Triangulation 2.0 *

Abstract

A third way of conceptualizing mixed methods research is proposed, one based on critical interpretive methodologies.

Keywords

paradigm incompatibility thesis pragmatism crystallization

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berman

(2011, February 7). Obama: Triangulation 2.0? The Nation, pp. 22-26.

Creswell

J. W.

(2011). Controversies in mixed methods research. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 269-284). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Denzin

N. K.

(1970). The research act. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Denzin

N. 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 Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 243-250, pp. 563-568). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Ellingson

L. L.

(2009). Engaging crystallization in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Ellingson

L. L.

(2011). Analysis and representation across the continuum. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 595-610). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Fielding

N. G.

(2009). Going out on a limb: Postmodernism and multiple method research. Current Sociology, 3, 427-447.

Flick

(2007). Designing qualitative research. London, England: SAGE.

Gage

N. L.

(1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A “historical” sketch of research and teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4-10.

10.

Giddens

(2000). The third way and its critics. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

11.

Greene

J. C.

(2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

12.

Guba

E. G.

(1990a). The alternative paradigm dialog. In Guba

E. G.

(Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17-30). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

13.

Guba

E. G.

(1990b). Carrying on the dialog. In Guba

E. G.

(Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 368-378). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

14.

Guba

Lincoln

Y. S.

(2005). Paradigmatic controversies, and emerging confluences. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

15.

Hesse-Biber

S. N.

(2010). Mixed methods research: Merging theory with method. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

16.

Hesse-Biber

S. N.

Leavy

(2008). Introduction: Pushing on the methodological boundaries: The growing need for emergent methods within and across the disciplines. In Hesse-Biber

S. N.

Leavy

(Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 1-15). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

17.

Howe

K. R.

(1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17, 10-16.

18.

Howe

K. R.

(2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 42-61.

19.

Kincheloe

J. L.

(2001). Describing the bricolage: Conceptualizing a new rigor in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 679-692.

20.

Lather

2007. Getting Lost: Feminist Efforts toward a Double(d) Science. Albany: SUNY Press.

21.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(2010). What a long, strange trip it’s been . . . 25 years of qualitative and new paradigm research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 3-9.

22.

Maxcy

S. 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 Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 51-90). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

23.

Mertens

D. M.

(2011). Mixed methods as tools for social change. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5, 195-197. doi:10.1177/158689811451809510.1177/1586898114518095

24.

Mills

C. W.

(1959). The sociological imagination. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

25.

Morse

J. M.

(2011). What is qualitative health research? In Denzin

Lincoln

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 401-414). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

26.

Morse

J. M.

Niehaus

(2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

27.

Plano Clark

V. L.

Creswell

J. W.

(2008). Introduction. In Plano Clark

V. L.

Creswell

J. W.

(Eds.), The mixed methods reader (pp. xv-xviii). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

28.

Plano Clark

V. L.

Creswell

J. W.

O’Neil Green

Shope

R. J.

(2008). Mixing quantitative and qualitative approaches: An introduction to emergent mixed methods research. In Hesse-Biber

S. N.

Leavy

(Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 363-387). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

29.

Richardson

(2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 923-948). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

30.

Scheurich

J. J.

Clark

M. C.

(2006). Qualitative studies in education at the beginning of the twenty-first century. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, 401.

31.

Schwandt

T. A.

(2007). Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

32.

Smith

A. D.

(2004). House arrest and piano. New York, NY: Anchor.

33.

Teddlie

Tashakkori

(2003a). Preface. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. ix-xv). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

34.

Teddlie

Tashakkori

(2003b). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

35.

Teddlie

Tashakkori

(2011). Mixed methods research: Contemporary issues in an emerging field. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 285-300). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

36.

West

(1995). Theory, pragmatisms, and politics. In Hollinger

Depew

(Eds.), Pragmatism: From progressivism to postmodernism (pp. 314-326). Westport, CT: Praeger.