Kathleen M. T. Collins

A Mixed Methods Investigation of Mixed Methods Sampling Designs in Social and Health Science Research.

A sequential design utilizing identical samples was used to classify mixed methods studies via a two-dimensional model, wherein sampling designs were grouped according to the time orientation of each studys components and the relationship of the qualitative and quantitative samples. A quantitative analysis of 121 studies representing nine fields in the social or health sciences revealed that more studies utilized a sampling design that was concurrent (66.1%) than sequential (33.9%). Also, identical sampling designs were the most prevalent, followed by nested sampling, multilevel sampling, and parallel sampling, respectively. Qualitative analysis suggested that across a number of studies the researchers made statistical generalizations that were not sufficiently warranted—culminating in interpretive inconsistency and contributing to crises of representation, legitimation, integration, and politics.

Practice note: Using debriefing interviews to promote authenticity and transparency in mixed research

Abstract Our goal in this editorial is to promote transparency in mixed research by detailing how to conduct d ebriefing interviews throughout the research process to document the degree that quality criteria are designed and implemented. First, we examine the role of transparency in establishing credibility of findings and conclusions. We provide a rationale for using debriefing interviews to elevate transparency in mixed research. Second, we discuss the process of peer debriefing in the context of qualitative studies because it is this context that formed the catalyst for developing a debriefing interview protocol. Third, we apply in the context of mixing approaches, five authenticity criteria (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) developed in accordance with a constructivist tradition. We present a debriefing interview technique accompanied by example interview questions to document the degree that researchers have met, in practice, these five quality criteria and other quality criteria such as philosophical clarity and incorporation of multiple standpoints. We conclude by discussing the process and benefits of debriefing interviews in mixed research studies.

Is mixed research science?: Empirical evidence from the field of educational research

Abstract The purpose of the current study was to evidence how ‘mixing’ is interpreted by researchers and to draw interpretations that would continue to map how mixed research contributes to the advancement of scientific inquiry. The data source consisted of peer-reviewed abstracts of mixed research papers that were accepted for presentation at the 2012 annual meeting of AERA in Vancouver, British Columbia. A parallel mixed analysis was implemented in two phases. Phase 1, descriptive data were compiled (frequencies percentages) detailing the prevalence of mixed research topics in the abstracts. Phase 2, a content analysis involving a text analysis was implemented, and the results were analyzed utilizing within-case and cross-case analyses. Specifically, each abstract (i.e., case) was read and the abstract’s content and the author-generated descriptors were used in tandem to generate a context that specified the focus of each topic (i.e., contextual descriptors). Additionally, to ascertain the methodological focus of each abstract, the abstracts were categorized in accordance to the three components comprising Teddlie and Tashakkori’s (2010) ‘Emerging ‘Map’ of Mixed Methods Research. To continue further this line of documentation, each of the seven articles in this special issue was mapped to one of three components comprising the map. Results indicated a balance of educational topics categorized across the three components. Implications are discussed in the context of responding to the question ‘Is Mixed Research Science?’

Comedian Hosts and the Demotic Turn

Podcasting is a showcase for what cultural studies scholar Graeme Turner coined ‘the demotic turn’ or the increasing visibility of the ‘ordinary person’ in the today’s media landscape. Collins argues that the emergence of a particular breed of podcasts—comedian-hosted interviews with celebrities—function in an ‘off-label’ manner as a form of self-help or vicarious therapy. The emergence and rapid growth of this genre can be attributed to three main factors: a confessional culture, the triumph of experience over expertise, and the democratisation allowed by the form’s technology. She explores the link between emotional intimacy and comedy, and analyses podcasts like Marc Maron’s WTF that are, in expression, a rejection of the pedestal version of stardom.

Book Review: Television’s Moment: Sitcom Audiences and the Sixties Cultural Revolution by Christina von HodenbergTelevision’s Moment: Sitcom Audiences and the Sixties Cultural Revolution. von HodenbergChristina. New York, New York: Berghahn, 2015. 342 pp.

herself notes, especially about the dissemination and impact of global content. The book could offer more direction in its very first pages, in regard to what to expect while reading or perusing the chapters. Finally, for a scholar audience member, additional methodological detail is necessary. For instance, when Chapter 3 lays out the analytical foci on headlines, social media, and interviews, little explanation of method is offered (yet Chapter 4 accomplishes this task better). Given the rich grounding in theory and the abundant sourcing of materials, the contrast with the level of detail in method is notable. Readers of this journal and scholars of mass communication and international media will benefit from the regional focus on American, European, and Arab locales— and I envision similar, related analyses emerging in the coming years. The book is necessary for those academics and professionals who seek to understand and explain how media makers grapple with a globalizing world, connected spaces and ideologies, different subjects to report about, and most generally with change.