Advertisement

Using Mixed Methods to Inform Education Policy Research

  • Colleen E. ChesnutEmail author
  • John H. Hitchcock
  • Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
Chapter

Abstract

By moving from broad definitions of policy, policy inquiry, and mixed methods to the paradigmatic and analytical choices involved in conducting mixed methods research, this chapter provides guidance to education policy scholars interested in mixed methods. Recent peer-reviewed mixed methods studies on complex education policy problems illustrate how researchers have used mixed methods to interrogate these issues while attending to various perspectives and contexts. Ultimately, by outlining how to conceptualize a mixed methods inquiry for a hypothetical policy problem, we present an example of the decision-making processes essential to effective mixed methods research design. The guidance serves as a useful starting point for novices considering whether and how mixed methods research can inform their work to alleviate the complicated policy problems facing today’s education leaders.

References

  1. Brannen, J., & Moss, G. (2012). Critical issues in designing mixed methods policy research. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 789–801.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211433796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Creswell, J. W., & Garrett, A. L. (2008). The “movement” of mixed methods research and the role of educators. South African Journal of Education, 28, 321–333 Retrieved from http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S0256-1002008000300003&script=sci_arttext&tlng=pt.
  3. DeLeon, P. (1994). Reinventing the policy sciences: Three steps back to the future. Policy Sciences, 27(1), 77–95.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eckert, S. A. (2013). What do teaching qualifications mean in urban schools? A mixed-methods study of teacher preparation and qualification. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 75–89.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112460279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Guba, E. G. (1984). The effect of definitions of policy on the nature and outcomes of policy analysis. Educational Leadership, 42(2), 63–70.Google Scholar
  6. Hall, J. N., & Ryan, K. E. (2011). Educational accountability: A qualitatively-driven mixed-methods approach. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(1), 105–115.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410389761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hesse-Biber, S., Rodriguez, D., & Frost, N. A. (2015). A qualitatively-driven approach to multimethod and mixed methods research. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 3–20). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnson, R. B. (2017). Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has come. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11, 156–173.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 112–133.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kerr, D. (1976). Educational policy: Analysis, structure, and justification. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  13. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. E. (1986). Research, evaluation and policy analysis: Heuristics for disciplined inquiry. Review of Policy Research, 5, 546–565.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1986.tb00429.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Luft, J. A., Firestone, J. B., Wong, S. S., Ortega, I., Adams, K., & Bang, E. (2011). Beginning secondary science teacher induction: A two-year mixed-methods study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1199–1224.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mark, M. M. (2015). Mixed and multimethods in predominantly quantitative studies, especially experiments and quasi-experiments. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 21–41). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Mertens, D. M. (2010). Transformative mixed methods research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 469–474.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mertens, D. M., Bazeley, P., Bowleg, L., Fielding, N., Maxwell, J., Molina-Azorin, J. F., & Niglas, K. (2016). Expanding thinking through a kaleidoscopic look into the future: Implications of the mixed methods international research association’s task force report on the future of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10, 221–227.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816649719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 48–76.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nagel, S. S. (1990). Bridging theory and practice in policy/program evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 13, 275–283.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(90)90058-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Hitchcock, J. H. (2017). A meta-framework for conducting mixed-methods impact evaluations: Implications for altering practice and the teaching of evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 55–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48–63.Google Scholar
  22. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2006). Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures. The Qualitative Report, 11, 474–498. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR113/Onwuegbuzie.pdf
  23. Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Plano Clark, V. L., & Badiee, M. (2010). Research questions in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 275–304). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rutledge, S. A., Harris, D. N., & Ingle, W. K. (2010). How principals “bridge and buffer” the new demands of teacher quality and accountability: A mixed-methods analysis of teacher hiring. American Journal of Education, 116, 211–242.  https://doi.org/10.1086/649492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2–3), 129–168.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sharp, J. L., Mobley, C., Hammond, C., Withington, C., Drew, S., Stringfield, S., & Stipanovic, N. (2012). A mixed methods sampling methodology for a multisite case study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(1), 34–54.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689811417133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 207–211.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807302814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wolf, F. (2010). Enlightened eclecticism or hazardous hopscotch? Mixed methods and triangulation strategies in comparative public policy research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4, 144–167.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689810364987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colleen E. Chesnut
    • 1
    Email author
  • John H. Hitchcock
    • 2
  • Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Center for Evaluation & Education PolicyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.Abt AssociatesInc.RockvilleUSA
  3. 3.College of EducationSam Houston State UniversityHuntsvilleUSA
  4. 4.University of JohannesburgJohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations