Implementing Quality Criteria in Designing and Conducting a Sequential QUAN → QUAL Mixed Methods Study of Student Engagement With Learning Applied Research Methods Online
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online January, 2014
Implementing Quality Criteria in Designing and Conducting a Sequential QUAN → QUAL Mixed Methods Study of Student Engagement With Learning Applied Research Methods Online
In spite of recent methodological developments related to quality assurance in mixed methods research, practical examples of how to implement quality criteria in designing and conducting sequential QUAN → QUAL mixed methods studies to ensure the process is systematic and rigorous remain scarce. This article discusses a three-step procedure for securing the quality of the meta-inferences generated from sequential employment of quantitative and qualitative methods and offers several validation strategies specific to a sequential QUAN → QUAL mixed methods design: applying a systematic process for selecting participants for qualitative follow-up, elaborating on unexpected quantitative results, and observing interaction between qualitative and quantitative study strands. The discussed procedures are illustrated using a mixed methods study of graduate student engagement in learning applied research methods online.
ArbaughJ. B.Cleveland-InnesM.DiazS. R.GarrisonD. R.IceP.RichardsonJ. C.SwanK. P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. Internet and Higher Education, 11, 133-136.
2.
BeaudoinM. F. (Ed.). (2006). Perspectives on higher education in the digital age. New York, NY: Nova Science.
3.
BrymanA.BeckerS.SemptikJ. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11, 261-276.
4.
CreswellJ. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
CreswellJ. W. (2010). Mapping the developing landscape of mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 45-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
CreswellJ. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
7.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L.GarrettA. (2008). Methodological issues in conducting mixed methods research designs. In BergmanM. M. (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research: Theories and applications (pp. 66-83). London, England: Sage.
10.
DellingerA. B.LeechN. L. (2007). Toward a unified validation framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(4), 309-332.
11.
GlaserB.StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
12.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
13.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J. (Eds.). (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse programs (New Directions for Evaluation, Vol. 74). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
14.
HofmannD. W. (2002). Internet-based distance learning in higher education. Tech Directions, 62(1), 28-32.
15.
IvankovaN. V. (2010). Teaching and learning mixed methods research in computer-mediated environment: Educational gains and challenges. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 4(1), 49-65.
16.
IvankovaN. V.CreswellJ. W.StickS. (2006). Using mixed methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3-20.
17.
IvankovaN.KawamuraY. (2010). Emerging trends in the utilization of integrated designs in social, behavioral, and health sciences. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 581-611). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
IvankovaN.StickS. (2007). Online higher education programs: New challenges, new frontiers, new learning, and new scholarship. In WrightD.MillerM. (Eds.), Training higher education policy makers and leaders: A graduate program perspective (pp. 75-96). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
19.
KemberD. (1995). Open learning courses for adults: A model of student progress. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
20.
LeechN. L.DellingerA. B.BrannaganK. B.TanakaH. (2010). Evaluating mixed research studies: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 17-31.
21.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
22.
MaxwellJ. A.MittapalliK. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 145-167). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
MorseJ. M.NiehausL. (2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
25.
NunnallyJ. C.BernsteinI. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
26.
O’CathainA. (2010). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Toward a comprehensive framework. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in the social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 531-555). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.JohnsonR. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.
28.
PapadimitriouA.IvankovaN.HurtadoS. (in press). Addressing challenges of conducting quality mixed methods studies in higher education. In: HuismanJ.TightM. (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research. Bingley, England: Emerald Group.
29.
PattonM. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
Plano ClarkV.BadieeM. (2010). Research questions in mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 275-304). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
TashakkoriA.CreswellJ. (2007). The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3-8.
32.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook on mixed methods in the behavioral and social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.). (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2010). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 1-41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
36.
ThorndikeR. M.Thorndike-ChristT. N. (2011). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
