Mixed Method Research: Theoretical Foundations, Designs and Its Use in Educational Research

Year 2019, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, 301 - 310, 13.12.2019

Murat Doğan Şahin , Gokhan Ozturk

https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.574002

Cited By: 4

Abstract

In educational sciences, 90s were the scene of the
paradigmatic wars, as the researchers of quantitative or qualitative research
only defended the ideas of the type of research they used and they constantly
criticized the counter-paradigm. While this struggle is going on, mixed method
research has emerged, a pragmatist approach that believes both methods of
research are necessary and useful, and that these two methods can be used
together when the research problem requires. In the 2000s, numerous studies on
mixed method research have led this approach to be accepted as a third
paradigm. From this history to the present, many studies have been carried out
on this topic, from the philosophy of the mixed method to the genres, from the
methodological substructure to the stages. Presenting a theoretical
perspective, this study aims to scrutinize mixed method research with a special
emphasis on its philosophical development and models. The weaknesses and
strengths of mixed method as a research paradigm are also touched upon.
Finally, its use in educational sciences and future directions regarding the
development of this research method are discussed.

Keywords

Mixed method research, Educational research, research design

References

• Al-Azawei, A., Parslow, P. & Lundqvist, K. (2017). The effect of universal design for learning (UDL) application on e-learning acceptance: a structural equation model. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(6). 54-87.
• Baki, A. & Gökçek, T. (2012). Karma yöntem araştırmalarına genel bir bakış. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(42), 1-21.Bergman, M. M. (2011). The good, the bad, and the ugly in mixed methods research and design. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(4) 271–275.
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4th edition, Boston:Pearson
• Çetinkaya, L. (2017). The impact of Whatsapp use on success in education process. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(7). 59-74.
• Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Eady, M. J., Woodcock, S. & Sisco, A. (2017). Employing the EPEC hierarchy of conditions (version II) to evaluate the effectiveness of using synchronous technologies with multi-location student cohorts in the tertiary education setting. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3), 1-24.
• Fetters, M. F. & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2017). 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.
• Fırat, M., Kabakçı Yurdakul, I., & Ersoy, A. (2014). Bir eğitim teknolojisi araştırmasına dayalı olarak karma yöntem araştırması deneyimi. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2(1), 65-86.
• 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.
• Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602–611.
• Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. A. Tashakkori, and C. Teddlie (Ed.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 297–319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Johnson, R. & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
• Karasar, N. (1991). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: kavramlar, ilkeler, teknikler. Bahçelievler/Ankara.
• Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 43, 265- 275.
• Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40, 120–123.
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Leech, N. L. (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
• Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2003). The past and future of mixed methods research: From data triangulation to mixed model designs. A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Ed.). Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, (pp. 671-701). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
• Watson, C. E., Domizi, D. P. & Clouser, S. A. (2017). Student and faculty perceptions of OpenStax in high enrollment courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5), 287-304.
• Walters, P. B. (2009). The Politics of Knowledge. In P. B. Walter, A. Lareau, S. H. & Ranis (2009). Education Research on Trial: Policy Reform and the Call for Scientific Rigor. New York and London: Routledge.
• Yıldırım, A., ve Şimşek, H. (1999). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.