Whereas the significance and potential impacts of messiness in mixed methods research have been well acknowledged, the literature on mixed methods research has accumulated few examples of engaging and navigating mess. This article provides an account of the nitty-gritty of messiness and its consequences during the process of mixed methods research. By applying the ‘craft attitude’ and a socio-ecological framework for mixed methods research to a mixed methods case study, I demonstrate how my embracing of research messiness through the craft attitude exemplifies the interconnectedness of the personal, interpersonal and social contexts. This article contributes to knowledge by proposing a new way to conceptualize mess in mixed methods research through the integration of the craft attitude within the socio-ecological framework for mixed methods research.
AgeeJ. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(4), 431–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390902736512
2.
BarrettA. M. (2007). Beyond the polarization of pedagogy: Models of classroom practice in Tanzanian primary schools. Comparative Education, 43(2), 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060701362623
3.
BartlettL.VavrusF. K. (2014). Transversing the vertical case study: A methodological approach to studies of educational policy as practice. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 45(2), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/aeq.12055
4.
BartlettL.VavrusF. K. (2017). Rethinking case study research: A comparative approach. : Routledge
5.
BilloE.HiemstraN. (2013). Mediating messiness: Expanding ideas of flexibility, reflexivity, and embodiment in fieldwork. Gender, Place and Culture, 20(3), 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2012.674929
Cornelius-WhiteJ. H. D.HarbaughA. P. (2010). Redefining achievement. In Cornelius-WhiteJ. H. D.HarbaughA. P. (Eds.), Learner-centered institution: Building relationships for student success (pp. 105–119) Sage.
8.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage
9.
DescombeM. (2008). Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 270–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689808316807
10.
FeilzerY. M. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809349691
11.
FitzpatrickK. R. (2014). Points of convergence in music education: The use of data labels as a strategy for mixed methods integration. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(3), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689814560264
12.
FrelsR. K.OnwuegbuzieA. J.LeechN. L.CollinsK. M. T. (2012). Challenges to teaching mixed research courses. Journal of Effective Teaching, 12(2), 23–44.
13.
FreshwaterD. (2007). Reading mixed methods research: Contexts for criticism. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 134–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298578
FrostM.LittleA. W. (2014). Children’s learning practices in Ethiopia: Observations from primary school classes. Oxford Review of Education, 40(1), 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2013.873526
16.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. Jossey-Bass
17.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 1997(74), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1068
18.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J.GrahamW. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255
19.
GuettermanT. C.FettersM. D. (2018). Two methodological approaches to the integration of mixed methods and case study designs: A systematic review. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7), 900–918. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218772641
20.
HarritsG. S. (2011). More than method?: A discussion of paradigm differences within mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689811402506
21.
Hesse-BiberS. N. (2010). Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice. Guilford Press
22.
Hesse-BiberS. N. (2015b). Mixed methods research: The “thing-ness”. problem. Qualitative Health Research, 25(6), 775–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315580558
23.
Hesse-BiberS. N. (2015a). The problems and prospects in the teaching of mixed methods research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(5), 463–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1062622
24.
HunterA.BrewerJ. D. (2015). Designing multimethod research. In Hesse-BiberS. N.JohnsonR. B. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 185–205) Oxford University Press
25.
JohnsonR. B. (2017). Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has come. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 156–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607692
26.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA.TurnerL. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
27.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014
28.
MaxwellJ. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage
29.
MaxwellJ. A.ChmielM.RogersS. E. (2015). Designing integration in multimethod and mixed methods research. In Hesse-BiberS. N.JohnsonR. B. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 223–239). Oxford University Press
30.
MaxwellJ. A.LoomisD. M. (2003). Mixed methods design: An alternative approach. In TashakkoriA. M.TeddlieC. B. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 241–271) Sage
31.
MoEST (2016). Basic education curriculum: Standard III – VI. MoEST
32.
MooreA. (2012). Teaching and learning: Pedagogy, curriculum and culture (2nd ed.). Routledge
33.
MorganD. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462
OnwuegbuzieA. J.TeddlieC. B. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA. M.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351–383) Sage
36.
PearceL. D. (2015). Thinking outside the Q boxes: Further motivating a mixed methods research perspective. In Hesse-BiberS. N.JohnsonR. B. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 42–57) Oxford University Press
37.
Plano ClarkV. L.FooteL. A.WaltonJ. B. (2018). Intersecting mixed methods and case study research: Design possibilities and challenges. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 10(10), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.29034/ijmra.v10n1a1
38.
Plano ClarkV. L.IvankovaN. V. (2016). Mixed methods research: A guide to the field. Sage
39.
SakataN. (2019). Learner-centred pedagogy and its implications for pupils’ schooling experiences and learning outcomes: A mixed-methods case study in Tanzania. [Doctoral dissertation, University College London, Institute of Education]. UCL Discovery.
40.
SakataN. (2022). Is learner-centred pedagogy associated with pupils’ positive attitudes towards learning? The case of Tanzania. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2022.2036592
41.
SakataN.OketchM.CandappaM. (2021a). Pedagogy and history: Ujamaa and learner-centred pedagogy in Tanzania. Comparative Education Review65 (1): 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1086/712052
42.
SakataN.OketchM.CandappaM. (2021b). Knitting the comparative case study (CCS) with mixed methods: An attempt to extend the methodological application of CCS. International Journal of Research & Method in Education44 (2): 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2020.1763944
43.
SakataN.CandappaM.OketchM. (2021c). Pupils’ experiences with learner-centred pedagogy in Tanzania. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2021.1941769
44.
SanscartierM. D. (2020). The craft attitude: Navigating mess in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818816248
45.
SchoonenboomJ.JohnsonR. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed methods research design. Kolner Z Soz Sozpsychol, 69(2), 107–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1
46.
Shannon-BakerP. (2016). Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(4), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815575861
47.
TabulawaR. (2013). Teaching and learning in context: Why pedagogical reforms fail in sub-Saharan Africa. Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa
48.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Sage
49.
UNESCO (2000). The Darker framework for action: Education for all: Meeting our collective commitments. UNESCO
50.
UNESCOUNICEFWorld BankUNFPAUNDPUN WomenUNHCR (2015). Incheon declaration education 2030: Towards inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all. UNESCO.
VavrusF. K. (2009). The cultural politics of constructivist pedagogies: Teacher education reform in the united republic of Tanzania. International Journal of Educational Development, 29(3), 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2008.05.002
WaltonJ. B.Plano ClarkV. L.FooteL. A.JohnsonC. C. (2019). Navigating intersecting roads in a mixed methods case study: A dissertation journey. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(4), 436–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819872422
