Advertisement

Mixed Methods-Forschung in der Psychologie

  • Margrit SchreierEmail author
  • Özen Odağ
Living reference work entry

Later version available View entry history

Part of the Springer Reference Psychologie book series (SRP)

Zusammenfassung

Mixed Methods bezeichnet im weitesten Sinne die Kombination sowie die Integration von qualitativen und quantitativen Elementen innerhalb einer Untersuchung oder mehrerer aufeinander bezogener Untersuchungen. In den Sozialwissenschaften generell haben Mixed Methods in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten zunehmend an Bedeutung gewonnen. In der nach wie vor quantitativ dominierten Psychologie ist die Relevanz dieser Forschungstradition insgesamt zwar geringer anzusetzen, aber auch hier werden Mixed Methods inzwischen über verschiedene Teildisziplinen hinweg vermehrt eingesetzt. In diesem Beitrag gehen wir zunächst auf die Entwicklung der Mixed Methods-Forschung allgemein sowie in der Psychologie im Besonderen ein. Anschließend stellen wir zentrale methodologische Bereiche der gegenwärtigen Mixed Methods-Diskussion ausführlicher dar, wie beispielsweise die Definition von Mixed Methods und die Abgrenzung von Mixed Methods gegenüber verwandten Begriffen. Auch gehen wir in diesem Zusammenhang genauer auf Varianten von Mixed Methods-Designs und Design-Typologien ein, sowohl generell wie auch in der Psychologie. Der Beitrag schließt mit Überlegungen zu Entwicklungsperspektiven, insbesondere hinsichtlich der Relevanz der qualitativen innerhalb der Mixed Methods-Forschung.

Schlüsselwörter

Mixed Methods Mixed Methods-Designs Triangulation Multiple Methods Pragmatismus 

Literatur

  1. Bartholomew, T., & Brown, J. R. (2012). Mixed methods, culture, and psychology: A review of mixed methods in culture-specific psychological research. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation, 1(3), 177–190.Google Scholar
  2. Bazeley, P. (2010). Computer-assisted integration of mixed methods data sources and analysis. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Hrsg.), SAGE Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioural research (2. Aufl., S. 431–468). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bazeley, P., & Kemp, L. (2012). Mosaics, triangles, and DNA: Metaphors for integrated analysis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(1), 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergman, M. (Hrsg.). (2008a). Advances in mixed methods research. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Bergman, M. (2008b). The straw men of the qualitative-quantitative divide and their influence on mixed methods research. In M. Bergman (Hrsg.), Advances in mixed methods research (S. 11–21). Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bishop, F. L. (2015). Using mixed methods research designs in health psychology: An illustrated discussion from a pragmatist perspective. British Journal of Heath Psychology, 20, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boeije, H., Slagt, M. I., & van Wesel, F. (2013). The contribution of mixed methods research to the field of childhood trauma: A narrative review focused on data integration. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(4), 347–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breuer, F. (2017). Wissenschaftstheoretische Grundlagen qualitativer Methodik in der Psychologie. In G. Mey & K. Mruck (Hrsg.), Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie (2. Aufl.). Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16, 91–138.Google Scholar
  10. Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burzan, N. (2016). Methodenplurale Forschung. Chancen und Probleme von Mixed Methods. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz Juventa.Google Scholar
  12. Cameron, R., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2011). The acceptance of mixed methods in business and management research. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 19(3), 256–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collins, K. M. T. (2010). Advanced sampling designs in mixed methods research: Current trends and emerging trends in the social and behavioural sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Hrsg.), SAGE Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioural research (2. Aufl., S. 353–378). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Editorial: Mapping the field of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2. Aufl.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Creswell, J., & Zhang, W. (2009). The application of mixed methods designs to trauma research. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 22(6), 612–621.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Dattilio, F. M., Edwards, D. J. A., & Fishman, D. B. (2010). Case studies within a mixed methods paradigm: Toward a resolution of the alienation between researcher and practitioner in psychotherapy research. Psychotherapy Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 47(4), 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  22. Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act (3. Aufl.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Erzberger, C. (1998). Zahlen und Wörter. Die Verbindung quantitativer und qualitativer Daten und Methoden im Forschungsprozess. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. Eubanks Gambrel, L., & Butler, J. L., VI. (2013). Mixed methods research in marriage and family therapy. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 39(2), 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fielding, N., & Fielding, J. (1986). Linking data. Beverly Hills: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fine, A. G., & Elsbach, K. (2000). Ethnography and experiment in social psychological theory building: Tactics for integrating qualitative field data with quantitative lab data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Flick, U. (2011). Triangulation. Eine Einführung (3. akt. Aufl.). Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  28. Flick, U., Fischer, C., Neuber, A., Walter, U., & Schwartz, F. W. (2012). „I can’t prescribe something just because someone asks for it …“ Using mixed methods in the framework of triangulation. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Franz, A., Worrell, M., & Vögele, C. (2013). Integrating mixed method data in psychological research: Combining Q methodology and questionnaires in a study investigating cultural and psychological influences on sexual behaviour. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(4), 370–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gelo, O., Braakmann, D., & Benetka, G. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative research: Beyond the debate. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 42, 266–290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Giddings, L. S. (2006). Mixed-methods research: Positivism dressed in drag? Journal of Research in Nursing, 11(3), 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Greene, J. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Greene, J., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Groeben, N. (2006). Gibt es Wege aus der selbstverschuldeten Irrelevanz des qualitativen Offstream? Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(4), Art. 34. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0604347. Zugegriffen am 22.07.2015.
  35. Groeben, N., Wahl, D., Schlee, J., & Scheele, B. (1988). Forschungsprogramm Subjektive Theorien: Eine Einführung in die Psychologie des reflexiven Subjekts. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
  36. Guest, G. (2013). Describing mixed methods research: An alternative to typologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hammersley, M. (2008). Troubles with triangulation. In M. Bergman (Hrsg.), Advances in mixed methods research (S. 22–36). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J., Plano Clark, V. L., Petska, K. S., & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research design in counselling psychology. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 52(2), 224–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Harkness, S., Moscardino, U., Bermudez, M. R., Zylicz, P., Welles-Nyström, B., Blom, M., Parmar, P., Axia, G., Palacios, J., & Super, C. M. (2006). Mixed methods in international collaborative research: the experiences of the international study of parents, children and schools. Cross-Cultural Research, 40(1), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Haverkamp, B. E., Morrow, S. L., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). A time and place for qualitative and mixed methods in counselling psychology research. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 52(2), 123–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hayvaert, M., Hannes, K., Maes, B., & Onghena, P. (2013). Critical appraisal of mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(7), 302–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hesse-Biber, S. (2015). Introduction: Navigating a turbulent research landscape: Working the boundaries, tension, diversity, and contradiction of multimethod and mixed methods inquiry. In S. Hesse-Biber & B. Johnson (Hrsg.), The Oxford handbook of multi- and mixed-methods research inquiry (S. xxxiii–liii). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2010). Handbook of emergent methods. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  44. Hesse-Biber, S., Rodriguez, D., & Frost, N. A. (2015). A qualitatively driven approach to multimethod and mixed method research inquiry. In S. Hesse-Biber & B. Johnson (Hrsg.), The Oxford handbook of multi- and mixed-methods research inquiry (S. 3–20). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Huber, A. (2007). How to add qualitative profundity to quantitative findings in a study on cooperative learning. In P. Mayring, G. L. Huber, L. Gürtler & M. Kiegelmann (Hrsg.), Mixed methodology in psychological research (S. 179–190). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. Jahoda, M., Lazarsfeld, P. M., & Zeisel, H. (1975). Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal. Ein soziographischer Versuch über die Wirkungen langandauernder Arbeitslosigkeit (7. Aufl.). Suhrkamp: Frankfurt a. M. [Orig. 1933].Google Scholar
  47. Janetzko, D. (2001). Processing raw data both the qualitative and quantitative way. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(1), Art. 11. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0101111. Zugegriffen am 22.07.2015.
  48. Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Johnson, B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Johnson, B., Meeker, K., Loomis, L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 112–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Johnson, B., McGowan, M. W., & Turner, L. A. (2010). Grounded theory in practice: Is it inherently a mixed method? Research in the Schools, 17(2), 65–78.Google Scholar
  52. Kelle, U. (2001). Sociological explanations between micro and macro and the integration of qualitative and quantitative methods. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(1), Art. 5. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs010159. Zugegriffen am 22.07.2015.
  53. Kelle, U. (2008). Die Integration qualitativer und quantitativer Methoden in der empirischen Sozialforschung. Theoretische Grundlagen und methodologische Konzepte (2. Aufl.). VS: Wiesbaden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kelle, U. (2014). Mixed methods. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Hrsg.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (S. 153–166). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  55. Kelle, U., & Erzberger, C. (1999). Integration qualitativer und quantitativer Methoden: methodologische Modelle und ihre Bedeutung für die Forschungspraxis. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 51, 509–531.Google Scholar
  56. Kral, M. J., Wiebe, P., Nisbett, K., Dallas, C., Okalik, L., Enuaraq, N., & Cinotta, J. (2012). Suicide studies and the need for mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(3), 236–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kroman, M., & Oetzel, J. G. (2003). Exploring the dimensions of organizational assimilation. Creating and validating a measure. Communication Quarterly, 51, 436–455.Google Scholar
  58. Kuckartz, U. (2014). Mixed Methods. Methodologie, Forschungsdesigns und Analyseverfahren. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  59. Kuckartz, U., & Busch, J. (2012). Mixed Methods in der Evaluation. In U. Kuckartz & S. Rädiker (Hrsg.), Erziehungswissenschaftliche Evaluationspraxis. Beispiele – Konzepte – Methoden (S. 14–35). Beltz Juventa: Weinheim.Google Scholar
  60. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  61. Kuiken, D., & Miall, D. S. (2001). Numerically aided phenomenology: Procedures for investigating categories of experience. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(1), Art. 15. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0101153. Zugegriffen am 22.07.2015.
  62. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1988). Do inquiry paradigms imply inquiry methodologies? In D. M. Fetterman (Hrsg.), Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education: The silent scientific revolution (S. 89–115). London: Praeger.Google Scholar
  63. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Hrsg.), Handbook of qualitative research (S. 105–117). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  64. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Hrsg.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3. Aufl., S. 191–215). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  65. von der Lippe, H., Mey, G., & Frommer, J. (Hrsg.). (2011a). Zur Frage der Integration qualitativer und quantitativer Forschung in der Entwicklungs-, Familien- und Pädagogischen Psychologie. Zeitschrift für Qualitative Forschung, 12(1), 3–109. http://www.budrich-journals.de/index.php/zqf/issue/view/436. Zugegriffen am 12.04.2017.
  66. von der Lippe, H., Mey, G., & Frommer, J. (2011b). Zur Frage der Integration qualitativer und quantitativer Forschung in der Psychologie. Zeitschrift für Qualitative Forschung, 12(1), 3–24. http://www.budrich-journals.de/index.php/zqf/article/view/6094. Zugegriffen am 12.04.2017.
  67. Madill, A., & Gough, B. (2008). Qualitative research and its place in psychological science. Psychological Methods, 13(3), 254–271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mason, J. (2006). Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Maxwell, J. E., & Loomis, D. (2003). Mixed methods design: An alternative approach. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Hrsg.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (S. 241–271). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  70. Mayoh, J., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2015). Toward a conceptualization of mixed methods phenomenological research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(1), 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mayring, P. (2001). Kombination und Integration qualitativer und quantitativer Analyse. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum Qualitative Social Research, 2(1), Art. 6. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs010162. Zugegriffen am 22.07.2015.
  72. Mayring, P., Huber, L., Gürtler, G. L., & Kiegelmann, M. (Hrsg.). (2007). Mixed methodology in psychological research. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  73. Mertens, D. (2008). Transformative research and evaluation. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  74. Mertens, D., Bazeley, P., Bowleg, L., Fielding, N., Maxwell, J., Molina-Azorin, J. F., & Niglas, K. (2016). The future of mixed methods: A five year projection to 2020. http://mmira.wildapricot.org/resources/Documents/MMIRA%20task%20force%20report%20Jan2016%20final.pdf. Zugegriffen am 12.04.2017.
  75. Mey, G. (2008). Lehre (in) der Qualitativen Forschung – eine Leerstelle? Journal für Psychologie (Online), 16(1). http://www.journal-fuer-psychologie.de/index.php/jfp/article/view/194/131. Zugegriffen am 12.04.2017.
  76. Mey, G., & Mruck, K. (2014). (Hrsg.). Qualitative Forschung: Analysen und Diskussionen – 10 Jahre Berliner Methodentreffen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  77. Morgan, D. L. (2007). Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Morgan, D. L. (2014). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods. A pragmatic approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  79. Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40(2), 120–123.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Hrsg.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (S. 189–208). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  81. Morse, J. M., & Cheek, J. (2014). Making room for qualitatively-driven mixed-method research. Qualitative Health Research, 24(1), 3–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Nastasi, B. K., Hitchcock, J., Sarkar, S., Burkholder, G., Varjas, K., & Jayasena, A. (2007). Mixed methods in intervention research: Theory to adaptation. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 164–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Nastasi, B. K., Hitchcock, J. H., & Brown, L. M. (2010). An inclusive framework for conceptualizing mixed methods design typologies: Moving toward fully integrated synergistic research models. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Hrsg.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2. Aufl., S. 305–338). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Nerlich, B. (2004). Coming full (hermeneutic) circle: The controversy about psychological methods. In Z. Todd, B. Nerlich, S. McKeown & D. D. Clarke (Hrsg.), Mixing methods in psychology. The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory and practice (S. 17–36). New York: Psychology Press/Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  85. O’Cathain, A. (2010). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Towards a comprehensive framework. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Hrsg.), SAGE Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioural research (2. Aufl., S. 531–556). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Odağ, Ö. (2007). Wenn Männer von der Liebe lesen und Frauen von Abenteuern. Eine empirische Rezeptionsstudie zur emotionalen Beteiligung von Männern und Frauen beim Lesen narrativer Texte. Lengerich: Pabst.Google Scholar
  87. Onwuegbuzie, A., & Combs, J. P. (2010). Emergent data analysis techniques in mixed methods research: A synthesis. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Hrsg.), SAGE Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioural research (2. Aufl., S. 397–430). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  89. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (4. Aufl.). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  90. Phinney, J. S., & Devich-Navarro, M. (1997). Variations in bicultural identification among African American and Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7(1), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Plano Clark, V. L., & Creswell, J. W. (Hrsg.). (2008). The mixed methods reader. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  92. Plano Clark, V. L., Garrett, A. L., & Leslie-Pelecky, D. L. (2010). Applying three strategies for integrating qualitative and quantitative databases in a mixed methods study of a non-traditional graduate education program. Field Methods, 22(2), 154–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Povee, K., & Roberts, L. D. (2015). Attitudes towards mixed methods research in psychology: the best of both worlds? International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(1), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Powell, H., Mihalas, S., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Suldo, S., & Daley, C. E. (2008). Mixed methods research in school psychology: A mixed methods investigation of the trends in the literature. Psychology in the Schools, 45(4), 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Rennie, D. L., & Frommer, J. (2015). Applications of qualitative and mixed methods counseling and psychotherapy research. In O. C. Gelo, A. Pritz & B. Rieken (Hrsg.), Psychotherapy research. Foundations, process, and outcome (S. 429–454). Wien: Springer.Google Scholar
  96. Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9(5), 627–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Sandelowski, M. (2000). Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies. Research in Nursing & Health, 23, 246–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Schreier, M. (2017). Kontexte qualitativer Sozialforschung: Arts-Based Research, Mixed Methods und Emergent Methods. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 18(2), Art. 6. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs170263. Zugegriffen am 12.04.2017.
  100. Schreier, M., & Breuer, F. (2017). Lehren und Lernen qualitativer Forschungsmethoden in der Psychologie. In G. Mey & K. Mruck (Hrsg.), Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie (2. Aufl.). Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  101. Schreier, M., & Echterhoff, G. (2013). Mixed Methods. In W. Hussy, M. Schreier & G. Echterhoff (Hrsg.), Forschungsmethoden in Psychologie und Sozialwissenschaften (2. Aufl., S. 285–309). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  102. Schreier, M., & Fielding, N. (Hrsg.) (2001). Qualitative and quantitative research. Conjunctions and divergencies. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(1). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/issue/view/26. Zugegriffen am 22.07.2015.
  103. Schweizer, K., Paechter, M., & Weidenmann, B. (2007). Coherence in knowledge communication: How do online groups communicate? In P. Mayring, G. L. Huber, L. Gürtler & M. Kiegelmann (Hrsg.), Mixed methodology in psychological research (S. 101–112). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  104. Shank, G. (2007). How to tap the full potential of qualitative research by applying qualitative methods. In P. Mayring, G. L. Huber, L. Gürtler & M. Kiegelmann (Hrsg.), Mixed methodology in psychological research (S. 7–13). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  105. Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherf, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/. Zugegriffen am 22.07.2015 [Orig. 1954].Google Scholar
  106. Sparkes, A. C. (2015). Developing mixed methods research in sport and exercise psychology: Critical reflections on five points of controversy. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Tashakkori, A., & Cressfield, J. (2008). Editorial: Mixed methodology across disciplines. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  109. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2008). Quality of inferences in mixed methods research: Calling for an integrative framework. In M. Bergman (Hrsg.), Advances in mixed methods research (S. 101–119). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  110. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Hrsg.). (2010). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2. Aufl.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  111. Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C., & Sines, M. C. (2012). Utilizing mixed methods in psychological research. In I. B. Weiner, J. A. Schinka & W. F. Velicer (Hrsg.), Handbook of psychology. Research methods in psychology (Bd. 2, S. 428–450). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  112. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  113. Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling. A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100.Google Scholar
  114. Thomae, H. (1959). Forschungsmethoden der Entwicklungspsychologie. In H. Thomae (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Psychologie, Band 3: Entwicklungspsychologie (S. 46–75). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  115. Todd, Z., & Nerlich, B. (2004). Future directions. In Z. Todd, B. Nerlich, S. McKeown & D. D. Clarke (Hrsg.), Mixing methods in psychology. The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory and practice (S. 325–332). New York: Psychology Press/Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  116. Todd, Z., Nerlich, B., & McKeown, S. (2004a). Introduction. In Z. Todd, B. Nerlich, S. McKeown & D. D. Clarke (Hrsg.), Mixing methods in psychology. The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory and practice (S. 3–16). New York: Psychology Press/Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  117. Todd, Z., Nerlich, B., McKeown, S., & Clarke, D. D. (Hrsg.). (2004b). Mixing methods in psychology. The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory and practice. New York: Psychology Press/Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  118. Tolman, D. L., & Szalacha, L. A. (1999). Dimensions of desire. Bridging qualitative and quantitative methods in a study of female adolescent sexuality. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 7–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Ungar, M., & Liebenberg, L. (2011). Assessing resilience across cultures using mixed methods: Construction of the child and youth resilience measure. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(2), 126–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Waszak, C., & Sines, M. C. (2003). Mixed methods in psychological research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Hrsg.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (S. 557–576). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  121. Way, N., Stauber, H. Y., Nakkula, M. J., & London, P. (1994). Depression and substance use in two divergent high school cultures. A quantitative and qualitative analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23(3), 331–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Wiggings, B. J. (2011). Confronting the dilemma of mixed methods. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 31, 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Williams, E. N., Judge, A. B., Hill, C. E., & Hofmann, M. A. (1997). Experience of novice therapists in prepracticum: Trainees’, clients’ and supervisors’ perceptions of therapists’ personal reactions and management strategies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 390–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Yoshikawa, H., Weisner, T., Kalil, A., & Way, N. (2008). Mixing qualitative and quantitative research in developmental science: Uses and methodological choices. Developmental Psychology, 44(2), 344–354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Zhang, W., & Watanabe-Galloway, S. (2014). Using mixed methods effectively in prevention science: Designs, procedures, and examples. Prevention Science, 15, 654–662.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology and MethodsJacobs University BremenBremenDeutschland
  2. 2.Touro College BerlinBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations