An Overview of Mixed Methods [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

Journal of Research in Nursing http://jrn.sagepub.com

An overview of mixed methods research Louise Doyle, Anne-Marie Brady and Gobnait Byrne Journal of Research in Nursing 2009; 14; 175 DOI: 10.1177/1744987108093962 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jrn.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/2/175

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Research in Nursing can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jrn.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jrn.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://jrn.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/14/2/175

Downloaded from http://jrn.sagepub.com at UST Miguel de Benavides Lib on July 31, 2009

ORIGINAL PAPER

An overview of mixed methods research Louise Doyle Lecturer School of Nursing & Midwifery Studies, Trinity College Dublin, 24 D’Olier St, Dublin 2, Ireland

Journal of Research in Nursing ©2009 SAGE PUBLICATIONS Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore VOL 14 (2) 175–185 DOI: 10.1177/ 1744987108093962

Anne-Marie Brady Lecturer School of Nursing & Midwifery Studies, Trinity College Dublin, 24 D’Olier St, Dublin 2, Ireland

Gobnait Byrne Lecturer School of Nursing & Midwifery Studies, Trinity College Dublin, 24 D’Olier St, Dublin 2, Ireland

Abstract Mixed methods research is viewed as the third methodological movement and as an approach it has much to offer health and social science research. Its emergence was in response to the limitations of the sole use of quantitative or qualitative methods and is now considered by many a legitimate alternative to these two traditions. Purists’ view of the dichotomy between positivist and non-positivist philosophies is prevalent; however, mixed methods afford researchers an opportunity to overcome this ‘false dichotomy’. The philosophical underpinning of pragmatism allows and guides mixed methods researchers to use a variety of approaches to answer research questions that cannot be addressed using a singular method. In particular, healthcare researchers may benefit from the opportunity to use such a dynamic approach to address the complex and multi-faceted research problems often encountered in the health care sector. Key words mixed methods; paradigm; pragmatism; qualitative research; quantitative research; typology of mixed methods

Introduction Mixed methods research is emerging as a dominant paradigm in health care research in recent years with an increase in health care researchers using this method. A review of research commissioned by the Health Research and Development Programme in the United Kingdom showed that 17% (n = 22) of the studies 175 Downloaded from http://jrn.sagepub.com at UST Miguel de Benavides Lib on July 31, 2009

Journal of Research in Nursing 14(2) commissioned before 1995 were mixed methods in comparison to 30% (n = 33) funded between 2000 and 2004 (O’Cathain, et al., 2007). It is clear therefore that health service researchers are increasingly identifying the benefits of using a mixed methods design in their research studies. As this is a relatively new area, debate and confusion persist as to what exactly constitutes mixed methods research and what are the benefits to researchers and funders in health care. This paper defines mixed methods research and charts the emergence of mixed methods research as a result of the paradigm wars. The proposed benefits of utilising such a research approach are identified, and the criticisms of mixed methods research are outlined. Two recent classification systems developed by Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) and Leech and Onwuebuzie (2007) are also outlined.

Definition of mixed methods design

Mixed methods may be defined as ‘research in which the investigator collects and analyses data, integrates the findings and draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches or methods in a single study’ (Tashakkori and Creswell, 2007:4). Research is not restricted by the use of traditional approaches to data collection but is guided by a foundation of enquiry that underlies the research activity (Creswell, 1994). A mixed methods study is one that includes a qualitative and quantitative dimension, but difficulties often arise when the researcher attempts to articulate how the two elements relate to one another (Tashakkori and Creswell, 2007). There is an inconsistency among researchers about what constitutes mixed methods research (Sandelowski, 2001; Bryman, 2007; Tashakkori and Creswell, 2007). Some interpretations view mixed methods as the collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. More contemporary writings in this area had sought to develop an understanding of the importance of complete integration of the two approaches (Hanson, et al., 2005; Bryman, 2007; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). Tashakkori and Creswell (2007) argue that as mixed methods research is still evolving, the discussion of what it actually is should be kept open. Similarly, Johnson, et al. (2007) suggest that the definition of mixed methods research will change over time as this research approach continues to grow.

Paradigm debate and mixed methods research Researchers are urged to locate their research in a selected paradigm. Morgan (2007: 47) defines a paradigm as ‘the set of beliefs and practices that guide a field,’ and it can be used to summarise the beliefs of researchers. The world view, theoretical lens and paradigm are all terms used interchangeably in the literature. Paradigm is a world view that is defined by distinct elements including epistemology (how we know what we know), ontology (nature of reality), axiology (values) and methodology (the process of research) (Hanson, et al., 2005). In other words, paradigm differences influence how we know, our interpretation of reality and our values and methodology in research. Paradigm will influence the questions that researchers will pose and the methods they employ to answer them (Morgan, 2007). The world view of the researcher is greatly influenced by the positivist (quantitative) paradigm or naturalistic or constructivist (qualitative) tradition to which they align themselves. Traditionalists would argue that these paradigms are different and a combination of the two is not possible (Sandelowski, 2001). There is an assumption that the research 176 Downloaded from http://jrn.sagepub.com at UST Miguel de Benavides Lib on July 31, 2009

Doyle et al. Mixed methods research paradigms are not compatible because it is not possible to combine the ontological and epistemological stances of both traditions (Guba and Lincoln, 1988). Traditionally, researchers have made a forced choice between the positivist scientific model of research associated with quantitative methods and the interpretative model associated with qualitative ones (Howe, 1985). Historically, the approach in health care research was nearly exclusively of the quantitative or positivist tradition which was predicated on the necessity for the researcher to be objective and unbiased, and for many, it is considered to be the ‘gold standard.’ Positivism contends that there is a single reality and therefore seeks to identify causal relationships through objective measurement and quantitative analysis (Firestone, 1987). In the positivist paradigm, the researcher is considered independent and objective using larger samples to test carefully constructed hypothesis. The prevailing wisdom is that the researcher in the positivist tradition can put aside values to avoid bias in a process of inquiry. Constructivism or qualitative research emerged as an alternative to the positivist form of inquiry as researchers sought to examine the context of human experience (Schwandt, 2000). The qualitative paradigm is receiving greater attention in recent years and is sometimes described as the naturalistic inquiry, post-positive, constructivist or interpretative approaches (Creswell, 1994). Constructivism proposes that there are multiple realities and different interpretations may result from any research endeavour (Appleton and King, 2002). Those interpretations are shaped by particular circumstances that exist as a study unfolds. Researchers who work within the constructivist paradigm seek to illuminate the reality of others through the process of detailed descriptions of their experiences (Appleton and King, 2002). In the interpretative paradigm, the researcher is subjective with the focus directed at deeper understanding of what is happening with a smaller sample. The positivist viewpoint is that the research outcomes are not biased by the values of the detached positivist researcher unlike in the constructivist paradigm where the researcher is immersed in the research (Firestone, 1987). The assumption is that logical positivism is objective, whereas the naturalistic inquiry is subjective. Howe (1985) argues strongly that no research endeavour is free from value judgments and an ‘attempt to bracket values’ (p. 12) only produces more insidious bias. The detached researcher in the positivist inquiry results in the production of detached evidence and will not succeed in capturing the true context of health service work (Stevenson, 2005). One of the key ways that qualitative and quantitative research may be differentiated is the distinction between induction and deduction (Morgan, 2007). The simplistic view of quantitative research is that it is an objective process of deduction whereas the qualitative process is subjective and a process of induction that can only be viewed in context (Morgan, 2007). The field of mixed methods and language used to describe it is relatively new. Considerable debate exists in the literature around the issues of compatibility in combining qualitative and quantitative methods (Howe, 1985; Smith and Heshusius, 1986; Yanchar and Williams, 2006; Bryman, 2007; Morgan, 2007). Quantitative versus qualitative debates have resulted in an illusion that the two approaches are mutually exclusive (Sandelowski, 2001). The practice disciplines are sometimes overly concerned with ‘methodological acrobatics’ (Sandelowski, 2001: 335). Some researchers believe that competition between paradigms is not helpful, and focus on ways in which traditional rivalries may be usefully combined (Sale, et al., 2002; Stevenson, 2005). It is proposed that mixed methods may be the third paradigm, capable of bridging the gap between the quantitative and qualitative positions (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). 177 Downloaded from http://jrn.sagepub.com at UST Miguel de Benavides Lib on July 31, 2009

Journal of Research in Nursing 14(2) Mixed methods research is guided by philosophical assumptions that enable the mixing of qualitative and qualitative approaches throughout the research process (Hanson, et al., 2005). The philosophy of pragmatism advanced the notion that the consequences are more important than the process and therefore that ‘the end justifies the means’. It advocates eclecticism and ‘a needs-based or contingency approach to research method and concept selection’ (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004: 17), so that researchers are free to determine what works to answer the research questions. The pragmatic approach to research is informed by the belief that the practicalities of research are such that it can not be driven by theory or data exclusively and a process of abduction is recommended which enables one to move back and forth between induction and deduction through a process of inquiry (Morgan, 2007). Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) share their aspirations that the field of mixed methods research will move beyond quantitative versus qualitative arguments and will instead focus on recognising the usefulness of both paradigms and identifying how these approaches can be used together in a single study to maximise the strengths and minimise the weaknesses of each other. They further contend that taking a non-purist position allows researchers to design research studies that combine methods that will offer the best chance of answering their specific research questions. Maxcy (2003: 86) suggests that pragmatic researchers’ “…unique contribution is to open up inquiry to all possibilities while tying that search to practical ends”. Morgan (2007: 48) supports this and views a pragmatic approach as a new guiding paradigm that can act “as a basis for supporting work that combines qualitative and quantitative methods and as a way to redirect our attention to methodological rather than metaphysical concerns”.

The rationale for mixed methods research Many reasons have been identified for conducting a mixed methods research study. Following a review of theoretical and empirical literature, Greene, et al. (1989) identified five purposes for conducting mixed methods research designs. These are triangulation, complementarity, development, initiation and expansion. Bryman (2006) in a later review of 232 social science mixed methods papers identified 16 reasons for conducting mixed methods studies. Many of the rationales identified in Bryman’s (2006) analysis are similar to those identified by Greene, et al. (1989) although somewhat more detailed in manner. The main rationales or benefits proposed for undertaking a mixed methods study are as follows: Triangulation: this allows for greater validity in a study by seeking corroboration between quantitative and qualitative data. Completeness: using a combination of research approaches provides a more complete and comprehensive picture of the study phenomenon. Offsetting weaknesses and providing stronger inferences: many authors argue that utilising a mixed methods approach can allow for the limitations of each approach to be neutralised while strengths are built upon thereby providing stronger and more accurate inferences (Bryman, 2006; Creswell, et al., 2003). Answering different research questions: Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) argue that mixed methods research helps answer the research questions that cannot be answered by quantitative or qualitative methods alone and provides a greater repertoire of tools to meet the aims and objectives of a study. Furthermore, Sale, et al. (2002) identify how a combination of research approaches is useful in areas such as nursing because of the complex nature of phenomena and the range of perspectives that are required. 178 Downloaded from http://jrn.sagepub.com at UST Miguel de Benavides Lib on July 31, 2009

Doyle et al. Mixed methods research Explanation of findings: mixed methods studies can use one research approach (i.e., quantitative or qualitative) to explain the data generated from a study using the other research approaches. This is particularly useful when unanticipated or unusual findings emerge. For example, findings from a quantitative survey can be followed up and explained by conducting interviews with a sample of those surveyed to gain an understanding of the findings obtained. Illustration of data: using a qualitative research approach to illustrate quantitative findings can help paint a better picture of the phenomenon under investigation. Bryman (2006) suggests that this is akin to putting ‘meat on the bones’ of dry quantitative data. Hypotheses development and testing: a qualitative phase of a study may be undertaken to develop hypotheses to be tested in a follow-up quantitative phase. Instrument development and testing: a qualitative study may generate items for inclusion in a questionnaire to be used in a quantitative phase of a study. These points identify the usefulness that a mixed methods research approach can have in answering a particular research question(s). However, it has been noted that mixed methods research may have more practical benefits in terms of attracting research funding (Giddings, 2006). Increasingly, agencies funding large research projects are showing an interest in interdisciplinary research which involves collaboration between various disciplines in a certain field. This is particularly so in health sciences where collaboration on large research projects between nursing, medical and paramedical professionals is increasingly promoted and encouraged. Different disciplines bring with them different research histories with medicine more traditionally associated with positivist or quantitative paradigms and methods and nursing more associated with more interpretivist or qualitative ones. Therefore, the utilisation of a mixed methods research approach can help meet the requirements of funding agencies that look for interdisciplinary research using a variety of methods.

Typology of mixed methods In an attempt to clearly identify the types of mixed methods research, many authors have developed typologies or classification systems of mixed methods designs (Greene and Caracelli, 1997; Creswell, et al., 2003; Teddlie and Tashakkorri, 2006; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007; Tashakkori and Creswell, 2007; Leech and Onwuegbuzie, 2007). Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003: 680) state that the determination of a typology is “among the most complex and controversial issues in mixed methodology.” The main advantages of having a typology of mixed methods include the conveying rigor regarding the methodology, providing guidance and assisting in the development of language for mixed methods research (Bryman, 2006; Teddlie and Tashakkorri, 2006). In this paper, two recent classification systems developed by Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) and Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007) will be outlined. The first question when deciding on methodology is to ascertain which approach will best suit the research question. This is a fundamental issue that all researchers need to address, and Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) have stressed the importance of justifying the selection of a mixed methods approach to conduct research. The main rationale for choosing a mixed methods design has been previously outlined in this paper, however, there are a number of methodological issues that a researcher must consider before undertaking a mixed methods study. Creswell and Plano Clarke (2007) suggest that there are three major decisions to make before selecting a 179 Downloaded from http://jrn.sagepub.com at UST Miguel de Benavides Lib on July 31, 2009

Journal of Research in Nursing 14(2) particular type of mixed methods design, and Figure 1 outlines a decision tree that identifies the main issues that need to be considered. The first decision to be made is regarding conducting the qualitative and quantitative stages concurrently or sequentially. Deciding whether both the methods are given equal priority is another key decision. The third issue is to ascertain where the mixing of the qualitative and quantitative methods will occur. O’Cathain, et al. (2007) reporting on a review of mixed methods studies identified that two-thirds were sequential, the majority gave priority to the quantitative methodology and integration occurred largely at the interpretation stage (81%, n = 39) in comparison to the analysis phase (17%, n = 8). Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) have developed a typology of mixed methods designs, which they describe as being functional and parsimonious, and which identifies four main types of mixed methods research (Figure 2). The triangulation design is the most common and well-known design, and this was previously known as the concurrent triangulation design (Creswell, et al., 2003). The quantitative and qualitative phases occur at the same time, and both the methods are usually given equal weighting. The traditional model of triangulation mixed methods design is the convergence model where integration occurs during the interpretation phase. Within the data transformation model, the quantitative and qualitative data are collected concurrently, and after the initial analysis, the data are transformed either by quantifying qualitative data or by qualifying quantitative results. Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) describe the use of open-ended qualitative questions on a survey instrument as a validated quantitative data triangulation mixed methods design. The multi-level research model variation of the triangulation design is used when the focus of the study is on a system and different methods are used to address the different levels. For example, qualitative methodology may be used to ascertain the views of nurse managers on a particular issue, and this is compared with a survey of staff nurses’ views. Triangulation is viewed as the most challenging

Figure 1 Decision tree for mixed methods design (Creswell, et al., 2003; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007).

180 Downloaded from http://jrn.sagepub.com at UST Miguel de Benavides Lib on July 31, 2009

Doyle et al. Mixed methods research

Figure 2 Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) typology of mixed methods research.

design of the four main research designs, and research teams are often used to implement this form of research design. The embedded design, first described by Caracelli and Greene (1997), is characterised by having one dominant method, whereas the other data set provides a secondary or supportive role. The embedded experimental model is the most common variant of the embedded design, and the priority is given to the quantitative methodology, and the qualitative data set is subservient (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). One of the purposes of the qualitative component may be to examine the process of the intervention. The embedded experimental model has been previously known as the concurrent nested mixed methods design (Creswell, et al., 2003). The last variation of the embedded design is the correlational model where the qualitative data are embedded within a quantitative design to help explain the outcomes of the correlation model. Within the embedded designs, the methods may be conducted concurrently or sequentially. The explanatory design previously described by Creswell, et al., (2003) as sequential explanatory design consists of two phases, beginning with the quantitative phase and then the qualitative phase, which aims to explain or enhance the quantitative results. Figure 2 outlines the two variants of the explanatory design—the follow-up explanatory model and the participant selection model. Within the follow-up explanatory model, the researcher identifies specific quantitative findings, such as unexpected results, outliers or differences between groups that need further exploration using qualitative methodology. In contrast, the qualitative phase has priority in the participant selection model, and the purpose of the quantitative phase is to identify and purposefully select participants. The explanatory design requires a longer implementation time due to the sequential nature but is regarded as the easiest of the four methods to implement. The exploratory design is a sequential design where the first phase, qualitative, helps in the development of the quantitative phase. Creswell, et al. (2003) described this design as sequential exploratory design. This design (see Figure 2) is used for developing and testing instruments (Instrument Development Model) or for 181 Downloaded from http://jrn.sagepub.com at UST Miguel de Benavides Lib on July 31, 2009

Journal of Research in Nursing 14(2)

Figure 3 Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007) typology of mixed methods design.

developing a taxonomy (Taxonomy Developmental Model). Priority is given to the quantitative entity in the instrument development model. Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007) use three criteria to develop their three dimensional typology of mixed methods design, and these include the level of mixing, time orientation and emphasis of approaches. Partially mixed studies are described as those studies where both the qualitative and quantitative phases are conducted independently before mixing occurs at the data interpretation stage. In contrast, fully mixed methods designs have mixing occurring in either one or all of the following: the research objective(s), the types of data, analysis and inference. Figure 3 outlines the Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007) typology of mixed methods design. The first layer differentiates the studies into either partially or fully mixed designs, the second decides on the timing of the different phases of data collection, and finally whether each methodology is given equal status within the chosen design. This classification system results in six mixed methods designs (see Table 1). This classification system is simple and easy to understand and avoids the use of the word triangulation. The term triangulation is one to which many meanings are attributed, and Sandelowski (2003) argues that it has been used so much that it has no meaning at all. The major limitation to this classification system is the division of

Table 1 List of Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007) mixed methods designs 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

Partially mixed concurrent equal status design Partially mixed concurrent dominant status design Partially mixed sequential equal status design Partially mixed sequential dominant status design Fully mixed concurrent equal status design Fully mixed concurrent dominant status design

182 Downloaded from http://jrn.sagepub.com at UST Miguel de Benavides Lib on July 31, 2009

Doyle et al. Mixed methods research mixed methods into partially mixed and fully mixed studies. Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007:3) describe partially mixed designs as ‘occupying regions somewhere between monomethod designs and fully mixed methods designs.’ The authors would suggest that the use of phrases such as ‘partially mixed’ and ‘fully mixed’ may be avoided and that the phrase ‘integration at the interpretation phase only” may be substituted for partially mixed research designs. As identified, choosing the most appropriate design for a mixed methods study depends on a number of factors including deciding which approach is best suited to answering a particular research question and the overall rationale for using a mixed methods approach. The typologies identified in this paper offer a system of classification of mixed methods research designs, which allow researchers to choose a design most appropriate to meet the aim and objectives of their research.

The limitations of mixed methods research Although it is clear that a mixed methods approach has much to offer a researcher, there have been criticisms of its use. Many of these criticisms focus on the incompatibility thesis, that is, the belief that quantitative and qualitative research methods cannot be mixed in a single study as they have such different ontological and epistemological origins. Methodological purists believe strongly in the dichotomy of world views and research methods (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007) and therefore argue against the combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches. Guba (1987: 31) had clearly identified the extent of the dichotomy between the paradigms by stating how “the one precludes the other just as surely belief in a round world precludes belief in a flat one.” Consequently, Sale, et al. (2002) caution against the uncritical acceptance of mixed methods research by a new generation of researchers who have overlooked the underlying assumptions and incommensurate differences between the two paradigms. However, Onwuegbuzie (2002) argues that the purists’ view of the dichotomies between positivist and post-positivist philosophies are in fact false dichotomies. Rather, Onwuegbuzie (2002) suggests that positivist and nonpositivist philosophies lie on an epistemological continuum with mixed methods research occupying the middle ground. Similarly, Howe (1988) argues against the incompatibility thesis and instead suggests that researchers should adopt a pragmatic approach and forge ahead with ‘what works.’ Mertens (2003) who herself is an avid believer in mixed methods research poses some questions about the pragmatist philosophy upon which most mixed methods research is based. She argues that basing methodological choices solely on pragmatics or ‘what works’ is inadequate as it does not answer the question ‘practical for whom and to what end?’ However, many authors would suggest that the practicality inherent in pragmatism is concerned with finding the most appropriate method to answer a research question or set of research questions. Tashakkori and Teddie (2003) argue that researchers within the pragmatist tradition abide by what they term ‘the dictatorship of the research question’, meaning they consider the research question to be more important than either the method or the paradigm that underlies it. Other criticisms or weaknesses of a mixed methods approach are more practical in nature. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) suggest that it may be difficult for one researcher to carry out a mixed methods study if the qualitative and quantitative phases are to be undertaken concurrently. In this case, a research team may be required. Ivankova, et al. (2006) identify that sequential studies also have drawbacks as it may take considerable time and resources to undertake distinct phases of a study. 183 Downloaded from http://jrn.sagepub.com at UST Miguel de Benavides Lib on July 31, 2009

Journal of Research in Nursing 14(2) Within a mixed methods study, there is also a requirement that the researcher has at least a sufficient knowledge of both quantitative and qualitative methods independently and how to mix these methods appropriately to achieve good study outcomes. As highlighted, there are drawbacks to using a mixed methods research approach. Therefore, it is essential that mixed methods researchers can anticipate the questions or criticisms of their chosen approach to design appropriate studies and defend these studies when required.

Conclusion Mixed methods research is now viewed as the third methodological movement and as an approach that has much to offer health and social science researchs. The purpose of mixing approaches is to afford opportunity to gain a more complete understanding of research problems (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). Researchers anticipate that mixing methods will enable them to capture the complexity of human phenomena (Sandelowski, 2001). Mixed methods research responds to the interests and needs of diverse stakeholders in research. This is clearly identified by Greene (2005: 209) who suggests that ‘a mixed method approach offers greater possibilities than a single method approach for responding to decision makers agenda, as well as to the interests of other legitimate stakeholders.’ In health care, the selection of mixed methods as a methodology seeks to provide hard data for the decision makers who seek to determine health care policy. Mixed method research responds to the pressures for outcomes in healthcare, but it can also report on the context of those outcomes. Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) have identified that within the nursing discipline, mixed methods research has been discussed and used extensively. Similarly, Twinn (2003: 553) suggests that “there is growing acceptance that the design provides an appropriate methodology to address the complex health problems frequently faced by the nursing discipline”. By building on the strengths, acknowledging and limiting the weaknesses of mixed methods research, nurse researchers can address these ‘complex health problems’ in a creative and imaginative way. References Appleton, JV, King, L (2002) Journeying from the philosophical contemplation of constructivism to the methodological pragmatics of health service research. J Adv Nurs 40: 641–648. Bryman, A (2006) Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done. Qual Res 6: 97–113. Bryman, A (2007) Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. J Mixed Methods Res 1: 8–22. Caracelli, VJ, Greene, JC (1997) Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. New Dir Program Eval 1997: 19–32. Creswell, JW (1994) Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Creswell, JW, Plano Clark, VL (2007) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, JW, Plano Clark, VL, Gutman, ML, Hanson, WE (2003) Advanced mixed methods research designs. In: Tashakkori, A, Teddlie, C (eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 209–240 Firestone, WA (1987) Meaning in method: the rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research. Educ Res 16: 16–21.

Giddings, LS (2006) Mixed-methods research. Positivism dressed in drag. J Res Nurs 11: 195–203. Greene, JC (2005) The generative potential of mixed methods inquiry. Int J Res Method Educ 28: 207–211. Greene, JC, Caracelli, VJ (1997) Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. New Dir Program Eval 3: 5–17. Greene, JC, Caracelli, VJ, Graham, WF (1989) Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educ Eval Policy Anal 11: 255–274. Guba, E (1987) What have we learned about naturalistic evaluation. Eval Pract 8: 23–43. Guba, EG, Lincoln, YS (1988) Do inquiry paradigms imply inquiry methodologies? In: Fetterman, DM (ed), Qualitative Approaches to Evaluation in Education: The Silent Scientific Revolution. London: Prager. 89–115 Hanson, WE, Creswell, J, Plano Clark, V, Creswell, D (2005) Mixed method design in counselling psychology. J Couns Psychol 52: 224–235. Howe, K (1985) Two dogmas of educational research. Educ Res 14: 10–18.

184 Downloaded from http://jrn.sagepub.com at UST Miguel de Benavides Lib on July 31, 2009

Doyle et al. Mixed methods research Howe, KR (1988) Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educ Res 17: 10–16. Ivankova, NV, Creswell, JW, Stick, SL (2006) Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: from theory to practice. Field Methods 18: 3–20. Johnson, RB, Onwuegbuzie, AJ (2004) Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Res 33: 14–26. Johnson, RB, Onwuegbuzie, AJ, Turner, LA (2007) Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J Mixed Methods Res 1: 112–133. Leech, NL, Onwuegbuzie, AJ (2007) A typology of mixed methods research designs. Qual Quant (in press). Maxcy, SJ (2003) Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: the search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In: Tashakkori, A, Teddlie, C (eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 51–89 Mertens, DM (2003) Mixed methods and the politics of human research: the transformative-emancipatory perspective. In: Tashakkori, A, Teddlie, C (eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 135–164 Morgan, DL (2007) Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J Mixed Methods Res 1: 48–76. O’Cathain, A, Murphy, E, Nicholl, J (2007) Integration and publications as indicators of “yield” from mixed methods studies. J Mixed Methods Res 1: 147–163. Onwuegbuzie, AJ (2002) Why can’t we all get along? Towards a framework for unifying research paradigms. Education 122: 518–530. Sale, JEM, Lohfeld, LH, Brazil, K (2002) Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: implications for mixedmethods research. Qual Quant 36: 43–53.

Sandelowski, M (2001) Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection and analysis techniques in mixed method studies research. Nurs Health 23: 246–255. Sandelowski, M (2003) Tables or tableaux? The challenges of writing and reading mixed methods studies. In: Tashakkori, A, Teddlie, C (eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 321–350 Schwandt, TA (2000) Three epistemological stances for qualitative research. In: Denzin, N, Lincoln, YS (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, second ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 189–213 Smith, JK, Heshusius, L (1986) Closing down the conversation: the end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Educ Res 1: 4–12. Stevenson, C (2005) Practical inquiry/theory in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 50: 196–203. Tashakkori, A, Creswell, JW (2007) Editorial: the new era of mixed methods. J Mixed Methods Res 1: 3–7. Tashakkori, A, Teddlie, C (2003) The past and future of mixed methods research: from data triangulation to mixed model designs. In: Tashakkori, A, Teddlie, C (eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 671–701 Teddlie, C, Tashakkorri, A (2006) A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Res Sch 13: 12–18. Twinn, S (2003) Status of mixed methods research in nursing. In: Tashakkori, A, Teddlie, C (eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 541–556 Yanchar, SC, Williams, DD (2006) Reconsidering the compatibility thesis and eclecticism: five proposed guidelines for method use. Educ Res 35: 3–12.

Louise Doyle (RPN, BNS, RNT, MSc) is a lecturer in mental health nursing at the School of Nursing and Midwifery Studies, Trinity College Dublin. She is currently undertaking a mixed methods PhD study of adolescent help-seeking for suicidal behaviour. Email: [email protected] Anne-Marie Brady (RGN, BSN, MSN, PG Dip Clinical Health Sciences Education, RNT) is a lecturer and Research Fellow at the School of Nursing and Midwifery Studies, Trinity College Dublin. She is undertaking a PhD study exploring transition experiences and intent to stay of degree graduate nurses, using a mixed methods approach. Email: [email protected] Gobnait Byrne (RGN, RNT, BNS, MPH, PG Dip Statistics) is a lecturer in general nursing at the School of Nursing and Midwifery Studies, Trinity College Dublin. She is currently undertaking a PhD study of migrant health in Ireland using mixed methods. Email: [email protected]

185 Downloaded from http://jrn.sagepub.com at UST Miguel de Benavides Lib on July 31, 2009