
4.
DenzinN. K. (2010). The qualitative manifesto: A call to arms. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Editorial: Introductions to Parts 3 and 5. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 243-250, pp. 563-568). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
5.
EllingsonL. L. (2009). Engaging crystallization in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
6.
EllingsonL. L. (2011). Analysis and representation across the continuum. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 595-610). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
7.
FieldingN. G. (2009). Going out on a limb: Postmodernism and multiple method research. Current Sociology, 3, 427-447.
GageN. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A “historical” sketch of research and teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4-10.
10.
GiddensA. (2000). The third way and its critics. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
11.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
12.
GubaE. G. (1990a). The alternative paradigm dialog. In GubaE. G. (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17-30). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
13.
GubaE. G. (1990b). Carrying on the dialog. In GubaE. G. (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 368-378). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
14.
GubaE.LincolnY. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, and emerging confluences. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
15.
Hesse-BiberS. N. (2010). Mixed methods research: Merging theory with method. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
16.
Hesse-BiberS. N.LeavyP. (2008). Introduction: Pushing on the methodological boundaries: The growing need for emergent methods within and across the disciplines. In Hesse-BiberS. N.LeavyP. (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 1-15). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
17.
HoweK. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17, 10-16.
18.
HoweK. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 42-61.
19.
KincheloeJ. L. (2001). Describing the bricolage: Conceptualizing a new rigor in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 679-692.
LincolnY. S. (2010). What a long, strange trip it’s been . . . 25 years of qualitative and new paradigm research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 3-9.
22.
MaxcyS. J. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social science: The search for multiple models of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 51-90). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
23.
MertensD. M. (2011). Mixed methods as tools for social change. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5, 195-197. doi:10.1177/158689811451809510.1177/1586898114518095
24.
MillsC. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
25.
MorseJ. M. (2011). What is qualitative health research? In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 401-414). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
26.
MorseJ. M.NiehausL. (2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
27.
Plano ClarkV. L.CreswellJ. W. (2008). Introduction. In Plano ClarkV. L.CreswellJ. W. (Eds.), The mixed methods reader (pp. xv-xviii). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
28.
Plano ClarkV. L.CreswellJ. W.O’Neil GreenD.ShopeR. J. (2008). Mixing quantitative and qualitative approaches: An introduction to emergent mixed methods research. In Hesse-BiberS. N.LeavyP. (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 363-387). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
29.
RichardsonL. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 923-948). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
30.
ScheurichJ. J.ClarkM. C. (2006). Qualitative studies in education at the beginning of the twenty-first century. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, 401.
31.
SchwandtT. A. (2007). Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
32.
SmithA. D. (2004). House arrest and piano. New York, NY: Anchor.
33.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2003a). Preface. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. ix-xv). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
34.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2003b). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
35.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2011). Mixed methods research: Contemporary issues in an emerging field. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 285-300). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
36.
WestC. (1995). Theory, pragmatisms, and politics. In HollingerR.DepewD. (Eds.), Pragmatism: From progressivism to postmodernism (pp. 314-326). Westport, CT: Praeger.
