Although the mixing of quantitative and qualitative data is an essential component of mixed methods research, the process of integrating both types of data in meaningful ways can be challenging. The purpose of this article is to describe the use of data labels in mixed methods research as a technique for the integration of qualitative and quantitative data within equivalent-status mixed methods research designs. The music education study described utilized a combination of focus group, survey, and case study data to provide a fuller view of instrumental music teaching within the urban context. Using this study as an exemplar, the author discusses the application of data labels to points of convergence between qualitative and quantitative strands of mixed methods studies in order to achieve integration between both data sets.
AndressB. (1986). Toward an integrated developmental theory for early childhood music education. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 86, 10-17.
2.
AusmannS. W. (1991). Characteristics of inservice urban music teachers and preservice music teachers in Ohio and their attitudes toward teaching music in urban schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus.
3.
BallantyneJ.PackerJ. (2004). Effectiveness of preservice music teacher education programs: Perceptions of early-career music teachers. Music Education Research, 6, 299-312. doi:10.1080/ 1461380042000281749
4.
BarbourR. S. (1999). The case for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 4, 39-43.
5.
BaroneT. (2001). Science, art, and the predispositions of educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 30(7), 24-28.
6.
BazanD. (2007). Teaching and learning strategies used by student-directed teachers of middle school band (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
7.
BazanD. (2011). The use of student-directed instruction by middle school band teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 189, 23-56.
8.
BazeleyP. (2009). Editorial: Integrating data analyses in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 203.
9.
BowmanW. D. (2006). Why narrative? Why now?Research Studies in Music Education, 27, 5-20.
10.
ClandininD. J. (2006). Narrative inquiry: A methodology for studying lived experience. Research Studies in Music Education, 27, 44-54.
11.
CooneyT. (1985). A beginning teacher’s view of problem solving. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 324-336.
12.
Costa-GiomiE.ChappellE. (2007). Characteristics of band programs in a large urban school district: Diversity or inequality?Journal of Band Research, 42(2), 1-18.
13.
CreswellJ. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
CreswellJ. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DattaL. (1997). A pragmatic basis for mixed-method designs. New Directions for Evaluation, 74, 33-45.
18.
DavisR. (2005). Music education and cultural identity. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37, 47-63. doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2005.00097.x
19.
DavidsonJ. W.PittsS. E. (2001). People have talents: A case study of musical behaviour in an adoptive family. British Journal of Music Education, 18, 161-171.
20.
Department of Education. (2002). Arts education in public elementary and secondary schools: 1999-2000. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
21.
EllingsonL. (2008). Engaging crystallization in qualitative research: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
FieldingN. G.FieldingJ. L. (1986). Linking data. London, UK: Sage.
FitzpatrickK. (2008). A mixed methods portrait of urban instrumental music teaching (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
25.
FitzpatrickK. (2011). A mixed methods portrait of urban instrumental music teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59, 229-256.
26.
FitzpatrickK. (2014). Mixed methods research in music education. In ConwayC. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of qualitative research in American music education (pp. 209-226). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
27.
Frierson-CampbellC. (Ed.). (2006a). Teaching music in the urban classroom: Vol. 1. A guide to survival, success, and reform. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Education.
28.
Frierson-CampbellC. (Ed.). (2006b). Teaching music in the urban classroom: Vol. 2. A guide to leadership, teacher education, and reform. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Education.
29.
GordonE. (2003). Urban education. Teachers College Record, 105, 189-207.
30.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Fransicso, CA: Jossey-Bass.
31.
HendricksK. S. (2009). Relationships between the sources of self-efficacy and changes in competence perceptions of music students during an all-state orchestra event (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
32.
HuangH. J. (2004). A study of the relationship between music learning and school achievement of sixth-grade students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Idaho, Moscow.
33.
IkenK. (2006). The small, big city in music education: The impact of instrumental music education for urban students. InFrierson-CampbellC. (Ed.), Teaching music in the urban classroom (Vol. 1, pp. 139-152). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Education.
34.
JutrasP. J. (2010). The benefits of new horizons band participation as self-reported by selected new horizons band members. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 187, 65-84.
35.
LeeA. J. (2007). Two non-traditional cello methods for young beginning cello students: A mixed methods study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
36.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
37.
MaxwellJ. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
McCarthyM. (2007). Narrative inquiry as a way of knowing in music education. Research Studies in Music Education, 29, 3-12.
39.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
NardiP. M. (2003). Doing survey research: A guide to quantitative methods. New York, NY: Pearson Education.
42.
NunnalyJ. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
43.
O’CathainA.NichollJ.MurphyE. (2007). Integration and publications as indicators of “yield” from mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 147.
44.
PanaiotidiE. (2005). The nature of paradigms and paradigm shifts in music education. Philosophy of Music Education Review, 13, 37-75.
45.
ReimerB. (2008). Research in music education: “Personal and professional reflections in a time of perplexity.”Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 190-203.
46.
RheeE. (2001). The incorporation of technology into music education in Korea: A mixed method study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kent State University, Kent, OH.
47.
RichardsonL. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry (revised and expanded). In DenzinN.LincolnY. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 923-949). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.
RodriguezS. E. (2005). Transmission of traditional musics and music teaching and learning in the Canary Islands: A perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
49.
RossJ. (1994). Research in music education: From a national perspective. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 123, 123-135.
50.
RossmanG. B.WilsonB. L. (1991, April). Numbers and words revisited: Being “shamelessly eclectic.”Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
51.
RoulstonK. (2006). Mapping the possibilities of qualitative research in music education: A primer. Music Education Research, 8, 153-173.
52.
SandelowskiM. (1995). Triangles and crystals: On the geometry of qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health, 18, 569-574.
SchmidtP. (2007). Discourse and enactment in teacher preparation: Music teaching, ideology and urban education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
55.
ShulmanL. (1979). Research on teaching in the arts: Review, analysis, critique. East Lansing: Institute for Research on Teaching at Michigan State University.
56.
SimmonsP. E.EmoryA.CarterT.CokerT.FinnegaB.CrockettD.. . . LabudaK. (1999). Beginning teachers: Beliefs and classroom actions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 930-954.
57.
SmithC. (1997). Access to string instruction in American public schools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 650-662.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60.
VoltzD. L. (1998). Challenges and choices in urban education: The perceptions of teachers and principals. Urban Review, 30, 211-228.
61.
WaldronJ.VeblenK. (2009). Learning in a Celtic community: An exploration of informal music learning and adult amateur musicians. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 180, 59-74.
62.
WestC. (2010). Teaching middle school jazz: An exploratory sequential mixed methods study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
63.
WoolleyC. M. (2009). Meeting the mixed methods challenge of integration in a sociological study of structure and agency. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(1), 7.
64.
YarbroughC. (1984). A content analysis of the “Journal of Research in Music Education”, 1953-1983. Journal of Research in Music Education, 32, 213-222.
65.
YarbroughC. (1996). “The future of scholarly inquiry in music education”: 1996 Senior Researcher Award acceptance address. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44, 190-203.
66.
YinR. K. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are the methods genuinly integrated or merely parallel?Research in the Schools, 13(1), 41-47.
67.
ZhouM. (2003). Urban education: Challenges in educating culturally diverse children. Teachers College Record, 105, 208-225.
