Subtleties of research question design in mixed methods research

Abstract

In this study, the design of mixed-method research questions is analysed with in-depth examples. Based on the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods, the process of structuring research questions is evaluated based on pragmatic philosophical foundations. The study provided researchers with a practical roadmap with detailed steps and examples for question design in mixed methods research. In the study, question construction strategies according to different mixed-method designs were analysed, and practical suggestions were presented to researchers in this context. As a result of the study, it was emphasised that it is important to structure the question design in mixed methods research in a way that is consistent with the general structure of the research, clear, and suitable for data integration. In this context, the study contributes to the literature on the design and implementation of mixed methods research and provides meaningful insights into the difficulties that researchers may encounter. In this respect, it is recommended that research questions be structured based on philosophical foundations, developed by the designers, associated with the data integration process, and updated flexibly when necessary.

Keywords

• Mixed methods research
• Social sciences
• Research methods
• Mixed methods research question
• Educational studies

Karma yöntem araştırmalarında soru tasarlanmasının incelikleri

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, karma yöntem araştırma sorularının nasıl tasarlandığı derinlemesine örnekler eşliğinde incelenmiştir. Nicel ve nitel yöntemlerin bütünleştirilmesini esas alan araştırmada, araştırma sorularının yapılandırılma süreci pragmatik felsefi temellere dayandırılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışma, araştırmacılara karma yöntem araştırmalarında soru tasarımı için ayrıntılı adımlar ve örnekler içeren pratik bir yol haritası sunmuştur. Çalışmada, farklı karma yöntem desenlerine göre soru biçimlendirme stratejileri incelenmiş ve bu bağlamda araştırmacılara uygulamaya dönük öneriler sunulmuştur. Araştırma sonucunda, karma yöntem araştırmalarında soru tasarımının araştırmanın genel yapısıyla tutarlı, açık ve veri bütünleştirmeye uygun şekilde yapılandırılmasının önem taşıdığı vurgulanmıştır. Bu bağlamda çalışma, karma yöntem araştırmalarının tasarımı ve uygulanmasına ilişkin literatüre katkı sağlamakta ve araştırmacıların karşılaşabileceği zorluklara yönelik anlamlı kavrayışlar sunmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, araştırma sorularının felsefi temellere dayalı olarak yapılandırılması, desenlere uygun biçimde geliştirilmesi, veri bütünleştirme süreciyle ilişkilendirilmesi ve gerektiğinde esnek bir şekilde güncellenmesi önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• Karma yöntem araştırması
• Sosyal bilimler
• Araştırma yöntemleri
• Karma yöntem araştırma sorusu
• Eğitim çalışmaları

References

1. Abowitz, D. A. ve Toole, T. M. (2010). Mixed method research: Fundamental issues of design, validity, and reliability in construction research. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(1), 108-116. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000026
2. Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. International Journal of Qualitative Studies In Education, 22(4), 431-447. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390902736512
3. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
4. Battista, A. ve Torre, D. (2023). Mixed methods research designs. Medical Teacher, 45(6), 585-587. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2023.2200118
5. Bishop, F. (2015). Using mixed methods research designs in health psychology: An illustrated discussion from a pragmatist perspective. British Journal of Health Psychology, 20(1), 5-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12122
6. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Longmans, Green.
7. Braun, V. ve Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
8. Brewer, J. ve Hunter, A. (2005). Foundations of multimethod research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

9. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
10. Cohen, L., Manion, L., ve Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge.
11. Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., ve Sutton, I. L. (2006). A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed methods research in special education and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(1), 67-100.
12. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
14. Creswell, J. W., Shope, R., Plano Clark, V. L., ve Green, D. O. (2006). How interpretive qualitative research extends mixed methods research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 1-11.
15. Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise Introduction to mixed methods research. Sage.
16. Creswell, J. W. ve Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
17. Dawadi, S. (2019). Impact of the secondary education examination (English) on students and parents in Nepal (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). The Open University, UK.
18. Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., ve Giri, R. A. (2021). Mixed-methods research: A discussion on its types, challenges, and criticisms. Journal of Practical Studies in Education, 2(2), 25-36 https://doi.org/10.46809/jpse.v2i2.20
19. Deci, E. L. ve Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer.
20. Denzin, N. K. (2017). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Routledge.
21. Denzin, N. K. ve Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage.
22. Dewasiri, N., Weerakoon, Y., ve Azeez, A. A. (2018). Mixed methods in finance research: The Rationale and Research Designs. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918801730
23. Feilzer, M. Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809349691
24. Fellows, R. ve Liu, A. (2008). Research methods for construction (3rd Ed). Wiley Blackwell, Oxford, U.K.
25. Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., ve Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs-Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6), 2134-2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
26. Fetters, M. D. (2016). Haven’t we always been doing mixed methods research? Lessons learned from the development of the horseless carriage. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815620883
27. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Sage.
28. Gee, J. P. (2025). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit (3rd Edition). Routledge.
29. Hesse-Biber, S. (2015). Mixed methods research: The “thing-ness” problem. Qualitative Health Research, 25(6), 775-788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315580558
30. Hirose, M. ve Creswell, J. (2023). Applying core quality criteria of mixed methods research to an empirical study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17, 12-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221086346
31. Kerkhoff, S. N. (2017). Designing global futures: A mixed methods study to develop and validate the teaching for global readiness scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65, 91-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.03.011
32. Kopač, G. ve Hlebec, V. (2020). Quality guidelines for mixed methods research in intervention studies: A conceptual model. Advances in Methodology and Statistics, 17(3), 1-29.
33. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). Sage.
34. Leech, N. L. ve Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43, 265-275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3
35. Li, J. (2020). Evaluating the initial impact of a public management reform: A multiphase mixed methods investigation using Q methodology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(4), 496-521. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819885721
36. Lincoln, Y. S. ve Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
37. Ling, H. L. ve Pang, M. F. (2022). A vignette-based transformative multiphase mixed methods interventional study featuring venn diagram joint displays: financial education with Hong Kong early adolescent ethnic minority students. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 16(1), 130-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689821989834
38. Maxwell, J. A. (2016). Expanding the history and range of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 12–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815571132
39. Mckenna, L., Copnell, B., ve Smith, G. (2021). Getting the methods right: Challenges and appropriateness of mixed methods research in health-related doctoral studies. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 30, 581-587. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15534
40. McLaughlin, J. E., Bush, A. A., ve Zeeman, J. M. (2016). Mixed methods: Expanding research methodologies in pharmacy education. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 8(6), 715-721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2016.06.015
41. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
42. Mertens, D. M. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212-225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807302811
43. Modem, R., Lakshminarayanan, S., Pattusamy, M., Pillai K, R., ve Prabhu, N. (2023). Is knowledge hiding in higher education a political phenomenon? An explanatory sequential approach to explore non-linear and three-way interaction effects. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(3), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2021-0748
44. Nayır, F., Sarı, T., & Sarıdaş, G. (2024). Karma yöntem araştırma sorularının doğasını keşfetmek. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 60, 361-372.
45. Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Pearson.
46. Newman, I. ve Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
47. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. ve Leech, N. L. (2006). Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures. The Qualitative Report, 11(3), 474-498. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2006.1663
48. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage.
49. Plano Clark, V. L. ve Ivankova, N. V. (2016). Mixed methods research: A guide to the field. Sage.
50. Poth, C. ve Munce, S. E. P. (2020). Commentary-Preparing today’s researchers for a yet unknown tomorrow: Promising practices for a synergistic and sustainable mentoring approach to mixed methods research learning. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 12(1), 56-64. https://doi.org/10.29034/ijmra.v12n1commentary
51. Stern, C., Lizarondo, L., Carrier, J., Godfrey, C., Rieger, K. L., Salmond, S., Apóstolo, J., Kirkpatrick, P., ve Loveday, H. (2020). Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18, 2108-2118. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00169
52. Tashakkori, A. ve Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53. Tashakkori, A. ve Creswell, J. W. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 207-211.
54. Taylor, P. C. ve Medina, M. (2011). Educational research paradigms: from positivism to pluralism. College Research Journal, 1(1), 1-16.
55. Toyon, M. (2021). Explanatory sequential design of mixed methods research: Phases and challenges. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), 10(5), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v10i5.1262
56. Turner, S., Cardinal, L. B., ve Burton, R. (2017). Research design for mixed methods: A triangulation-based framework and roadmap. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2), 243-267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115610808
57. Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., ve Sullivan, Y. W. (2016). Guidelines for conducting mixed-methods research: An extension and illustration. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(2), 2-31. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00433
58. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
59. Wilkinson, I. A. G. ve Staley, B. (2019). On the pitfalls and promises of using mixed methods in literacy research: Perceptions of reviewers. Research Papers in Education, 34(1), 61-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2017.1402081
60. Younas, A., Durante, Á., ve Fàbregues, S. (2024). Understanding the nature of and identifying and formulating “research problems” in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 18(4), 483–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898231191441
61. Zhou, Y., & Wu, M. (2022). Reported methodological challenges in empirical mixed methods articles: A review on JMMR and IJMRA. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 16(1), 47-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689820980212
62. Ziegler, N. A. (2014). Fostering self‐regulated learning through the European language portfolio: An embedded mixed methods study. The Modern Language Journal, 98(4), 921-936. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12147