Guetterman, Timothy C.; Molina-Azorin, José F.
doi: 10.1177/15586898241241952pmid: N/A
Firestone, Allison R.; Cruz, Rebecca A.; Massey, Darcie
doi: 10.1177/15586898231179508pmid: N/A
Theory-focused joint displays represent an innovative approach to data and results integration with potential to build understanding of complex constructs, including factors that influence change over time. However, the extant literature offers few examples for doing so, particularly in convergent research designs. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to provide a replicable framework for developing and refining an emergent theoretical model in a convergent research design. Through an illustrative example of a study on preservice teachers’ growth in practice, we detail a seven-step process in which a theoretical model served as the guide and culminating purpose of the research. In addition to this primary contribution, we also explore the role of visuals in joint display analyses to support meta-inference generation.
Jackson-Gordon, Rachel; Plano Clark, Vicki L.
doi: 10.1177/15586898231179848pmid: N/A
In the explanatory sequential mixed methods design, methods-level integration occurs between quantitative and qualitative phases. In typical use of this design, statistical findings alone may inform the qualitative phase. However, in studies that apply a participatory approach in the second phase, this can be a missed opportunity to incorporate participant perspectives. This Research Note presents the integration of quantitative and qualitative survey results from phase one of an explanatory sequential study using a joint display, which is then used to inform the development of qualitative data collection prompts. This strategy contributes to the field of mixed methods research by detailing the process for undertaking building integration to inform an explanatory sequential study’s second participatory qualitative phase.
Parey, Bephyer; Kutscher, Elisabeth
doi: 10.1177/15586898231175192pmid: N/A
Rigor evaluation in mixed methods research is a growing need. Linking rigor to Hong and Pluye’s (2019) concepts of methodological and reporting quality, the purpose of this article is to operationalize and expand Harrison et al.’s (2020) Rigorous Mixed Methods Framework. Drawing from a systematic methodological review of 66 inclusive education studies, we (a) operationalize each element of the original framework, and (b) present arguments for two additional advanced elements, paradigm and ethics. Contributions to the field of mixed methods include situating the concept of rigor in the quality literature, expanding a rigor tool by developing guiding questions, and offering both conceptual and empirical justification for including paradigm and ethics in the rigor tool.
Bletscher, Caitlin G.; Galindo, Sebastian
doi: 10.1177/15586898231174578pmid: N/A
The present methodological discussion describes and reflects on the challenges with decisions made at the planning, implementation, and closure phases of a transformative mixed methods research study aimed at exploring the social connectedness of Burmese, Congolese, Iraqi, and Somali resettled refugees and their perceptions of well-being and belongingness. Although the field of mixed methods research calls for advancement in advocacy, participation, and innovation, little research provides clear guidance in this process. Therefore, this article contributes to the field by providing tangible recommendations to direct mixed methods researchers in their work with vulnerable, cross-cultural populations, promoting a transformative approach to scholarship with vulnerable populations that creates innovative research alongside the community, appropriately representing and empowering participant voices.
Showing 1 to 7 of 7 Articles