The purpose of this explanatory mixed methods study was to examine the perceived value of mixed methods research for graduate students. The quantitative phase was an experiment examining the effect of a passage’s methodology on students’ perceived value. Results indicated students scored the mixed methods passage as more valuable than those who scored the quantitative or qualitative passage. The qualitative phase involved focus groups to better understand students’ perceptions of the perceived value of mixed methods. Findings suggested graduate students view mixed methods passages as having rigorous methods, a newer history, and providing a deeper meaning of the phenomenon. This study adds to the literature base by revealing what value graduate students assign to quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research.
BeyeaS. C.NicollL. H. (2000). Learn more using focus groups. Association of Operating Room Nurses Journal, 71, 897-900.
2.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
3.
BrymanA. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How it is done?Qualitative Research, 6, 97-113.
4.
CoyleJ.WilliamsB. (2000). An exploration of the epistemological intricacies of using qualitative data to develop a quantitative measure of user views of health care. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31, 1235-1243.
5.
CreswellJ. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
DunningH.WilliamsA.AbonyiS.CrooksV. (2008). A mixed method approach to quality of life research: A case study approach. Social Indicators Research, 85, 145-158.
9.
EarpM. (2007). Development and validation of the statistics anxiety measures (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Denver, Colorado.
10.
GalI.GinsburgL.SchauC. (1997). Monitoring attitudes and beliefs in statistics education. In GalI.GarfieldJ. B. (Eds.), The assessment challenge in statistics education (pp. 37-51). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
11.
GeloO.BraakmannD.BenetkaG. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative research: Beyond the debate. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 42, 266-290.
12.
GreeneJ. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology?Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7-22.
13.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J.GrahamW. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.
14.
HiltonS. C.SchauC.OlsenJ. A. (2004). Survey of attitudes towards statistics: Factor structure invariance by gender and by administration time. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 92-109.
15.
Hurmerinta-PeltomakiL.NummelaN. (2006). Mixed methods in international business research: A value-added perspective. Management International Review, 46, 439-459.
16.
JohnsonB.TurnerL. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in the social & behavioral research (pp. 297-319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
LoftsgaardenD. O.WatkinsA. E. (1998). Statistics teaching in colleges and universities: Courses, instructors, and degrees in fall 1995. The American Statistician, 52, 308-314.
18.
McKimC. (2013, October). The value of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods: The value researchers report in their studies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association, Jackson Hole, WY.
19.
McKimC. (2014). Understanding undergraduate statistical anxiety. Journal of Research in Education, 24, 204-210.
20.
Molina-AzorinJ. F. (2011). The use and added value of mixed methods in management research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(1), 7-24.
21.
MorganD. L.SpanishM. T. (1984). Focus groups: A new tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology, 7, 253-270.
22.
MorseJ. M.ChungS. E. (2003). Toward holism: The significance of methodological pluralism. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3), 1-12.
23.
NagelT. (1986). The view from nowhere. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
24.
O’CathainA.MurphyE.NichollJ. (2007). Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research in England: A mixed methods study. BMC Health Services Research, 7, 85. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-7-85
25.
O’CathainA.MurphyE.NichollJ. (2010). Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. British Medical Journal, 314, 1147-1150.
26.
SaleJ. E. M.BrazilK. (2004). A strategy to identify critical appraisal criteria for primary mixed-methods studies. Quality & Quantity, 38, 351-365.
27.
SchauC.StevensJ.DauphineeT. L.Del VecchioA. (1995). The development and validation of the survey of attitudes toward statistics. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 868-875.
28.
SchulzeS. (2003). Views of the combination of quantitative and qualitative research approaches. Progressio, 25(2), 8-20.
29.
SieberS. D. (1973). The integration of fieldwork and survey methods. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1335-1359.
30.
StakeR. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.
31.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (2003a). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (2003b). Issues and dilemmas in teaching research methods courses in social and behavioural sciences: US perspective. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6, 61-77.
33.
ToomelaA. (2008). Variables in psychology: A critique of quantitative psychology. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 42, 245-265.
