Abbas Tashakkori

Editorial: Exploring the Nature of Research Questions in Mixed Methods Research

• demonstrate the need for mixed methods to answer research questions that include clearly interconnected qualitative and quantitative components, • present distinctly identifiable qualitative and quantitative data (or one transformed to the other) that are analyzed and presented separately, • make identifiable inferences or conclusions on the basis of the results of appropriate qualitative and quantitative data analyses, and • clearly integrate the results of the two or more (qualitative and quantitative) strands of the study into coherent conclusions or inferences that are more comprehensive and meaningful than those of the qualitative or quantitative strands alone.

Editorial: Differing Perspectives on Mixed Methods Research

I n our first editorial, we mentioned how scholars define and conceptualize mixed methods. In the two following editorials, a core assumption in our discussions has been that the terms qualitative, quantitative, and mixed ‘‘methods’’ or ‘‘approaches’’ are used by scholars as proxies representing different meanings, concepts, or dimensions of the research process. Such meanings have included different worldviews (e.g., postpositivism, constructivism, transformative), types of questions (e.g., inductive, deductive, hybrids), types of data collection and analysis strategies (e.g., statistical, thematic analysis), types of mixing (e.g., at many stages in the process of research, at the analysis stage or interpretation stage), and inferences (e.g., meta-inferences, inferences within quantitative and qualitative strands). In response to these many meanings, some authors have begun to conceptualize domains of discussion (Creswell, 2007; Gilbert, 2006; Greene, 2006) about what constitutes mixed methods research. In this editorial, we would like to expand conceptualizations on mixed methods by examining various perspectives that mixed methods scholars have taken when discussing and writing about this topic. We have identified four different (but not necessarily mutually exclusive) perspectives. The first is a method perspective, in which scholars view mixed methods as focused on the process and outcomes of using both qualitative and quantitative methods and types of data. The second is a methodology perspective, in which writers discuss mixed methods as a distinct methodology that integrates aspects of the process of research such as worldview, questions, methods, and inferences or conclusions. The third is a paradigm perspective, in which researchers discuss an overarching worldview or several worldviews that provide a philosophical foundation for mixed methods research. The final and fourth perspective is the practice perspective, in which scholars view mixed methods research as a means or set of procedures to use as they conduct their research designs, whether these designs are survey research, ethnography, or others. By reviewing these four perspectives, we hope to stress the importance of divergent views and discourses as the field of mixed methods research continues to develop (see Freshwater, 2007).

Editorial: Developing Publishable Mixed Methods Manuscripts

With an increasing interest in mixed methods research, an issue of considerable importance has emerged: How do authors report these studies effectively and in publishable form? Although there are some general guidelines for writing manuscripts (e.g., Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Sandelowski, 2003), little formal information is available for guiding authors. It seems to us that up to now, a discussion of what constitutes a strong mixed methods report has, by and large, been pushed to the background, favoring paradigmatic, methodological, and political issues surrounding mixed methods. As also observed by Stange, Crabtree, and Miller (2006), ‘‘The dramatic advances in the scope and sophistication of conducting mixed methods research have not been met with parallel progress in ways of disseminating the results of mixed methods studies’’ (p. 292). When we reflect on this issue, we cannot help but note that we have received numerous requests from scholars across the globe, asking us for exemplary manuscripts that may be used as models for writing publishable mixed manuscripts. Two (not mutually exclusive) groups of scholars are usually identifiable in these requests: (a) those who are trying to write manuscripts that might be accepted for publication and (b) instructors of research and evaluation methodology in graduate programs who are trying to teach their students how to report mixed methods studies. We believe that it is timely to bring this issue to the forefront of our discussions about mixed methods. Stange et al. (2006) have suggested various strategies for effectively disseminating mixed methods studies, ranging from publishing the qualitative and quantitative components in separate journals to developing online discussion forums. Publication of JMMR provides an outlet for disseminating mixed methods findings and discussions. An issue in need of discussion is how to effectively present the mixed methods results in a single manuscript with the potential to be accepted for publication. Therefore, we are writing this editorial with two related purposes: (a) to start a dialog among scholars about the attributes of strong mixed methods manuscripts and (b) to provide some general guidelines for authors who are planning to submit papers to JMMR. We feel that attention to this issue builds on our last editorial in Volume 1, Issue 1 exploring the definition of mixed methods research. One way to start this discussion is to summarize the attributes of successful and unsuccessful submissions to JMMR and use manuscripts published as specific illustrations. We have had a full year to review manuscripts submitted to JMMR, and we are delighted with the outpouring of responses by authors and the submission of high-quality manuscripts. We have reflected on the types of manuscripts submitted, and we have examined extensive feedback from our Editorial Board and external reviewers to more than 100 manuscripts that we have received thus far. We broadly classify the manuscripts that we have received into the two categories of original studies (or empirical research studies) and theoretical and Journal of Mixed Methods Research Volume 1 Number 2 April 2007 107-111 2007 Sage Publications 10.1177/1558689806298644 http://jmmr.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Putting the Human Back in ‘‘Human Research Methodology’’: The Researcher in Mixed Methods Research

When we were asked to write an editorial for Journal of Mixed Methods Research, the request came as an invitation to share some of our ‘‘insights’’ about mixed methodology and its trajectory, based on our experiences with the second edition of the Handbook of Mixed Methods in the Social and Behavioral Sciences (hereafter referred to as the Handbook; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). In this editorial, we share with our current readers some of the personal reflections, intellectual challenges, and professional struggles that we experienced during what we have called ‘‘the journey.’’ It is hoped that these reflections will summarize and expand on the comments we made in the Preface and Epilogue of the Handbook. We chose the title for this editorial for at least two reasons. One is that we would like to share our own reflections as human researchers, hoping to demonstrate that we have evolved from technocrats to methodologists. Second, we hope to convey our belief in the fact that human researchers are, more than anything else, human themselves. As such, they enjoy the capabilities of human problem solvers, while trying to identify and reduce the perils and pitfalls that are at times evident in our day-to-day problem solving. We will suggest that mixed methods capitalize on these capabilities, while also increasing the potential for credible and trustworthy conclusions.

Common "Core" Characteristics of Mixed Methods Research: A Review of Critical Issues and Call for Greater Convergence

A controversy in the mixed methods community concerns the existence of core characteristics of the field. The authors believe that contemporary characteristics exist, which will evolve as advances in the research field emerge. The authors discuss four characteristics and issues related to them. Methodological eclecticism describes mixed methodologists as connoisseurs of methods who expertly employ qualitative/quantitative techniques in their toolbox. Pedagogical and practical issues are considered in terms of how mixed methodologists are trained to conduct research. The second characteristic, paradigm pluralism, rejects the “incompatibility thesis” that had linked theoretical with methodological traditions. The authors contend that more than one paradigm can underlie mixed methods and discuss this further. The section on an integrative, cyclical approach to research discusses the contexts of justification and discovery and their interrelationship. The final characteristic is a set of research designs and analytical processes that were developed by mixed methodologists and distinguish it from other traditions.

Editorial: Mixed methodology across disciplines

With this issue, the Journal of Mixed Methods Research celebrates its first birthday in existence. We had an exciting and successful 1st year, and we hope to continue the scholarly level of discourse and dialogue. Editorials in the first issue were predominantly our way of sharing our understanding of the way things were developing in the emerging field of integrated research. We examined a few broad issues such as the definition of mixed methods, mixed methods research questions, and general domains of discourse among mixed methods researchers and methodologists. We hope to continue our editorials in the coming year by focusing on more specific topics, with the idea of generating discussions and ultimately developing common grounds in these specific areas. Some of these topics/issues in need of refocusing or further development are standards for evaluating the adequacy of mixed methods studies, the credibility of findings, teaching of research methods and specifically integrated research methods, and utilizing mixed methods in dissertations. We will also focus in our editorials on guidelines for authors submitting to JMMR, such as the types of contributions that will add to the ‘‘field’’ of mixed methods research. What does it mean when we ask authors to provide an empirical or methodological article that ‘‘adds’’ to the literature? An issue of considerable debate in the past year was the nature of integration/mixing. Various authors have recently commented on the enduring debate regarding feasibility by asking, ‘‘Is mixed methods possible?’’ The answer in the past few years has been that ‘‘it depends on what is being integrated or mixed.’’ The question now seems to be shifting to ‘‘What does mixing mean?’’ and ‘‘Are there discipline-specific mixed methods?’’ Discipline utilization of mixed methods has been reviewed and discussed in various fields of study (for example, see Brewer & Hunter, 2006, for sociology; Rao & Woolcock, 2004, in international development; and Waszak & Sines, 2003, in psychology). We would like to focus this editorial on a specific aspect of this cross-disciplinary utilization of mixed methods: Is there a field of mixed methodology that transcends disciplinary boundaries? This focus follows our previous editorial (Creswell & Tashakkori, 2007), suggesting that some of the developments in the ‘‘field’’ of mixed methodology have emerged in a ‘‘bottom-up’’ manner from the pragmatic needs of researchers and evaluators in various fields. Pushing this idea a bit further is the view of an international development specialist. Vijayendra Rao has recently suggested that mixed methods has emerged almost independently in various disciplines (personal communication, 2007). Rao calls this the ‘‘disciplinarization of mixed-methods.’’ According to Rao, this

Editorial: How Do Research Manuscripts Contribute to the Literature on Mixed Methods?

When we created the ‘‘call’’ for manuscripts at the JMMR Web site (www.jmmr/ sagepub.com), our intent was and continues to be to promote an ‘‘open dialogue’’ about what constitutes mixed methods research, to encourage diversity of perspectives, and to honor the variation in approaches to research. This theme of inclusiveness has played throughout our editorial commentaries for JMMR. We also added into the ‘‘call’’ the expectations that empirical articles (those that report empirical research) will ‘‘add to the literature on mixed methods research.’’ What do we mean by this statement? Much more frequently than we would like, we return manuscripts to authors with a statement such as, ‘‘This manuscript does not adequately add to the literature and discussion about mixed methods research.’’ As we address this issue, our focus in this editorial will be primarily on submissions of empirical, mixed methods research studies such as studies coming in to JMMR from sociology, psychology, social work, family medicine, and others in which the authors advance research studies that illustrate an application of mixed methods research.

Editorial: Envisioning the Future Stewards of the Social-Behavioral Research Enterprise

Over the past few years, a tremendous amount of literature has appeared about various aspects of integrated methodology, including its conceptualization, methods of study, and utilization for addressing complex policy and practice decisions. Although the issue of pedagogy has been addressed by a few scholars (Earley, 2007; Creswell, Tashakkori, Jensen, & Shapley, 2003; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003), a serious discussion of how to prepare scholars in research methodology is relatively uncharted, especially in the mixed methods literature. From one point of view, there have been calls for abandoning the practice of encouraging graduate students into qualitative or quantitative tracks (Newman & Benz, 1998; Richardson, 2006; Teddlie & Tashakkori, in press). From another point of view, there are numerous indications from reviewing graduate programs that ‘‘tracking’’ of doctoral students into qualitative and quantitative training paths is still practiced across social and behavioral sciences. As the pace of life is increasing in the 21st century, research problems are becoming more and more complex. However, a new generation of scholars has emerged in the past decade who are the products of the ‘‘paradigm wars’’ of late past century. These scholars often identify themselves as ‘‘qualitative’’ or ‘‘quantitative’’ researchers, and often have a history of being mentored in either of the two broad approaches. They are found worldwide in institutions of higher education and/or in research and development agencies across social, behavioral, and health sciences. The outlets in which they publish in have increasingly been channeled into the dichotomy. The dichotomy can be easily observed in doctoral education, hiring practices in institutions of higher education, tenure and promotion committees, and national and international conferences. We see clear trends in the institutions we visit and the communications we receive, indicating that this new generation of scholars and mentors are increasingly ‘‘tracking’’ themselves, their educational programs, their students, and their mentorship communities into the dichotomy as well. Examination of some programs would easily reveal that it is possible for a doctoral student to graduate without having taken one course in qualitative methodology. Similarly, we have seen doctoral graduates who have not taken a course in quantitative methods of research. This Editorial is a call for a reexamination of these practices, and a call to examine possible ways to prevent their negative impact on the preparation of future scholars. We believe that the credibility and usefulness of research in the social and behavioral sciences depends on establishing ‘‘communities of scholars’’ (Descombe, 2008; Morgan, 2007; Walker, Golde, Jones, Conklin Bueschel, & Hutchings, 2006) in which our future ‘‘stewards of the discipline’’ (Walker et al., 2006) are mentored. We believe that a diverse and eclectic training in research methodology would provide an optimal environment for these ‘‘stewards’’ to flourish. We think that the time is right for addressing how to prepare such a generation of scholars who are skilled in the critical examination of our increasingly complex problems and able to utilize a diverse array of Journal of Mixed Methods Research Volume 2 Number 4 October 2008 291-295

Narrowing the Gap: Effects of a Two-Way Bilingual Education Program on the Literacy Development of At-Risk Primary Students

Children with limited English proficiency are known to be at higher risk of school failure than their peers. Risk starts early, and the achievement lag of these children often widens with age and progression in the educational system. This study attempted to determine the effects of a 2-way bilingual education program on the literacy development of at-risk kindergarten students who had lower English proficiency and were in a higher failure risk bracket than a comparison group who had higher initial English competence and participated in regular education. Students in the experimental group were instructed in English approximately 70% of the time and in Spanish approximately 30% of the time. At the end of the 1st grade, no statistically significant differences were found between the 2 groups on the Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) or a combination of 6 other indicators of English literacy development.

Iranian Adolescents' Intended Age of Marriage and Desired Family Size

Questionnaire data pertaining to intended age of marriage and desired family size were collected from 687 Iranian 12th graders (392 females and 295 males) ranging in age from 17 to 21 years. 2 sets of predictor variables were used in regression analyses of the data collected: distal variables primarily family-level including parental education number of siblings family modernity and parental power; and proximal individual-level variables including self-concept traditionalism school success and sex of subject. In predictions addressing both of the dependent measures distal factors were not as strong direct predictors as were proximal factors. For example with regard to desired family size proximal variables of traditional attitudes boy preference and self-esteem explain the variance that is related to more distal variables such as parental education and number of siblings and add to the variance explained by these distal variables. Results suggest that proximal variables not only must be taken into consideration in predicting intentions and behaviors but that these are highly critical variables that cannot be ignored and they deserve a significant role in models attempting to predict important population attitudes and behaviors.