Many research problems in social science involve multilevel phenomena. However, discussions about multilevel research designs are limited in the mixed methods (MM) literature. Building on early writings in the field, this methodological discussion advances a refined definition of a multilevel MM research design. The refinement emerges from a review of qualitative and quantitative conceptions of multilevel research designs and an analysis of a literature-based definition of a multilevel MM research design. To illustrate the application of the refined definition, we present an exemplar of a multilevel MM study aimed at explaining cultural, behavioral, and neurobiological aspects of literacy for mathematics. This comprehensive and versatile definition advances the field by offering guidance for designing and conducting innovative multilevel MM studies.
AuW. (2012). Epistemology and educational experience: Curriculum, the accessibility of knowledge, and complex environmental design. In Critical curriculum studies: Education, consciousness, and the politics of knowing (pp. 29-50). New York: Routledge.
2.
BaltesP. B.Reuter-LorenzP. A.RöslerF. (2006). Lifespan development and the brain. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Ben-DavidB.NelN. (2013). Applying Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model to identify the negative influences facing children with physical disabilities in rural areas in Kwa-Zulu Natal. Africa Education Review, 10, 410-430.
4.
BronfenbrennerU. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
BronfenbrennerU.MorrisP. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In LernerR. M. (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 793-828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
6.
BronsteinL. R.KovacsP. J. (2013). Writing a mixed methods report in social work research. Research on Social Work Practice, 23, 354-360.
7.
CaracelliV. J.GreeneJ. C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 195-207.
8.
ChingosM. M. (2013). Class size and student outcomes: Research and policy implications. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32, 411-438.
9.
CollinsK. M. T.OnwuegbuzieA. J.JiaoQ. G. (2007). A mixed methods investigation of mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 267-294.
10.
CooperK. S. (2014). Eliciting engagement in the high school classroom: A mixed-methods examination of teaching practices. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 363-402.
11.
CourgeauD. (Ed.) (2003). Methodology and epistemology of multilevel analysis: Approaches from different social sciences (Vol. 2). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
12.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
13.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
14.
de MeijJ. S. B.van der WalM. F.van MechelenW.ChinapawM. J. M. (2013). A mixed methods process evaluation of the implementation of JUMP-in, a multilevel school-based intervention aimed at physical activity promotion. Health Promotion Practice, 14, 777-790.
15.
DemanetJ.Van HoutteM. (2016). Are flunkers social outcasts? A multilevel study of grade retention effects on same-grade friendships. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 745-780.
16.
Diez RouxA. V. (2002). A glossary for multilevel analysis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56, 588-594.
17.
EastwoodJ. G.JalaludinB. B.KempL. A. (2014). Realist explanatory theory building method for social epidemiology: A protocol for a mixed method multilevel study of neighbourhood context and postnatal depression. SpringerPlus, 3, 12. Retrieved from http://www.springerplus.com/content/3/1/12 doi:10.1186/2193-1801-3-12
18.
FettersM. D.CurryL. A.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6 Pt. II), 2134-2156.
19.
GoldsteinH. (2003). Multilevel modeling of educational data. In CourgeauD. (Ed.), Methodology and epistemology of multilevel analysis: Approaches from different social sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 25-42). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
20.
GreenH.BarkhamM.KellettS.SaxonD. (2014). Therapist effects and IAPT Psychological Wellbeing Practitioners (PWPs): A multilevel modelling and mixed methods analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 63, 43-54.
21.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22.
HatchJ. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany: State University of New York Press.
23.
HeadleyM. G. (2016). What isSymbolic Mathematics Language Literacy? A Multilevel Mixed Methods Study of Adolescents in a Middle School (Electronic Dissertation). Retrieved from http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1470045155
24.
HongJ.GarbarinoJ. (2012). Risk and protective factors for homophobic bullying in schools: An application of the social-ecological framework. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 271-285.
25.
LauJ.NgK.-M. (2014). Conceptualizing the counseling training environment using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 36, 423-439.
26.
MaxwellJ. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3-11.
27.
MaxwellJ. A.LoomisD. (2003). Mixed method design: An alternative approach. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral sciences (pp. 241-271). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
MertensD. M. (2012). Transformative mixed methods: Addressing inequities. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 802-813.
29.
MorganD. L. (2014). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methodologies: A pragmatic approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
National Governors Association. (2016). Common core state standards initiative. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
31.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.CollinsK. M. T. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. Qualitative Report, 12, 281-316. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol12/iss2/9
32.
PapadimitriouA. (2010). Looking for clues about quality: A multilevel mixed design on quality management in Greek universities. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 8, 85-94.
33.
Plano ClarkV. L.IvankovaN. V. (2016). Mixed methods research: A guide to the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
Plano ClarkV. L.SandersK. (2015). The use of visual displays in mixed methods research: Strategies for effectively integrating the quantitative and qualitative components of a study. In McCruddenM.SchawG.BuckendahlC. (Eds.), Use of visual displays in research and testing: Coding, interpreting, and reporting data (pp. 177-206). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
35.
RosaE. M.TudgeJ. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its evolution from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5, 243-258.
36.
SammonsP. (2010). The contributions of mixed methods to recent research on educational effectiveness. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 697-723). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
StringfieldS.TeddlieC. (1991). School, classroom, and student level indicators of rural school effectiveness. Journal for Research in Rural Education, 7(3), 15-28.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
TeddlieC.YuF. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.
41.
Van CleveN. G.MayesL. (2015). Criminal justice through “colorblind” lenses: A call to examine the mutual constitution of race and criminal justice. Law & Social Inquiry, 40, 406-432.
42.
YinR. K. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are the methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel?Research in the Schools, 13(1), 41-47.
