Quality & Quantity

, Volume 45, Issue 6, pp 1253-1271

First online:

Assessing legitimation in mixed research: a new framework

  • Anthony J. OnwuegbuzieAffiliated withDepartment of Educational Leadership and Counseling, Sam Houston State University Email author 
  • , R. Burke JohnsonAffiliated withCollege of Education, University of South Alabama
  • , Kathleen M. T. CollinsAffiliated withDepartment of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Arkansas at Fayetteville

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access


In this article, we have merged or intersected two typologies: Greene’s (Res Sch 13(1):93–98, 2006) four-domain typology for developing a methodological or research paradigm in the social and behavioral sciences and Onwuegbuzie and Johnson’s (Res Sch 13(1):48–63, 2006) nine-component typology for assessing mixed research legitimation. We argue that merging or interconnecting these typologies present a framework for assessing legitimation in mixed research. Specifically, we demonstrate how the nine types of legitimation map onto Greene’s (Res Sch 13(1):93–98, 2006) four methodological domains and illustrate how legitimation in mixed research, rather than being viewed as a procedure that occurs at a specific step of the mixed research process, is better conceptualized as a continuous iterative, interactive, and dynamic process. Additionally, in presenting this framework, we hope to reduce misperceptions that some researchers have voiced about mixed research.


Research paradigm Assessing legitimation Mixed research Dynamic process