eBook - ePub
The Routledge Handbook for Advancing Integration in Mixed Methods Research
John H. Hitchcock, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, John H. Hitchcock, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
This is a test
Share book
- 616 pages
- English
- ePUB (mobile friendly)
- Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub
The Routledge Handbook for Advancing Integration in Mixed Methods Research
John H. Hitchcock, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, John H. Hitchcock, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations
About This Book
This groundbreaking edited book, The Routledge Handbook for Advancing Integration in Mixed Methods Research, presents an array of different integration ideas, with contributions from scholars across the globe.
This handbook represents the first major volume that comprehensively discusses this topic of integration. Perhaps the most fundamental and longstanding question in mixed methods research is: How does one best integrate disparate forms of information to produce the best form of inquiry? Each of the 34 seminal chapters in this handbook accelerates the discussion of integration across a broad range of disciplines, including education, arts-based analyses, and work in the Global South, as well as special topics such as psychometrics and media research. Many of the chapters present new topics that have never been written about before, and all chapters offer cutting-edge approaches to integration. They also offer different perspectives of integration – leading the introductory chapter to offer a new and comprehensive definition for integration, as follows: "referring to the optimal mixing, combining, blending, amalgamating, incorporating, joining, linking, merging, consolidating, or unifying of research approaches, methodologies, philosophies, methods, techniques, concepts, language, modes, disciplines, fields, and/or teams within a single study." The concluding chapter offers a meta-framework that accounts for this definition and is designed to help scholars think more about integration in a way that represents a continuous, dynamic, iterative, interactive, synergistic, and holistic meaning-making process.
This handbook will be an essential reference work for all scholars and practitioners using or seeking to use mixed methods in their research.
Frequently asked questions
How do I cancel my subscription?
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlego’s features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan you’ll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, we’ve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is The Routledge Handbook for Advancing Integration in Mixed Methods Research an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access The Routledge Handbook for Advancing Integration in Mixed Methods Research by John H. Hitchcock, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, John H. Hitchcock, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Psychologie & Recherche et méthodologie en psychologie. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
Information
PART 1 Conceptual and philosophical issues in integration
2 MAPPING THE LANDSCAPE OF INTEGRATION IN MIXED RESEARCH
DOI: 10.4324/9780429432828-4
In this chapter, mapping comprising four dimensions is used metaphorically to illustrate selective conceptualizations and processes defining integration within the current literature. The first dimension discussed is the trajectory of the concept of mixing, which has led to the concept of integration as an integral characteristic of mixed methods research, hereafter referred to as mixed research (MR). The second dimension is emerging concepts of integration within the field of MR; the third dimension is empirical examples of successful integration obtained from the published literature. Successful in this context is reflective of the quality of researchers’ explanations that integration led to enhanced understanding of the topic of interest within the respective studies. The fourth dimension discussed is selective examples of integration challenges. I conclude by summarizing the points as presented in the chapter to illustrate how integration conceptually has redefined the field of MR.
The dimensions comprising the map of integration are presented in Figure 2.1. These dimensions and accompanying points are not definitive; rather, they continue to evolve as the field of MR evolves. Numbering these dimensions is designed to serve as an advanced organizer illustrating how this trajectory occurred.
Trajectory of the concept of mixing leading to integration
Researchers’ characterizations of MR reflect varying and somewhat overlapping interpretations (cf. Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Greene, 2007, 2015; Johnson et al., 2007; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998), and these interpretations are indicative of the individual researcher’s mental model of mixing that is intellectualized “as the complex multifaceted lens through which a social inquirer perceives and makes sense of the social world. . . [and it] importantly frame[s] and guide[s] social inquiry” (Greene, 2007, p. 13). Also, these interpretations are reflective of researchers’ efforts to explicate the process underlying the term mixing. However, the field of MR continues to evolve, and the underlying interpretations of mixing also are evolving. This evolution is prompting researchers to reassess what occurs during the process underlying mixing that leads researches to make cohesive and credible conclusions. Subsequently, the term integration has emerged, and it has been used by selective researchers, because in their view, integration is illustrative of what researchers do when conducting a MR study. Additionally, it expands the idea that mixing is not focused on methods alone, as suggested by the term mixed methods research. Chronicling the trajectory of mixing to the definitive and contemporary term of integration stresses that integration is much more than mixing methods, and it is as an integral characteristic of MR. It is these premises that are the focus of this chapter.
Figure 2.1 Mapping the Landscape of Integration
Mixing interpretations
Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) characterize mixing as the researcher’s intentional effort to link strategically the quantitative and qualitative phases within a study’s design. Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009) elaborated further by stating that this combination is aligned to a researcher’s “worldview considerations, general preferences for designs, sampling logic, data collection and analytical strategies. . . [and embeds] . . . guidelines for making inferences, and the criteria for assessing and improving quality” (p. 21). Johnson et al. (2007) characterize MR as a
third methodological or research paradigm [that] . . . partners with the philosophy of pragmatism in one of its forms (left, right, middle), [and] . . . relies on qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, and inference techniques to address one’s research question(s).
(p. 129).
Greene (2008) interprets MR as an
approach to social inquiry [that] distinctively offers deep and potentially inspirational and catalytic opportunities to meaningfully engage with the differences that matter in today’s troubled world, seeking not so much convergence and consensus as opportunities for respectful listening and understanding.
(p. 20)
More recently, Greene (2015) presents an inclusive interpretation involving the mixing of two or more methodologies, and encompassed within these methodologies are two or more paradigms, interdisciplinary concentrations, theories, and methods. In a report authored by members of the Mixed Methods International Research Association Task Force, mixing is interpreted as the “use of more than one method, methodology, approach, theoretical or paradigmatic framework” and “integration of results from those different components” “as two core criteria, but recognize that there is a long tradition of emphasizing that MM is about combining qualitative and quantitative methods” (Mertens et al., 2016, p. 4, italics and quotations in the original).
Mixed way of thinking
The similarities shared by implementing a multimethod approach and a MR approach within respective studies involve applying multiple theoretical approaches, sampling different viewpoints, and using different data collection and analytical techniques that lead optimally to successful integration of findings and the formulation of conclusions that were not attainable without integration. These similarities serve to support merging the two approaches in forming guidelines and frameworks for integration and the design and implementation of empirical studies. The rationale for doing so is that the content prescribed in frameworks represent research techniques applicable for research and integration, in particular. However, Greene (2015) notes two important differences between multimethod and MR approaches. In her view, the latter approach allows the researcher “to meaningfully engage with difference due to the opportunities to mix at multiple levels of the methodology” (p. 607, italics in the original). Greene further points out that in constructing an MR study, the researcher can select from all methods (lowest level of mixing) and all methodologies (broader level of mixing) and paradigms (advanced level of mixing) embraced across the field of social science. According to Greene, it is the “possibility of mixing at multiple levels” that serves to distinguish the unique contribution of MR designs (p. 607, italics in the original). This differentiation also serves to support the complexity involved when designing a MR study in contrast to a multimethod study. In an MR study, the researcher employs design considerations and quality criteria across the three research traditions (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, and MR).
Position of the radical middle and integration
Onwuegbuzie (2012) proposes that researchers position themselves in the “radical middle,” which represents
a new theoretical and methodological space in which a socially just and productive coexistence among all research traditions is promoted actively, and in which mixed research is consciously local, dynamic, interactive, situated, contingent, fluid, strategic, and generative.
(p. 194, italics in the original)
According to Onwuegbuzie, a radical middle position supports researchers embracing a “constructivist view to methodology wherein multiple contradictory; but equally valid methodologies can exist” (p. 195, italic in the original). He makes the point that methodologies subsume methods; therefore, he uses the term mixed research, as I do in this chapter, because it is more reflective of the actual process of integration. Positioning themselves in the radical middle also involves researchers focusing on aspects of collaboration and applying diversity of approaches to address issues of importance.
Subsequently, this form of research would require that a researcher have sufficient training to work independently and effectively within the MR tradition or collaboratively within a team comprising researchers with varying levels of competencies. The competencies across team members balance the limitations of the skills of any one researcher (Onwuegbuzie, 2012). This model of collaboration involves researchers who agree to synergistically combine their expertise to design and to implement methodologies to address issues of importance (Onwuegbuzie, 2012) – a concept that is aligned to Collins et al.’s (2012) view that the MR community has much to gain by dialoguing with other intellectual communities.
MR design interpretations
Maxwell and Loomis’s (2003) interpretations of mixing focuses on the degree of integration and its influential impact among the design components, namely, purposes, conceptual framework, research questions, validity strategies, and methods. Their “interactive model” demonstrates the process of mixing as “a network or web” (p. 243). Another approach designed to illustrate the process of mixing at the level of design has been the synergistic dimensional approach (Hall & Howard, 2008). Hall and Howard characterize this process as involving the synergistic application of “core principles, a conceptual framework for delineating the practical and contextual aspects of doing research, and a model that represents the interaction between the core and conceptual dimensions of the approach, both within and across qualitative and quantitative paradigms” (p. 249). Bazeley and Kemp (2012) define a study’s design as mixed by the inclusion of at least interdependence of approaches “during the analytic writing process” – as the researcher is making sense of the results prior to drawing conclusions and initiating the process of dissemination (p. 69, italics in the original).
Triangulation interpretations
Applying a metaphor allows researchers to convey the complexity of the mixing process. The metaphor, triangulation, is one of the more recognizable examples of a mental representation of mixing. Initially, triangulation was interpreted as a method to help validate results derived from the collection and analysis of multiple data points leading optimally to convergence of results and validation of conclusions across research...