Mixed methods research design: A comparison of prevalence in JRME and AERJ

References

• Alise, M. A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). A continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4, 103–126.
   Google Scholar
• Berrios, R., & Lucca, N. (2006). Qualitative methodology in counseling research: Recent contributions and challenges for a new century. Journal of Counseling and Development, 84, 174–186.
   Google Scholar
• Blake, R. L. (1989). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods in family research. Annals of Family Medicine, 2, 13–21.
   Google Scholar
• Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman, A. (1992). Quantitative and qualitative research: Further reflections on their integration. In J. Brannen (Ed.) Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research (pp. 89–111). Aldershot, UK: Avebury Press.
   Google Scholar
• Caracelli, V. W., & Greene, J. C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 195–207.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. G. (2006). Prevalence of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. Evaluation and Research in Education, 19, 83–101.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Sutton, I. L. (2007, February). The role of mixed methods in special education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (1999). Mixed method research: Introduction and application. In T. Cijek (Ed.), Handbook of educational policy (pp. 455–472). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., Fetters, M. D., & Ivankova, N. V. (2004). Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. Annals of Family Medicine, 2, 7–12.
   Google Scholar
• Currall, S. C., & Towler, A. J. (2003). Research methods in management and organizational research: Toward integration of qualitative and quantitative techniques. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 513–526). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, R. B. (1967). The range of rhetorics, scale and other variables. Proceedings of National Conference on Needed Research in Mathematics Education in the Journal of Research and Development in Education, 1(1), 51–74.
   Google Scholar
• Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Sage handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dzurec, L. C., & Abraham, J. L. (1993). The nature of inquiry: Linking quantitative and qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science, 16, 73–79.
   Google Scholar
• Education Sciences Reform Act. (2002). Pub. L. No. 107–279. Retrieved February 26, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/rschstat/leg/PL107-279.pdfa
   Google Scholar
• Forthofer, M. S. (2003). Status of mixed methods in the health sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 527–540). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (Eds.). (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (New Directions for Evaluation No. 74). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255–274.
   Google Scholar
• Guba, E. G. (1987). What have we learned about naturalistic evaluation? Evaluation Practice, 8, 23–43.
   Google Scholar
• Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Petska, K. S., Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 224–235.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, L. C., Smith, S. Z., Swars, S. L., & Smith, M. E. (2009). An examination of research methods in mathematics education. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3, 26–41.
   Google Scholar
• Haverkamp, B. E., Morrow, S. L., & Ponterotto, S. L. (2005). A time and place for qualitative and mixed methods in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 123–125.
   Google Scholar
• Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65–97). New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative–qualitative incompatability thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17(18), 10–16.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter, A., & Brewer, J. (2003). Multimethod research in sociology. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 577–594). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, B., & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In A.
   Google Scholar
• Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 297–319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Kidder, L. H., & Fine, M. (1987). Qualitative and quantitative methods: When stories converge. In M. M. Mark & R. L. Shotland (Eds.). Multiple methods in program evaluation: New directions of program evaluation 35 (pp. 57–75). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Kromrey, J. D., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Hogarty, K. Y. (2006). The continua of disciplined inquiry: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. In S. Permuth & R. Mawdsley (Eds.), Research methods for studying legal issues in education (pp. 91–129). Dayton, OH: Education Law Association.
   Google Scholar
• Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2006, November). Mixed methods research in counseling research: The past, present, and future. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Birmingham, AL.
   Google Scholar
• Lester, F. K. (2005). On the theoretical, conceptual, and philosophical foundations for research in mathematics education. ZDM – The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 37, 457–467.
   Google Scholar
• Lester, F. K., & Lambdin, D. V. (2003). From amateur to professional: The emergence and maturation of the U.S. mathematics education research community. In G. M. A. Stanic & J.
   Google Scholar
• Kilpatrick (Eds.), A history of school mathematics (pp. 1629–1700). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Madey, D. L. (1982). Some benefi ts of integrating qualitative and quantitative methods in program evaluation, with some illustrations. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4, 223–236.
   Google Scholar
• Mark, M. M., & Shotland, R. L. (1987). Alternative models for the use of multiple methods. In M. M. Mark & R. L. Shotland (Eds.). Multiple methods in program evaluation: New directions of program evaluation 35 (pp. 95–100). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, D. L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 3, 362–376.
   Google Scholar
• Morse, J. (1991). Approaches to qualitative–quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40, 120–123.
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Research Advisory Committee. (2003). Education research in the No Child Left Behind environment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 185–189.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, I., & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative–quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
   Google Scholar
• No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). Mixed methods research in sociology and beyond. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of sociology (Vol. VI, pp. 2978–2981). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Jiao, Q. G., & Bostick, S. L. (2004). Library anxiety: Theory, research, and applications (Research Methods in Library and Information Studies, No. 1). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
   Google Scholar
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Jiao, Q. G., & Collins, K. M. T. (2007). Mixed methods research: A new direction for the study of stress and coping. In G. Gates (Ed.), Emerging thought and research on students, teacher, and administrator stress and coping (Research on Stress and Coping in Education) (Vol. 4, pp. 215–243). Greenway, CT: Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2004). Mixed method and mixed model research. In R. B. Johnson & L. B. Christensen (Eds.), Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (pp. 408–431). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Powell, H., Mihalas, S., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Suldo, S., & Daley, C. E. (2008). Mixed methods research in school psychology: A mixed methods investigation of trends in the literature. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 291–309.
   Google Scholar
• Rallis, S. F., & Rossman, G. B. (2003). Mixed methods in evaluation context: A pragmatic framework. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 491–512). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Reichardt, D. S., & Cook, T. D. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In T. D. Cook & C. S. Reichardt (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp. 7–32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Reichardt, C. S., & Rallis, S. F. (1994). Qualitative and quantitative inquiries are not incompatible: A call for a new partnership. In C. S. Reichardt & S. F. Rallis (Eds.), The qualitative–quantitative debate: New perspectives (pp. 85–92). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• 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 A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 595–615). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Ross, A., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2008, February). Prevalence of mixed methods research in mathematics education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Hilton Head, SC.
   Google Scholar
• 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, 627–643.
   Google Scholar
• Sandelowski, M. (2001). Real qualitative researchers don’t count: The use of numbers in qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health, 24, 230–240.
   Google Scholar
• Scandura, J. M. (Ed.). (1967). Research in mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Sechrest, L., & Sidana, S. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative methods: Is there an alternative? Evaluation and Program Planning, 18, 77–87.
   Google Scholar
• Silver, E. (2004). Ella Minnow Pea: An allegory of our times? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 154–156.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J. K. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the issue. Educational Researcher, 12(3), 6–13.
   Google Scholar
• Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series (Vol. 46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Twinn, S. (2003). Status of mixed methods research in nursing. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 541–556). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Waszak, C., & Sines, M. C. (2003). Mixed methods in psychological research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 557–576). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, K. (2008). How mathematicians determine if an argument is a valid proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 431–459.
   Google Scholar