Weaving an interpretivist stance throughout mixed methods research

References

• Alise, M. A., and C. Teddlie. 2010. “A Continuation of the Paradigm Wars? Prevalence Rates of Methodological Approaches Across the Social/Behavioral Sciences.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 4 (2): 103–126. doi: 10.1177/1558689809360805
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bazeley, P. 2009. “Editorial: Integrating Data Analyses in Mixed Methods Research.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 3 (3): 203–207. doi: 10.1177/1558689809334443
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergman, M. M. 2010. “On Concepts and Paradigms in Mixed Methods Research.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 4 (3): 171–175. doi: 10.1177/1558689810376950
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biesta, G. J. J. 2010. “Pragmatism and the Philosophical Foundations of Mixed Methods Research.” In SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, edited by A. Tashakkori, and C. Teddlie, 95–118. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
   Google Scholar
• Bryman, A. 2007. “Barriers to Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1 (1): 8–22. doi: 10.1177/2345678906290531
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. 2000. “Constructivist and Objectivist Grounded Theory.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 509–535. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. 2003. “Qualitative Interviewing and Grounded Theory Analysis.” In Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns, edited by J. A. Holstein, and J. F. Gubrium, 311–330. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. 2008. “Constructionism and the Grounded Theory Method.” In Handbook of Constructionist Research, edited by J. A. Holstein, and J. F. Gubrium, 397–412. New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2007. Research Methods in Education. Oxford: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Creamer, E. G. 2018. An Introduction to Fully Integrated Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. 2010. “Mapping the Developing Landscape of Mixed Methods Research.” In SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, edited by A. Tashakkori, and C. Teddlie, 45–68. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. 2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., and D. L. Miller. 2000. “Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry.” Theory into Practice 39 (3): 124–130. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., and V. L. Plano Clark. 2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., V. L. Plano Clark, M. L. Gutmann, and W. E. Hanson. 2003. “Advanced Mixed Methods Research Designs.” In Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, edited by A. Tashakkori, and C. Teddlie, 209–240. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Crotty, M. 1998. The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Denzin, N. K. 2012. “Triangulation 2.0.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 6 (2): 80–88. doi: 10.1177/1558689812437186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desimone, L. M. 2009. “Improving Impact Studies of Teachers’ Professional Development: Toward Better Conceptualizations and Measures.” Educational Researcher 38 (3): 181–199. doi: 10.3102/0013189X08331140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fetters, M. D., and J. F. Molina-Azorin. 2017a. “The Journal of Mixed Methods Research Starts a New Decade: Perspectives of Past Editors on the Current State of the Field and Future Directions.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 11 (4): 423–432. doi: 10.1177/1558689817729476
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fetters, M. D., and J. F. Molina-Azorin. 2017b. “The Journal of Mixed Methods Research Starts a New Decade: The Mixed Methods Research Integration Trilogy and its Dimensions.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 11 (3): 291–307. doi: 10.1177/1558689817714066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garet, M. S., A. C. Porter, L. M. Desimone, B. F. Birman, and K. S. Yoon. 2001. “What Makes Professional Development Effective? Results from a National Sample of Teachers.” American Educational Research Journal 38 (4): 915–945. doi: 10.3102/00028312038004915
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giddings, L. S. 2006. “Mixed-Methods Research: Positivism Dressed in Drag?” Journal of Research in Nursing 11 (3): 195–203. doi: 10.1177/1744987106064635
   Google Scholar
• Gray, D. E. 2013. Doing Research in the Real World. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J. C. 2005. “The Generative Potential of Mixed Methods Inquiry.” International Journal of Research and Method in Education 28 (2): 207–211. doi: 10.1080/01406720500256293
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J. C. 2007. Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. San Francisco: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J. C. 2008. “Is Mixed Methods Social Inquiry a Distinctive Methodology?” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2 (1): 7–22. doi: 10.1177/1558689807309969
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, J. C., and V. J. Caracelli. 1997. “Defining and Describing the Paradigm Issue in Mixed-Method Evaluation.” New Directions for Evaluation 74: 5–17. doi: 10.1002/ev.1068
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J. C., and J. N. Hall. 2010. “Dialectics and Pragmatism: Being of Consequence.” In Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, edited by A. Tashakkori, and C. Teddlie, 119–143. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Guba, E. G., and Y. S. Lincoln. 1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Guba, E. G., and Y. S. Lincoln. 1994. “Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin, and Y. S. Lincoln, 105–117. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, R. 2013a. “Mixed Methods: In Search of a Paradigm.” In Conducting Research in a Changing and Challenging World, edited by T. Lê and Q. Lê, 71–78. New York: Nova Science.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, J. N. 2013b. “Pragmatism, Evidence, and Mixed Methods Evaluation.” New Directions for Evaluation 138: 15–26. doi: 10.1002/ev.20054
   Google Scholar
• Harkness, J. A., M. Braun, B. Edwards, T. P. Johnson, L. Lyberg, P. P. Mohler, B. Pennell, and T. W. Smith. 2010. Survey Methods in Multinational, Multiregional, and Multicultural Contexts. Hoboken: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Hathcoat, J. D., and C. Meixner. 2017. “Pragmatism, Factor Analysis, and the Conditional Incompatibility Thesis in Mixed Methods Research.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 11 (4): 433–449. doi: 10.1177/1558689815622114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hesse-Biber, S. 2010. “Qualitative Approaches to Mixed Methods Practice.” Qualitative Inquiry 16 (6): 455–468. doi: 10.1177/1077800410364611
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofstede, G. H. 1986. “Cultural Differences in Teaching and Learning.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 10: 301–320. doi: 10.1016/0147-1767(86)90015-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofstede, G. H., G. J. Hofstede, and M. Minkov. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Howe, K. R. 2012. “Mixed Methods, Triangulation, and Causal Explanation.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 6 (2): 89–96. doi: 10.1177/1558689812437187
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. B. 2017. “Dialectical Pluralism: A Metaparadigm Whose Time has Come.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 11 (2): 156–173. doi: 10.1177/1558689815607692
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. B., and A. J. Onwuegbuzie. 2004. “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time has Come.” Educational Researcher 33 (7): 14–26. doi: 10.3102/0013189X033007014
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. B., A. J. Onwuegbuzie, and L. A. Turner. 2007. “Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1 (2): 112–133. doi: 10.1177/1558689806298224
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kvale, S. 2007. Doing Interviews. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S. 1990. “The Making of a Constructivist: A Remembrance of Transformations ast.” In The Paradigm Dialog, edited by E. G. Guba, 67–87. Newbury Park: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 2003. “Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences.” In The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues, edited by N. K. Denzin, and Y. S. Lincoln, 253–291. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Mackenzie, N. M., and S. Knipe. 2006. “Research Dilemmas: Paradigms, Methods and Methodology.” Issues in Educational Research 16 (2): 193–205.
   Google Scholar
• McChesney, K. 2017. “Investigating Teachers’ Experiences of Professional Development within a Major Education Reform in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi.” PhD diss., Curtin University.
   Google Scholar
• McChesney, K., and J. M. Aldridge. 2018. “A New Tool for Practitioner-led Evaluation of Teacher Professional Development.” Teacher Development 22 (3): 314–338. doi: 10.1080/13664530.2017.1418418
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mertens, D. M. 2012. “What Comes First? The Paradigm or the Approach?” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 6 (4): 255–257. doi: 10.1177/1558689812461574
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan, D. L. 2007. “Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 11 (1): 48–76. doi: 10.1177/2345678906292462
   Google Scholar
• Neuliep, J. W. 2011. Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach. 5th ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J., R. B. Johnson, and K. M. T. Collins. 2009. “Call for Mixed Analysis: A Philosophical Framework for Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.” International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches 3 (2): 114–139. doi: 10.5172/mra.3.2.114
   Google Scholar
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and N. L. Leech. 2005. “On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher: The Importance of Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methodologies.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8 (5): 375–387. doi: 10.1080/13645570500402447
   Google Scholar
• Schwandt, T. A. 1998. “Constructivist, Interpretivist Approaches to Human Inquiry.” In The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues, edited by N. K. Denzin, and Y. S. Lincoln, 221–259. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Seidman, I. 2006. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shannon-Baker, P. 2016. “Making Paradigms Meaningful in Mixed Methods Research.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 10 (4): 319–334. doi: 10.1177/1558689815575861
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tashakkori, A., and J. W. Creswell. 2007a. “Exploring the Nature of Research Questions in Mixed Methods Research.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1 (3): 207–211. doi: 10.1177/1558689807302814
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tashakkori, A., and J. W. Creswell. 2007b. “The New Era of Mixed Methods.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1 (1): 3–7. doi: 10.1177/2345678906293042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teddlie, C., and A. Tashakkori. 2003. “Major Issues and Controversies in the use of Mixed Methods in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.” In Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, edited by C. Tashakkori, and C. Teddlie, 3–50. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Teddlie, C., and A. Tashakkori. 2009. Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Torrance, H. 2012. “Triangulation, Respondent Validation, and Democratic Participation in Mixed Methods Research.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 6 (2): 111–123. doi: 10.1177/1558689812437185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willis, J. W. 2007. Foundations of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. 2006. “Mixed Methods Research: Are the Methods Genuinely Integrated or Merely Parallel?” Research in the Schools 13 (1): 41–47.
   Google Scholar