Educational innovations often involve intact subgroups, such as school classes or university departments. In small-scale educational evaluation research, typically involving 1 to 20 subgroups, differences among these subgroups are often neglected. This article presents a mixed method from a qualitative perspective, in which differences among intact subgroups regarding one construct or effect are first quantitatively identified and subsequently qualitatively described and explained by differences among the contexts of the separate intact subgroups. Its focus on the contexts of intact subgroups, where organizational factors can be modified, makes this method interesting from a management perspective. In evaluations, repeated application of the method deserves a place beside other analytical methods.
BabbieE. (2012). The practice of social research (13th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
2.
BambergerM.RaoV.WoolcockM. (2010). Using mixed methods in monitoring and evaluation: Experiences from international development. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 613-641). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
BeckerH. S. (1992). Cases, causes, conjunctures, stories, and imagery. In RaginC. C.BeckerH. S. (Eds.), What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 205-216). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BickelR. (2007). Multilevel analysis for applied research: It’s just regression!New York, NY: Guilford Press.
5.
CampbellD. T.StanleyJ. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
6.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS. G.AikenL. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
CollinsK. M. T. (2010). Advanced sampling designs in mixed research: Current practices and emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 353-377). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
GamesP. A. (1976). Limitations of analysis of covariance on intact group quasi-experimental designs. Journal of Experimental Education, 44(4), 51-54.
9.
GibsonJ. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
10.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11.
HoxJ. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
IvankovaN. V. (2013). Implementing quality criteria in designing and conducting a sequential QUAN → QUAL mixed methods study of student engagement with learning applied research methods online. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8(1), 25-51. doi:10.1177/1558689813487945
13.
Kaul NastasiB.HitchcockJ. H.BrownL. M. (2010). An inclusive framework for conceptualizing mixed methods design typologies. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 305-338). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
LincolnY. S. (2010). “What a long, strange trip it’s been . . .”: Twenty-five years of qualitative and new paradigm research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 3-9. doi:10.1177/1077800409349754
15.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16.
LordF. M. (1967). A paradox in the interpretation of group comparisons. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 304-305. doi:10.1037/h0025105
17.
MaxwellJ. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 279-301.
18.
MaxwellJ. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
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.
20.
McNeilK. A.NewmanI.KellyF. J. (1996). Testing research hypotheses with the general linear model. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press.
21.
MohrL. B. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22.
MorseJ. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
MorseJ. M.NiehausL. (2009). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
24.
MurnaneR. J.WillettJ. B. (2011). Methods matter: Improving causal inference in educational and social science research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
25.
NewmanD.NewmanI.SalzmanJ. (2010). Comparing OLS and HLM models and the questions they answer: Potential concerns for type VI errors. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 36(1), 1-9.
26.
NewmanI.FraasJ. W.NewmanC.BrownR. (2002). Research practices that produce type VI errors. Journal of Research in Education, 12(1), 138-145.
27.
NormanD. A. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York, NY: Doubleday.
28.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.JohnsonR. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.
29.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.JohnsonR. B.CollinsK. M. T. (2011). Assessing legitimation in mixed research: A new framework. Quality & Quantity, 45, 1253-1271. doi:10.1007/s11135-009-9289-9
30.
PawsonR. (2008). Method mix, technical hex, theory fix. In BergmanM. M. (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research: Theories and applications (pp. 120-137). Thousand, Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rabe-HeskethS.SkrondalA. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata (2nd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
33.
SammonsP. (1996). Complexities in the judgement of school effectiveness. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2, 113-149. doi:10.1080/1380361960020201
34.
SammonsP. (2010). The contribution of mixed methods to recent research on educational effectiveness. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 697-723). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
SandelowskiM. (2003). Tables or tableaux? The challenges of writing and reading mixed methods studies. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 321-350). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
37.
SnijdersT. A. B.BoskerR. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London, England: Sage.
38.
TeddlieC. B.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
TeddlieC. B.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.
40.
WestB.WelchK. B.GaleckiA. T. (2007). Linear mixed models: A practical guide using statistical software. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.
41.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
