How the novice researcher can make sense of mixed methods designs

References

• Brannen J (1992) Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: an overview. In Brannen J (ed.) Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research. Aldershot: Avebury.
   Google Scholar
• Brewer J and Hunter A (1989) Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles. Newbury Park CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Brown S, Riddell S and Duffield J (1996). Possibilities and problems of small-scale studies to unpack the findings of large-scale studies of school effectiveness. In Gray J, Reynolds D, Fitz- Gibon C and Jesson D (eds) Merging traditions: The future of research on school effectiveness and school improvement. London: Cassell.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman A (1988) Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Unwin Hyman.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman A (2007) The Research Question in Social Research: What is its Role? International Journal of Social Research Methodology 10(1): 5–20.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell DT and Fiske DW (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 65: 81–105.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell DT and Stanley JC (1963) Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research on Teaching. In Gage NL (ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching, Chicago: Rand McNally.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell DT (1957) Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin 54(4): 297–312.
   Google Scholar
• Carey JW (1993) Linking qualitative and quantitative methods: Integrating cultural factors into public health. Qualitative Health Research 3: 298–318.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell JW (1995) Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell JW and Plano Clark VL (2007) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Earley MA (2007) Developing a Syllabus for a Mixed-Methods Research Course. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 10(2): 145–162.
   Google Scholar
• Eckeberg DL and Hill L (1980) The Paradigm Concept and Sociology: A Critical Review. In Guttin G (ed.) Paradigm and Revolutions. Apprisals and Applications of Thomas Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science. Notre Dame, London: University of Notre Dame Press.
   Google Scholar
• Edelson DC (2002) Design Research: What We Learn When We Engage in Design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 11(1): 105–121.
   Google Scholar
• Guba EG and Lincoln YS (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Guba EG and Lincoln YS (1994) Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage, pp. 105–117.
   Google Scholar
• Hammersley M (1992) What’s Wrong with Ethnography? Methodological Explorations. London: Routlege.
   Google Scholar
• Howe K (1988) Against the Quantitative qualitative Incompatibility Thesis or Dogmas die Hard. Educational Researcher 17(8): 10–16.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln YS and Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Mark MM and Shotland RL (1987) Alternative models for the use of multiple methods. In Mark MM and Shotland RL (eds) Multiple methods in program evaluation: New Directions for Program Evaluation 35. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 95–100.
   Google Scholar
• Maxwell JA and Loomis DM (2003) Mixed Methods Design: An Alternative Approach. In
   Google Scholar
• Tashakkori A and Teddlie C (eds) Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp. 209–240.
   Google Scholar
• Maxwell JA, Bashook PG and Sandlow CJ (1986) Combining ethnographic and experimental methods in educational evaluation. In Fetterman DM and Pitman MA (eds) Educational evaluation: Ethnography in theory, practice, and politics. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• McNamara DR (1979) Paradigm Lost: Thomas Kuhn and Educational Research. British Educational Research Journal 5(2): 167–173.
   Google Scholar
• Niglas K (1999a) Quantitative and Qualitative Inquiry in Educational Research: is there a paradigmatic difference between them? Masters Thesis. Cambridge University, Faculty of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Niglas K (1999b) Quantitative and Qualitative Inquiry in Educational Research: is there a paradigmatic difference between them? Paper given at ECER99, Lahti, 22–25 September 1999; Education Line. Available at http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/.
   Google Scholar
• Niglas K (2004) The Combined Use of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Educational Research. Tallinna Pedagoogikaülikooli Sotsiaalteaduste Dissertatsioonid. Tallinn:TPÜ Kirjastus. Available at http://www.tlulib.ee/files/arts/24/niglaf737ff0eb699f90626303a2ef1fa930f.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Niglas K (2007). Introducing the quantitative-qualitative continuum: An alternative view on teaching research methods courses. In Murtonen M, Rautopuro J and Väisänen P (eds) Learning and teaching of research methods at university pp. 185 – 203, Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association, Painosalama OY. Available at Education Line http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/
   Google Scholar
• Onwuegbuzie AJ, Slate JR, Leech NL, Collins KM (2007) Conducting mixed analyses: A general typology. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches 1(1): 4–17.
   Google Scholar
• Patton MQ (1980) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Reichardt CS and Cook TD (1979) Beyond Qualitative versus Quantitative Methods. In
   Google Scholar
• Cook TD and Reichardt CS (eds) Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills CA: Sage, pp. 7–32.
   Google Scholar
• Smith JK and Heshusius L (1986) Closing Down the Conversation: the End of the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate among Educational Inquirers. Educational Researcher 15(1): 4–12.
   Google Scholar
• Smith JK (1983) Quantitative versus Qualitative Research: An Attempt to Clarify the Issue. Educational Researcher 12(3): 6–13.
   Google Scholar
• Smith JK (1989) The Nature of Social and Educational Inquiry. Norwood NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Tashakkori A and Teddlie C (1998) Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Tashakkori A and Teddlie C (2003a) Major Issues and Controversies in the Use of Mixed Methods in the Social and Behavioural Sciences. In Tashakkori A and Teddlie C (eds) Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp. 3–50.
   Google Scholar
• Tashakkori A and Teddlie C (2003b) The Past and Future of Mixed Methods Research: From Data Triangulation to Mixed Model Designs. In Tashakkori A and Teddlie C (eds) Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp. 671–702.
   Google Scholar
• Tashakkori A and Teddlie C (eds) (2003) Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Tooley J (1998) Educational Research: a Critique: a Survey of Published Educational Research. London: Office for Standards in Education.
   Google Scholar