Operationalizing and Conceptualizing Quality in Mixed Methods Research: A Multiple Case Study of the Disciplines of Education,Nursing,Psychology,and Sociology
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2019
Operationalizing and Conceptualizing Quality in Mixed Methods Research: A Multiple Case Study of the Disciplines of Education,Nursing,Psychology,and Sociology
The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study is to describe and compare how researchers in the education, nursing, psychology, and sociology disciplines operationalize and conceptualize the quality of mixed methods research (MMR). An international sample of 44 MMR researchers representing these four disciplines were interviewed. The study findings point to (a) two perspectives from which the quality of MMR is understood, one contingent and flexible and the other universal and fixed; (b) a relationship between these two perspectives and the participants’ discipline; and (c) a similar occurrence, both in terms of nature and frequency, of the MMR quality criteria most mentioned by the participants across disciplines. Implications of the findings for the field of MMR are discussed.
AliseM. A.TeddlieC. (2010). A continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 103-126.
2.
BenzécriJ. P. (1979). Sur le calcul des taux d’inertie dans l’analyse d’un questionnaire [On the calculation of the rates of inertia in the analysis of a questionnaire]. Cahiers de l’Analyse des Données, 4, 377-378.
3.
BoyatzisR. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
BrymanA. (2014). June 1989 and beyond: Julia Brannen’s contribution to mixed methods research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 17, 121-131.
5.
BrymanA.BeckerS.SempikJ. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11, 261-276.
6.
CaracelliV. J.RigginL. J. C. (1994). Mixed-method evaluation: Developing quality criteria through concept mapping. Evaluation Practice, 15, 139-152.
7.
CollinsK. M. T. (2015). Validity in multimethod and mixed research. In Hesse-BiberS.JohnsonR. B. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 240-256). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
8.
CollinsK. M. T.OnwuegbuzieA. J.JohnsonB. (2012). Securing a place at the table: A review and extension of legitimation criteria for the conduct of mixed research. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 849-865.
9.
CrabtreeB. F.MillerW. L. (Eds.). (1999). Doing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
CreswellJ. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
FàbreguesS.Molina-AzorinJ. F. (2017). Addressing quality in mixed methods research: A review and recommendations for a future agenda. Quality & Quantity, 51, 2847-2863.
GreenacreM. (2007). Correspondence analysis in practice (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
16.
GreenacreM.PardoR. (2006). Subset correspondence analysis: Visualizing relationships among a selected set of response categories from a questionnaire survey. Sociological Methods & Research, 35, 193-218.
17.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
18.
GuestG.BunceA.JohnsonL. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18, 59-82.
19.
HeyvaertM.HannesK.MaesB.OnghenaP. (2013). Critical appraisal of mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(4), 302-327.
20.
IvankovaN. V.KawamuraY. (2010). Emerging trends in the utilization of integrated designs in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 581-612). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J.TurnerL. A. (2007). Towards a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
22.
Le RouxB.RouanetH. (2010). Multiple correspondence analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
24.
MaxwellJ. A.ChmielM. (2014). Generalization in and from qualitative analysis. In FlickU. (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 540-553). London, England: Sage.
25.
MaxwellJ. A.MittapalliK. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 145-167). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
O’CathainA. (2010). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Toward a comprehensive framework. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 531-555). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
O’CathainA.GoodeJ.DrabbleS. J.ThomasK. J.RudolphA.HewisonJ. (2014). Getting added value from using qualitative research with randomized controlled trials: A qualitative interview study. Trials, 15, 1-12.
30.
O’CathainA.MurphyE.NichollJ. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services and Policy, 13, 92-98.
31.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.JohnsonR. K. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.
32.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.PothC. (2016). Editors’ afterword: Toward evidence-based guidelines for reviewing mixed methods research manuscripts submitted to journals. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1), 1-13.
33.
PapadimitriouA.IvankovaN. V.HurtadoS. (2013). Addressing challenges of conducting quality mixed methods studies in higher education. In TightM. (Ed.), Theory and method in higher education research (pp. 133-153). Bingley, England: Emerald.
34.
Plano ClarkV. L.IvankovaN. V. (2016). Mixed methods research: A guide to the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
PussegodaK.TurnerL.GarrittyC.MayhewA.SkidmoreB.StevensA.… MoherD. (2017). Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: A descriptive study. BMC Systematic Reviews, 6, article no. 117.
36.
SchwandtT. A.LichtyL. (2015). What problem are we trying to solve? Practical and innovative uses of multimethod and mixed methods research. In Hesse-BiberS.JohnsonR. B. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 587-593). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
37.
SymonG.CassellC.JohnsonP. (2016). Evaluative practices in qualitative management research: A critical review. International Journal of Management Reviews. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12120
38.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (2008). Quality of inferences in mixed methods research: Calling for an integrative framework. In BergmanM. M. (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 101-119). London, England: Sage.
39.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (2010). Epilogue: Current developments and emerging trends in integrated research methodology. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 803-826). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
ThorneS. E. (2001). The implications of a disciplinary agenda on quality criteria for qualitative research. In MorseJ. M.SwansonJ. M.KuzelA. J. (Eds.), The nature of qualitative evidence (pp. 142-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
TrowlerP. (2014). Depicting and researching disciplines: Strong and moderate essentialist approaches. Studies in Higher Education, 39, 1720-1731.
