Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Re-conceptualize mixed methods research: introducing a new conceptual framework

  • Published:
Quality & Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Given that there is a lack of conceptual framework that connects, organizes, and guides all the aspects in the process of conducting mixed methods research, this study introduces a new conceptual framework that seeks to make a connection between theory and practice in research and puts methodological theory at its center. It includes three components—theoretical/philosophical, practical/implementation, and articulation—and each component consists of different elements. In the article, we first reviewed the literature regarding the conceptual frameworks in mixed methods research and examined the limitations of the current approaches. We then defined and explained each component of the framework and its elements as well as their relationships and alignment. We concluded the article with the discussion of how to apply the proposed conceptual framework to understand the process of conducting mixed methods research, in which a simple example was provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The relationship between theory and practice was also discussed earlier in Sect. 4.2.2 which aims to explain the relationship among the elements in practical/implmentation component and the relationship between theoretical/philosophical and practical/implementation components.

References

  • Avis, M.: Do we need methodological theory to do qualitative research? Qual. Health Res. (2003). doi:10.1177/1049732303253298

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A.: Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. (1977). doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

    Google Scholar 

  • Carspecken, P.F.: Critical Ethnography in Educational Research: A Theoretical and Practical Guide. Routledge, New York, NY (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  • Carspecken, P.F.: Methodological theory and globalisation: a critique of scientism and outline of an alternative. In: Omar, N., Che Dan, W., Ganesan, J., Talif, R. (eds.) Critical Perspectives on Literature and Culture in the New World Order, pp. 105–115. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J.W., Plano Clark, V.L.: Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • Crotty, M.: The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, B.: Critical Ethnographic Practice and Theory in Education: Strangers in Our Schools. Bloomington (2009). Unpublished Manuscript

  • De Vaus, D.A.: Research Design in Social Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, B.C., Coon, D.W., Ume, E.: Use of theoretical frameworks as a pragmatic guide for mixed methods studies. J. Mix. Methods Res. (2011). doi:10.1177/1558689811412972

    Google Scholar 

  • Feilzer, M.Y.: Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. J. Mix. Method. Res. (2010). doi:10.1177/1558689809349691

    Google Scholar 

  • Freshwater, D.: Managing movement, leading change. J. Mix. Methods Res. (2012). doi:10.1177/1558689812439873

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: Discovery of substantive theory: a basic strategy underlying qualitative research. Am. Behav. Sci. (1965). doi:10.1177/000276426500800602

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J.C.: Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Res. Sch. 13, 93–98 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J.C.: Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. Wiley, San Francisco (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J.C.: Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? J. Mix. Methods Res. (2008). doi:10.1177/1558689807309969

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover, R., Glazier, J.: A conceptual framework for theory building in library and information science. Libr. Inf. Sci. Res. 8, 227–242 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E.G., Lincoln, Y.S.: Fourth generation evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA (1989)

  • Guba, E.G., Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.): The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA (2005)

  • Hall, B., Howard, K.: A synergistic approach: conducting mixed methods research with typological and systematic design considerations. J. Mix. Methods Res. (2008). doi:10.1177/1558689808314622

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S.G. (ed.): Feminism and Methodology: Social Science Issues. Indiana University Press, Bloomington (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrits, G.S.: More than method? A discussion of paradigm differences within mixed methods research. J. Mix. Methods Res. 5, 150–166 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe, K.R.: Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or Dogmas Die Hard. Educ. Res. 17, 10–16 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R.B.: Dialectical pluralism and mixed research. Am. Behav. Sci. (2012). doi:10.1177/0002764212442494

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J.: Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ. Res. (2004). doi:10.3102/0013189X033007014

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, A.: The Conduct of Inquiry Methodology for Behavioral Science. Chandler Publishing Company, San Francisco (1964)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kari, J.: Making sense of sense-making: from metatheory to substantive theory in the context of paranormal information seeking. Paper presented at the Nordis-Net workshop (Meta)theoretical stands in studying library and information institutions: individual, organizational and societal aspects, Oslo, Norway (1998)

  • Ladson-Billings, G.: Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education? Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. (1998). doi:10.1080/095183998236863

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y.S.: “What a long, strange trip it’s been…”: twenty-five years of qualitative and new paradigm research. Qual. Inq. (2009). doi:10.1177/1077800409349754

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, C., Rossman, G.B.: Designing Qualitative Research, 6th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J.A.: Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J.A., Loomis, D.: Mixed methods design: an alternative approach. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds.) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 241–271. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, C.O.: Research Methodology: Some Issues in Social Science Research. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S.B.: Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertens, D.M.: Transformative paradigm: mixed methods and social justice. J. Mix. Methods Res. (2007). doi:10.1177/1558689807302811

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M.: Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D.L.: Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J. Mix. Methods Res. (2007). doi:10.1177/2345678906292462

    Google Scholar 

  • Overton, W. F.: Development across the life span. In Weiner, I. B., Freedheim, D. K., Schinka, J. A., Velicer, W. F. (eds.) Handbook of Psychology: Developmental Psychology, pp. 13–39. New York (2003)

  • Philliber, S.G., Schwab, M.R., Sloss, G.S.: Social Research. FE Peacock Publishers, Adelaide (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravitch, S.M., Riggan, M.: Reason & Rigor: How Conceptual Frameworks Guide Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandelowski, M.: Unmixing mixed-methods research. Res. Nurs. Health (2014). doi:10.1002/nur.21580

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwandt, T.: Qualitative Inquiry: A Dictionary of Terms. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibeon, R.: Rethinking Social Theory. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J.K., Heshusius, L.: Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational researcher. Educ. Res. (1986). doi:10.3102/0013189X015001004

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A.L., Corbin, J.M.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage, Newbury Park (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweetman, D., Badiee, M., Creswell, J.W.: Use of the transformative framework in mixed methods studies. Qual. Inq. (2010). doi:10.1177/1077800410364610

    Google Scholar 

  • Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds.): Mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Teddlie, C., Tashakkori, A.: Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds.) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, 2nd edn, pp. 1–44. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Teddlie, C., Tashakkori, A.: Common “core” characteristics of mixed methods research: a review of critical issues and call for greater convergence. Am. Behav. Sci. (2012). doi:10.1177/0002764211433795

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G.D., Berger, J.: Do sociological theories grow? Am. J. Sociol. 90, 697–728 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallis, S.E.: Toward a science of metatheory. Integr. Rev. 6, 73–120 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, M.J., Kerr, J.C.: Basic Steps in Planning Nursing Research: From Question to Proposal, 7th edn. Jones and Bartlett Publishing, Sudbury (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th edn. Sage, Los Angeles (2009)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of Leadership and Professional Studies, School of Education and Human Development, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th Street, Miami, FL, 33199, USA

      Haiying Long

    2. School of Education, Indiana University, 201 N. Rose Avenue, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

      Claudius R. Rodgers

    Authors
    1. Haiying Long
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Claudius R. Rodgers
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Haiying Long.

    Additional information

    Haiying Long and Claudius R. Rodgers have contributed equally to this article.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Long, H., Rodgers, C.R. Re-conceptualize mixed methods research: introducing a new conceptual framework. Qual Quant 51, 2813–2829 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0447-6

    Download citation

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0447-6

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation