Quality & Quantity

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 265–275 | Cite as

A typology of mixed methods research designs

Research Note

Abstract

The mixed methods paradigm is still in its adolescence, and, thus, is still relatively unknown and confusing to many researchers. In general, mixed methods research represents research that involves collecting, analyzing, and interpreting quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or in a series of studies that investigate the same underlying phenomenon. Over the last several years, a plethora of research designs have been developed. However, the number of designs that currently prevail leaves the doctoral student, the beginning researcher, and even the experienced researcher who is new to the field of mixed methods research with the challenge of selecting optimal mixed methods designs. This paper presents a three-dimensional typology of mixed methods designs that represents an attempt to rise to the challenge of creating an integrated typology of mixed methods designs. An example for each design is included as well as a notation system that fits our eight-design framework.

Keywords

Mixed methods Research design Mixed methods design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bos J., Huston A.C., Granger R., Duncan G., Brock T., McLoyd W.C. (1999). New Hope for People with Low Incomes: Two-year Results of a Program to Reduce Poverty and Reform Welfare. Manpower Research Demonstration Corporation, New York Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Collins K.M.T. (2000, October). Implementing mathematics curricula standards: Effective instruction for “all” students?. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the mid-western Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Creswell J.W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Creswell J.W. (2002). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Creswell J.W., Plano Clark V.L., Guttmann M.L., Hanson E.E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research design. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp 209–240. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Currall S.C., Towler A.J. (2003). Research methods in management and organizational research: toward integration of qualitative and quantitative techniques. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research., pp 513–526. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daley C.E., Onwuegbuzie A.J. (2004). Attributions toward violence of male juvenile delinquents: a concurrent mixed methods analysis. J. Soc. Psychol. 144: 549–570 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Denzin N.K., Lincoln Y.S. (2000). Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn., pp 1–28. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dzurec L.C., Abraham J.L. (1993). The nature of inquiry: linking quantitative and qualitative research. Adv. Nurs. Sci. 16: 73–79 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forthofer M.S. (2003). Status of mixed methods in the health sciences. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research., pp 527–540. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greene J.C., Caracelli V.J.: Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms (New Directions for Evaluation, NO. 74). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Greene J.C., Caracelli V.J., Graham W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 11: 255–274 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hayter M. (1999). Burnout and AIDS care-related factors in HIV community clinical nurse specialists in the north of England. J. Adv. Nurs. 29: 984–993 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hunter A., Brewer J. (2003). Multimethod research in sociology. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp 577–594. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnson R.B., Onwuegbuzie A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ. Res. 33(7): 14–26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maxwell J.A., Loomis D.M. (2003). Mixed methods design: an alternative approach. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp 241–272. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McMillan J.H., Schumacher S. (2001). Research in Education: A Conceptual Introduction, 5th edn. Longman, New York, NY Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morgan D.L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: applications to health research. Qual. Health Res. 3: 362–376 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morse J.M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nurs. Res. 40: 120–123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morse J.M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp 189–208. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Onwuegbuzie A.J., Daniel L.G., eds. (2006) Special issue on mixed methods research [Special issue]. Res. Schools 13(1): 1–99Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Onwuegbuzie A.J., DaRos-Voseles D.A. (2001). The role of cooperative learning in research methodology courses: a mixed-methods analysis. Res. Schools 8: 61–75 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Onwuegbuzie A.J., Jiao Q.G., Bostick S.L. (2004). Library Anxiety: Theory, Research, and Applications. Scarecrow Press, Lanham, MD Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Onwuegbuzie A.J., Johnson R.B. (2004). Mixed method and mixed model research. In: Johnson, R.B., Christensen, L.B. (eds) Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Approaches., pp 408–431. Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Patton M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage, Newbury Park, CA Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rallis S.F., Rossman G.B. (2003). Mixed methods in evaluation context: a pragmatic framework. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research., pp 491–512. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rocco T.S., Bliss L.A., Gallagher S., Perez-Prado A., Alacaci C., Dwyer E.S., Fine J.C., Pappamihiel N.E. (2003). The pragmatic and dialectical lenses: two views of mixed methods use in education. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research., pp 595–615. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sandelowski M. (2001). Real qualitative researchers don’t count: the use of numbers in qualitative research. Res. Nurs. Health 24: 230–240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Senne T.A., Rikard G.L. (2002). Experiencing the portfolio process during the internship: a comparative analysis of two PETE portfolio models. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 21: 309–336 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tashakkori A., Teddlie C. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol. 46. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tashakkori A., Teddlie C., eds. (2003a). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tashakkori A., Teddlie C. (2003b). 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 and Behavioral Research., pp 671–701. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Taylor D.L., Tashakkori A. (1997). Toward an understanding of teachers’ desire for participation in decision making. J. School Leadership 7: 1–20 Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Teddlie C., Tashakkori A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research., pp 3–50. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Twinn S. (2003). Status of mixed methods research in nursing. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research., pp 541–556. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Waszak C., Sines M.C. (2003). Mixed methods in psychological research. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research., pp 557–576. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Waysman M., Savaya R. (1997). Mixed method evaluation: a case study. Eval. Pract. 18: 227–237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Weisner T. (2000). Understanding better the lives of poor families: ethnographic and survey studies in the New Hope experiment. Poverty Res. News 4(1): 10–12Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences CenterDenverUSA
  2. 2.University of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations