Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2020-2
Facilitators and barriers associated with the implementation of an innovative cross-disciplinary monitoring of the scientific literature: The Collaborative eBibliography on Mixed Methods (CeBoMM) – A research protocol
Mixed methods (MM) involve combining qualitative (QUAL) and quantitative (QUAN) methods in program evaluation, primary research, and literature reviews. MM are being increasingly used in health and social sciences (in multiple fields and in an inter-field manner). Over the years, several strategies to integrate QUAL and QUAN phases, results, and data have been proposed. For MM teachers, one of the challenges is to explain specific MM strategies and their combinations, find current illustrative examples for trainees, and identify emerging innovative MM strategies. Our project is aimed at identifying and measuring the importance of facilitators and barriers associated with the implementation of an innovative cross-disciplinary monitoring of the research literature: the Collaborative eBibliography on Mixed Methods (CeBoMM). Results will facilitate CeBoMM implementation, and can contribute to MM teaching and learning, thereby, helping MM teachers and their trainees worldwide. Ultimately, CeBoMM can be adapted to be used by teachers in other academic areas and those interested in collaborative information monitoring.
Badran,H.Pluye,P., & Grad,R. M. (2015). Advantages and Disadvantages of Educational Email Alerts for Family Physicians: Viewpoint. Journal of Medical Internet Research,17(2), e49.
2.
Barr,D. (2006). Staying alert: The wild new world of current awareness services. College and Research Libraries News,67(1), 14-17.
3.
Bazeley,P. (2009). Analyzing mixed methods data. In AndrewS. & HalcombE. (Eds.), Mixed methods research for nursing and the health sciences (pp. 84-118). Chichester: Wiley.
4.
Brown,A. W., & Allison,D. B. (2014). Using crowdsourcing to evaluate published scientific literature: Methods and example. PLoS ONE,9(7), e100647.
5.
Bujold,M.Granikov,V.El Sherif,R., & Pluye,P. (2018). Crowdsourcing a mixed systematic review on a complex topic and a heterogeneous population: Lessons learned. Education for Information (Special Issue),34(4), 293-300.
6.
Campbell,D. T. (1988). Qualitative knowing in action research. In OvermanS. (Ed.), Methodology and epistemology for social science: selected papers of Donald T. Campbell (pp. 360-376). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
7.
Créquit,P.Mansouri,G.Benchoufi,M.Vivot,A., & Ravaud,P. (2018). Mapping of Crowdsourcing in Health: Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research,20(5), e187.
8.
Creswell,J. W., & Plano Clark,V. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research [3rd edition]. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
9.
Dagenais,C.Nault-Brière,F.Dupont,D., & Dutil,J. (2008). Implementation and effects of a service coordination program for youths and their families in complex situations: A mixed evaluation design. Children and Youth Services Review,30(8), 903-913.
10.
De Waal,C. (2005). On pragmatism. Belmont: Wadsworth.
11.
Dillman,D. A.Smyth,J. D., & Christian,L. M. (2009). Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Hoboken: Wiley.
12.
Fereday,J., & Muir-Cochrane,E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,5(1), 1-11.
13.
Grad,R.Pluye,P.Repchinsky,C.Jovaisas,B.Marlow,B.Marques Ricarte,I. L., et al. (2014). Physician assessments of the value of therapeutic information delivered via e-mail. Canadian Family Physician,60(5), e258-e262.
14.
Greene,J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
15.
Greene,J. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology?Journal of Mixed Methods Research,2(1), 7-22.
16.
Greenhalgh,T.Robert,T.Macfarlane,F.Bate,P., & Kyriakidou,O. (2004). Diffusion of innovation in service organisations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly,82, 581-629.
17.
Guetterman,T. C.Fetters,M. D., & Creswell,J. W. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Annals of Family Medicine,13(6), 554-561.
18.
Hacking,I. (1999). The social construction of what? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
19.
Hong,Q. N.Pluye,P.Bujold,M., & Wassef,M. (2017). Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Systematic Reviews,6, e61.
20.
International Standards Organization (ISO). (2009). Terminology work – Principles and methods. Retri-eved from http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=38109.
21.
Johnson,R.McGowan,M., & Turner,L. (2010). Grounded theory in practice: Is it inherently a mixed method. Research in the Schools,17(2), 65-78.
22.
Johnson,R.Onewuegbuzie,A., & Turner,L. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research,1(2), 112-133.
23.
Langley,A.Mintzberg,H.Pitcher,P.Posada,E., & Saint-Macary,J. (1995). Opening up decision making: the view from the black stool. Organization Science, 6(3), 260-279.
24.
Lavrakas,P. J. (2013). Presidential address: Applying a total error perspective for improving research quality in the social, behavioral, and marketing sciences. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(3), 831-850.
25.
Lebraty,J.-F., & Lobre,K. (2013). Crowdsourcing: One step beyond. London: John Wiley & Sons.
26.
Lisle,J. D. (2013). Exploring the value of integrated findings in a multiphase mixed methods evaluation of the continuous assessment program in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches,7(1), 27-49.
27.
Mortensen,M. L.Adam,G. P.Trikalinos,T. A.Kraska,T., & Wallace,B. C. (2017). An exploration of crowdsourcing citation screening for systematic reviews. Research Synthesis Methods,8(3), 366-386.
28.
Niglas,K. (2010). The multidimensional model of research methodology: an integrated set of continua. In TashakkoriA. & TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd edition) (pp. 215-236). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
29.
Onwuegbuzie,A. J., & Combs,J. P. (2010). Emergent data analysis techniques in mixed methods research: a synthesis. In TashakkoriA. & TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 397-430). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
30.
Pedersen,J.Kocsis,D.Tripathi,A.Tarrell,A.Weerakoon,A.Tahmasbi,N., et al. (2013). Conceptual foundations of crowdsourcing: A review of IS research. 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 579-588.
31.
Pluye,P., & El Sherif,R. (2017). La contribution des méthodes mixtes à l’intégration des interprétations des sciences. Paper presented at the ACFAS Colloquium 630 on Innovations in Mixed Methods Health and Social Sciences, Montreal.
32.
Pluye,P.Grad,R.Johnson-Lafleur,J.Granikov,V.Shulha,M.Marlow,B., & Ricarte,I. (2013). The Number Needed to Benefit from Information (NNBI): proposal from a mixed methods research study with practicing family physicians. Annals of Family Medicine,11(6), 559-567.
33.
Pluye,P.Grad,R.Levine,A., & Nicolau,B. (2009). Understanding divergence of quantitative and qualitative data and results in mixed methods studies. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches,3(1), 58-72.
34.
Pluye,P.Grad,R.Repchinsky,C.Jovaisas,B.Johnson-Lafleur,J.Carrier,M., et al. (2013). Four levels of outcomes of information-seeking: a mixed methods study in primary health care. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,64(1), 108-125.
35.
Pluye,P.Grad,R. M.Repchinsky,C.Jovaisas,B.Lewis,D.Tang,D. L., et al. (2014). ‘Better than best’ evidence? The Information Assessment Method can help information providers to use family physicians’ feedback for 2-way knowledge translation. Canadian Family Physician,60(5), 415-417.
36.
Pluye,P., & Hong,Q. (2014). Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. Annual Review of Public Health,35, 29-45.
37.
Pluye,P.Kaur,N.Granikov,V.Garcia Bengoechea,E., & Tang,D. (2018). A World of Possibilities in Mixed Methods: Review of the Combinations of Strategies Used to Integrate Qualitative and Quantitative Phases, Results and Data [invited paper]. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches,10(1), 41-56.
38.
Pontis,S.Blandford,A.Greifeneder,E.Attalla,H., & Neal,D. (2017). Keeping up to date: An academic researcher’s information journey. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,68(1), 22-35.
39.
Porta,M. (2008). A dictionary of epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
Ranard,B. L.Ha,Y. P.Meisel,Z. F.Asch,D. A.Hill,S. S.Becker,L. B., et al. (2014). Crowdsourcing – harnessing the masses to advance health and medicine, a systematic review. Journal of General Internal Medicine,29(1), 187-203.
41.
Ridde,V., & Dagenais,C. (2012). Introduction générale à l’évaluation de programme. In RiddeV. & DagenaisC. (Eds.), Approches et pratiques en évaluation de programme (pp. 11-29). Montréal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal.
42.
Roche,C. (2012). Ontologie : entre terminologie et connaissance de spécialité [conference paper]. Paper presented at the Conference GLAT – Terminologies: textes, discours et accès aux savoirs spécialisés, Genova, Italy. Available from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01180282/file/Roche-GLAT%202012.pdf.
43.
Sayer,A. (2000). Realism and social science. London: Sage.
Surowiecki,J. (2007). The wisdom of crowds. New York: Random House.
46.
Tang,D.Pluye,P., & Bouthillier,F. (2015). eSRAP: système de surveillance de tendances en recherche permettant la collaboration des membres de communautés en recherche axée sur le patient (RAP) pour évaluer et partager les résultats et les projets de recherche de maniére adaptée [Registration of Copyright # 1126124]. Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada. Ottawa.
47.
Tashakkori,A., & Teddlie,C. (2010). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
48.
Teddlie,C., & Tashakkori,A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioural sciences. In TashakkoriA. & TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
49.
Teddlie,C., & Tashakkori,A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
50.
Teddlie,C., & Tashakkori,A. (2010). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA. & TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 1-41). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
51.
Thomas,J.Noel-Storr,A.Marshall,I.Wallace,B.McDonald,S.Mavergames,C., et al. Living Systematic Review Network. (2017). Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,91, 31-37.
52.
Tyson,L. (2014). Critical theory today. New York: Routledge.
53.
Van de Ven,A. H. (1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: a research note. Strategic Management Journal,13(5), 169-188.
54.
Wazny,K. (2017). “Crowdsourcing” ten years in: A review. Journal of Global Health,7(2), 1-15.
55.
Weiss,M. (2016). Crowdsourcing literature reviews in new domains. Technology Innovation Management Review,6(2), 5-14.
56.
Yin,R. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are the methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel?Research in the Schools,13(1), 41-47.
57.
Yin,R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
58.
Youngs,H., & Piggot-Irvine,E. (2011). The application of a multiphase triangulation approach to mixed methods: The research of an aspiring school principal development program. Journal of Mixed Methods Research,6(3), 184-198.
