Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry

Abstract

The development of a methodology for inquiry into human affairs requires consideration of four interlocking, but nonetheless conceptually distinct domains. Each domain contains a set of issues that are relevant and important to the practice of social inquiry. Collectively, the domains present a justificatory framework and a set of practical guidelines for a given approach to social inquiry. The burgeoning literature in mixed methods approaches to social inquiry engages all four domains, but somewhat unevenly. This is also so for the papers presented in this special issue of Research in the Schools. This concluding article first offers a brief portrait of the requisite domains for a social inquiry methodology, and then connects each of the papers in this special issue to these domains. Comments on priority future directions for the continued development of a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry conclude the discussion. What Constitutes a Methodology for Social Inquiry? A methodology for social inquiry engages four domains of issues and assumptions: philosophical assumptions and stances, inquiry logics, guidelines for practice, and sociopolitical commitments in science. Each domain is briefly described below. Domain 1 – Philosophical Assumptions and Stances A social science methodology is importantly rooted in issues that are the substance of the philosophy of science, in particular, assumptions about the nature of the social world (ontology) and about the nature of warranted social knowledge (epistemology). This domain also includes stances regarding related issues, such as objectivity and subjectivity, the role of context and contingency in social knowing, and the relationship between the knower and the known. In addition to these traditionally paradigmatic issues, this domain encompasses broader facets of an inquirer's own mental model (Phillips, 1996; Smith, 1997), such as value commitments and the perspectives and core constructs of particular disciplines, for example, "disequilibrium" as a catalyst for growth in human development and "maximization of satisfaction" as the fulcrum of consumer decision making in economics. Domain 1 thus guides the inquirer's gaze to look at particular things in particular ways and offers appropriate philosophical and theoretical justification for this way of seeing, observing, and interpreting.

Full text

Copyright 2006 by the RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS
Mid-South Educational Research Association 2006, Vol. 13, No.1, 93-98
Toward a Methodology of Mixed Methods Social Inquiry
Jennifer C. Greene
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
The development of a methodology for inquiry into human affairs requires consideration of four
interlocking, but nonetheless conceptually distinct domains. Each domain contains a set of issues that
are relevant and important to the practice of social inquiry. Collectively, the domains present a
justificatory framework and a set of practical guidelines for a given approach to social inquiry. The
burgeoning literature in mixed methods approaches to social inquiry engages all four domains, but
somewhat unevenly. This is also so for the papers presented in this special issue of Research in the
Schools. This concluding article first offers a brief portrait of the requisite domains for a social
inquiry methodology, and then connects each of the papers in this special issue to these domains.
Comments on priority future directions for the continued development of a methodology of mixed
methods social inquiry conclude the discussion.
What Constitutes a Methodology for Social Inquiry?
A methodology for social inquiry engages four
domains of issues and assumptions: philosophical
assumptions and stances, inquiry logics, guidelines for
practice, and sociopolitical commitments in science.
Each domain is briefly described below.
Domain 1 – Philosophical Assumptions and Stances
A social science methodology is importantly
rooted in issues that are the substance of the philosophy
of science, in particular, assumptions about the nature
of the social world (ontology) and about the nature of
warranted social knowledge (epistemology). This
domain also includes stances regarding related issues,
such as objectivity and subjectivity, the role of context
and contingency in social knowing, and the
relationship between the knower and the known. In
addition to these traditionally paradigmatic issues, this
domain encompasses broader facets of an inquirer’s
own mental model (Phillips, 1996; Smith, 1997), such
as value commitments and the perspectives and core
constructs of particular disciplines, for example,
“disequilibrium” as a catalyst for growth in human
development and “maximization of satisfaction” as the
fulcrum of consumer decision making in economics.
Domain 1 thus guides the inquirer’s gaze to look at
particular things in particular ways and offers
appropriate philosophical and theoretical justification
for this way of seeing, observing, and interpreting.
Domain 2 – Inquiry Logics
Domain 2 constitutes what is commonly called
“methodology” in social science. For a given approach
to social inquiry, this domain identifies appropriate
inquiry purposes and questions, broad inquiry
strategies and designs, sampling preferences and logic,
criteria of quality for both methodology and inference,
and defensible forms of writing and reporting. The role
and location of the inquirer in the study is also
delineated in this domain. Further, this domain presents
logics of justification for each of these components of
social inquiry and especially for their interconnections.
A strong inquiry logic is substantiated by coherence
and connection among the constituent parts. The
separate parts need to fit together and work together to
enable – from the perspective of a given inquiry
approach – defensible data gathering, analysis, and
interpretation.
Domain 2 thus structures the inquirer’s gaze, so
that what is important to see (as defined in Domain 1)
is observed, recorded, and understood or explained in
defensible ways. Domain 2 offers a kind of geographic
information system (GIS) positioning of the inquirer in
the inquiry context and also offers navigational tools
that substantially direct the inquirer’s journey in that
context.
Correspondence should be addressed to Jennifer C.
Greene, College of Education at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 230C Education
Building, 1310 S. 6th St., MC 708, Champaign, IL
61820. Email: jcgreene@uiuc.edu.
Spring 2006 RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS
93

TOWARD A METHODOLOGY OF MIXED METHODS SOCIAL INQUIRY
Domain 3 – Guidelines for Practice
Domain 3 offers specific guidelines for inquiry
practice. The philosophical assumptions and logics of
inquiry that comprise domains one and two are
translated into particular inquiry steps and procedures
in Domain 3. Domain 3 is the “how to” of social
science inquiry. This includes, for example, alternative
inquiry designs, sampling strategies, and analysis
techniques that meet the broad parameters specified in
Domain 2. In Domain 3 are also located the specific
methods of data gathering, analysis, interpretation, and
reporting, for example, alternative interviewing
techniques (e.g., life history interviewing, group
interviewing) and various statistical procedures (e.g.,
simultaneous regression, hierarchical linear modeling).
Domain 3 thus provides the specific tools and
procedures – the water bottle, hiking boots, and trail
map – needed to enact the journey framed by Domain 1
and mapped by Domain 2.
Domain 4 – Sociopolitical Commitments
Finally, in Domain 4, the location of the inquiry in
society is articulated and defended. Whose interests
should be served by this particular approach to social
inquiry, and why? Where is this inquiry located in
society? Does the study contribute to collective
theoretical knowledge; is it a “knowledge producer”?
Does it advise governmental decision makers? Is the
study located in a protected space, separate and apart
from the political fray? Or is it located in the midst of
contestation, in a position of social critique or
advocacy for particular interests and positions? While
Domain 4 is clearly not independent from the other
domains, especially Domain 1, the role of social
science in society is a distinctive issue.
In the past, science of all kinds was assumed to
serve a knowledge generation, testing, and refinement
role. The mostly uncontested purpose of science was to
generate knowledge that could then be applied to the
improvement of society, in material, economic, or
other ways. Yet, today, there are recognized inquiry
paradigms for social science – notably, various forms
of feminism, critical race theory, and LatCrit – that
themselves embody distinctive sociopolitical stances.
Feminisms privilege the well being of women, and
critical race theory occupies a stance of social critique
about institutional racism in American society. For
other paradigms, sociopolitical location is
circumscribed but not completely defined. For
example, an interpretivist paradigm acknowledges the
multiplicity and contextuality of social knowing and
thus inherently values multiple perspectives, while a
post-positivist paradigm seeks generalizable causal
knowledge and thus inherently privileges cross-context
recurring regularities in human action.
Domain 4 thus importantly directs the inquirer’s
journey toward a particular destination, as it identifies
priority roles for social science in society and provides
values-based rationales and meanings for the practice
of social inquiry. While values are present in all four
domains, they are proclaimed in Domain 4.
Interconnections, Coherence, and Persuasiveness
A methodology for social inquiry gains credibility
and persuasiveness when all of these domains act in
concert with one another, when their interlocking
connections are smooth and well oiled, when the
overall presentation is strong, coherent, well articulated
and thus persuasive.
An experimental approach to social inquiry is one
example of a strong, coherent foundation for inquiry
with tightly interconnected logics of justification,
positioning, procedures, and rationales.
Experimentalism is rooted in a post-positivist
philosophy (Domain 1), which espouses a realist view
of the social world and an objective, though fallible,
stance on social knowledge. The primary purpose of
science in society in the experimental tradition is to
develop, test, and refine theory, particularly causal and
explanatory theory in the Humean tradition (Domain
4). So, priority questions for social inquiry are casual
questions about the effects or outcomes of a particular
human action, experience, or social intervention. And
the randomized experiment is viewed as the best
methodology for testing causal hypotheses (Domain 2),
as experimentation helps control for many rival
hypotheses in the real world and certain biases and
errors in human judgment. Experimentation today is
well supported by sophisticated procedures of
randomization, statistical control, and statistical
analyses (Domain 3).
The interpretive case study (Stake, 1995) is
another example of a well articulated social inquiry
tradition. Rooted in an interpretivist philosophy, the
case study approach assumes that the social world, and
human actions therein, are guided in part by social
constructions of meaning, and so social knowledge is
contextual, dynamic, and pluralistic (Domain 1).
Interpretive case studies seek not generalizable causal
explanations but contextual understanding of the
meaningfulness in human experience (Domain 4). A
case study methodology honors these assumptions of
contextuality and meaning and guides the inquirer to
construct and re-interpret an inside or emic portrait of
meaningfulness in that context (Domain 2). Case study
inquiry itself is well supported today by techniques of
purposeful sampling and methods of qualitative data
gathering, and by attention to inquirer reflexivity about
the presence of the “self” in the study (Domain 3).
Similar portraits can be offered for other well
developed methodological traditions, including action
research, participatory action research, survey research,
and narrative inquiry. A methodology – or perhaps
Spring 2006 RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS
94

JENNIFER C. GREENE
multiple methodologies – for mixed methods social
inquiry is still in the developmental stages.
Development of a Methodology for Mixed Methods
Social Inquiry
So, how do the articles in this special issue take up
the various challenges of developing an overall
methodology for mixed methods social inquiry? What
domains are represented in this set of articles? And
how are these authors engaging with the distinct
challenges of each domain?
The Busiest Site of Development is Domain 2
The preponderance of developmental work
represented in this collection of papers on a mixed
methods approach to social inquiry is in Domain 2, the
site for identification and justification of the broad
methodological framework for a given tradition.
Included in this domain are issues of inquiry purpose
and audience, priority inquiry questions, broad inquiry
designs, sampling preferences and logic, criteria for
judging quality of both method and inference,
defensible forms of writing and reporting, and inquirer
role. In the remainder of this section, I discuss the
articles that I interpret to be primarily discussions of
Domain 2 issues. These articles address issues of
central importance to Domain 2: design, research
synthesis, and validity.
Robert K. Yin’s article makes three primary
arguments, all of which pertain to issues of inquiry
design. Specifically, Yin’s argument engages three
continuing issues in mixed methods design. First,
should methods be mixed within a given study or only
across studies (e.g., Morse, 2003)? Here Yin argues
that the essence of a mixed methods approach is its
contributions to convergence in inquiry findings (as in
a triangulation design), which only makes sense when
methods are mixed within a single study. Mixing
methods across studies, Yin argues, “resemble[s] well-
trodden paths involving research syntheses (e.g.,
Cooper & Hedges, 1994), meta-analyses (e.g., Lipsey
& Wilson, 2001),” (p. 41) or similar “aggregative
procedures” and should therefore not be considered
mixed methods inquiry. Second, what kinds of
methodological mixes should be included in a
definition of mixed methods inquiry? Yin argues that
mixes should not be restricted to different qualitative
and quantitative methods, but should also include
different methods within a given tradition (as in
interviewing and observation). This issue is related to
discussions of the differences between mixing methods
and mixing models, offered most thoughtfully by
Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) and Teddlie and
Tashakkori (2003; this volume). Third, when and how
should methods be integrated in a study? Here, Yin
argues for integration throughout the course of a study,
claiming “the more that a single study integrates mixed
methods … the more that mixed methods research, as
opposed to multiple studies, is taking place” (p. 42).
Some of the specifics of Yin’s discussion on this third
point are also related to the “how to” of social inquiry
or Domain 3.
The article by Charles Teddlie and Abbas
Tashakkori offers another iteration in their thoughtful,
stimulating, and useful developmental work on
conceptualizing mixed methods design in terms of a
typology that is defined and organized around critical
dimensions of conceptual difference and practical
relevance. Their article engages issues of design
typologies in some depth, including a supporting
argument for the usefulness of design typologies, an
argument for the dimensions included and excluded in
this typology (drawing on relatively extensive work on
design dimensions of importance in mixed methods
studies), and an elaboration and illustration of each of
the designs presented. Interestingly, this typology is
presented for social inquiry more broadly and thus
locates mixed methods work within the general domain
of inquiry designs. This work is central to Domain 2 as
a site of development of a mixed methods approach to
social inquiry.
The article by Margarete Sandelowski, Corrine I.
Voils, and Julie Barroso also engages a centrally
important issue in Domain 2, that of research syntheses
involving studies representing different methodological
traditions. The work draws on the mixed methods
literature as well as on the large body of literature on
research review and synthesis. “Mixed research
synthesis is our name for the type of systematic review
aimed at the integration of results from both qualitative
and quantitative studies in a shared domain of
empirical research,” (p. 29) note these authors. Their
work then engages in some depth and endeavors to
resolve critical challenges generated by the
methodological diversity within and between
qualitative and quantitative inquiry traditions. These
challenges include contextual challenges, such as the
current privileging of “evidence-based” or otherwise
quantitative inquiry results in policy circles and the
frequent cooptation of qualitative inquiry in mixed
methods contexts. These challenges are also
intrinsically methodological, including different
definitions of inquiry quality in different traditions,
different conceptualizations of human phenomena in
different traditions, and continuing debate about the
feasibly of or sensibility of mixing epistemological
paradigms while mixing methods. The response to
these challenges offered by these authors is to mirror in
some important ways the thinking of theorists
regarding mixing within a single study. That is, just as
for single mixed methods studies there are component
and integrated designs (Caracelli & Greene, 1997),
sequential and concurrent designs (Creswell, Plano
Spring 2006 RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS
95

TOWARD A METHODOLOGY OF MIXED METHODS SOCIAL INQUIRY
Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003; Greene, Caracelli,
& Graham, 1989), and conversion designs (Teddlie &
Tashakkori, this volume). Sandelowski et al. offer three
designs for mixed methods research synthesis: the
segregated, integrated, and contingent designs. This
innovative work represents an important step forward
in the contemporary mixed methods conversation
taking place across difference, and it engages
difference in this conversation respectfully and
generatively.
The fourth Domain 2 article in this volume
engages another issue of central importance to a
methodological framework and justification for an
inquiry approach – the formidable but critical issue of
validity. Like Sandelowski et al., Anthony
Onwuegbuzie and Burke Johnson conceptually engage
an underdeveloped but critically important issue of
methodology, namely, what constitutes quality in
mixed methods inquiry, specifically quality related to
inferential claims of truth, credibility, or more
generically validity. Their argument is rooted in their
own particular conceptualization of mixed methods
inquiry as inquiry that “involves combining
complementary strengths and nonoverlapping
weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research,”
(p. 60) and validity in this article thus refers to both
methodological defensibility as well as defensibility of
inferences or conclusions. Building on Teddlie and
Tashakkori’s notion of inference quality (2003),
Onwuegbuzie and Johnson offer the concept of
legitimation as a conceptual framework for mixed
methods validity. They position the legitimation
concept as directly engaging the mixed methods
challenge of integrating data and interpretations from
very different frameworks, stances, methods, samples,
and analyses. These authors then continue by positing
nine distinct types of legitimation, each referring to a
different strand of methodology (e.g., sampling) or to a
different type of mixed methods design (e.g.,
sequential or concurrent). The article further offers
brief windows into other domains; the brief discussion
on pragmatism is related to the philosophical issues in
Domain 1 and the notion of “political legitimation”
represents a tickle in Domain 4. Overall, this article is
rich with generative ideas and possibilities and, like the
Sandelowski et al. article, represents an important step
forward in the development of a methodology for
mixed methods social inquiry.
Domain 3 is the Site of Some Creative Ideas and
Insights
Two of the remaining articles in this special issue
offer creative ideas related primarily to Domain 3, or
how to conduct mixed methods social inquiry. These
are the articles by Pat Bazeley and Huey Chen.
Pat Bazeley’s article addresses the conceptual and
practical challenges of integrated mixed methods data
analysis – that is, analysis of numbers and words – and,
as such, spans issues from both domains two and three.
The specific focus of Bazeley’s work is on computer
software that enables integrated analyses. Yet, her
typology of types of integrated data analysis –
combined, converted, and blended – and her
exceptionally useful examples extend this practical
advice to meaningful conceptual ideas and concepts.
Bazeley strives in her article to “imagine and envision
what might be possible – to tread new paths,” (p. 65)
and she accomplishes in this ambition very well.
Huey T. Chen presents an argument for using a
mixed methods methodology for a theory-driven
approach to program evaluation. Theory-driven
evaluation is framed by the substantive issues at hand,
for example, an intervention strategy to abate substance
abuse among youth or an economic incentive to work
among welfare recipients. This is in contrast to the
customary privileging of methodology in evaluation
studies. Given that substantive issues are inherently
complex, a mixed methods approach is sensible for an
evaluation oriented around issues of substance. Within
this discussion, Chen offers four interesting strategies
for mixing methods in a program theory-driven
evaluation context: switch, complementarity,
contextual overlay, and triangulation assessment. These
methodological ideas, as framed within a specific site
of application, might contribute usefully to the
continued development and empirical critique of mixed
methods strategies.
A Modest Foray Into Domain 1
The article by John Creswell, Ron Shope, Vicki L.
Plano Clark, and Denise O. Green is intended to offer a
counter-argument to recent critiques from leading
qualitative inquirers that mixed methods inquiry
represents a cooptation of the basic premises, stances,
and ambitions of interpretivist, constructivist
qualitative inquiry. Specifically, the critiques maintain
that mixed methods inquiry relegates qualitative
methods to a secondary or auxiliary status and does not
honor or preserve the distinctive philosophical and
value stances of qualitative traditions. The Creswell et
al. article is thus located within the philosophical
arguments that comprise Domain 1. And the authors
construct their counter-argument by (a) citing the
pronouncements of selected qualitative inquirers that
mixed methods inquiry makes ample room for
qualitative logics of justification, (b) offering some
empirical examples of mixed methods inquiry in which
qualitative methods played an important role, and (c)
citing a mixed methods design typology in which
qualitative methods can be an important, even
dominant framework for an empirical study.
The authors further focus on particular dimensions
of interpretive frameworks, namely, empowering
participants and recognizing the historical and socio-
Spring 2006 RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS
96

JENNIFER C. GREENE
political context of the inquiry. While important, these
are not the fundamental philosophical tenets of
interpretive or constructivist ways of knowing; not
addressed are issues of ontology or epistemology nor
how different stances on reality and social knowledge
can co-exist in the same study. So, while offering a
brief engagement with the philosophical concerns of
Domain 1, this article does not venture very far into the
challenging terrain of philosophical frames for making
meaning and knowledge in social inquiry.
A Meaningful Engagement with Domain 4
The final article in this collection, by Valerie
Caracelli, offers a window into the intentional mixing
of methods for better understanding, defined as the
provision of political voice. This article thus engages
with the sociopolitical commitments of Domain 4. In
the article, Caracelli develops an argument for the
importance of including ethnography in federal policy-
relevant evaluation. She first observes that the current
accountability demands and practices within the federal
government narrowly constrain the kinds of evaluation
studies favored and especially the kinds of information
generated in such studies. Notably, neither information
on program processes and participant experiences nor
information on important features of program contexts
is usually collected as part of a randomized experiment.
Yet, this information is required for a "fully
responsive" evaluation that generates "deep
understanding" of particular program experiences and
outcomes in particular contexts.
Moreover, argues Caracelli, ethnography can
complement experimental or other quantitative
methodologies in important ways by providing
valuable information relevant to federal policy making
that extends beyond outcome measurement and
attribution. Ethnographic information can illuminate
organizational culture and transformation, respond
more fully to the multiple criteria actually used by
policy makers in their decisions, and especially can
give voice to the perspectives, experiences, and
realities of program participants and of marginalized
communities. Examples of the latter provided by
Caracelli include a GAO study on immigration, efforts
by the Census to address the "undercounting" of
marginal populations such as the homeless, and studies
of Early Head Start in low-income communities.
Caracelli's recognition of the politics of method and the
potential of mixed methods social inquiry to engage
these politics in service of voice and equity are highly
commendable.
Future Directions
Continued development in all domains of a mixed
methods methodology for social inquiry is needed,
perhaps those especially under-represented in this
collection of articles. While Domain 2 represents a
critically important site for further development, other
sites are less well represented in the contemporary
mixed methods conversation and yet also present
important contexts and issues for creative and
thoughtful developmental work.
In the groundbreaking Handbook of Mixed
Methods, Teddlie and Tashakkori (2003) cited six
important issues in the field. These six issues map well
onto the four domains of methodological development
presented in this discussion. Relevant to Domain 1,
Teddlie and Tashakkori (2003) cited as a key issue in
the field, “the paradigmatic foundations for mixed
methods research.” For Domain 2, these authors cited
“design issues” and “issues in drawing inferences,”
well represented in this volume by the Teddlie and
Tashakkori and the Onwuegbuzie and Johnson articles,
respectively. Connected to Domain 3, the Handbook
editors note the importance of “the logistics of
conducting mixed methods research” and in Domain 4,
“the utility of mixed methods research (why do we do
it?)” (The final issue cited by Teddlie and Tashakkori
refers to language and nomenclature.) I would echo
Teddlie and Tashakkori’s developmental priorities, but
again encourage participants in the mixed methods
conversation to consider needed developments in all
domains.
My additional thoughts about important future
directions for the development and advancement of a
methodology for mixed methods social inquiry include
the following. First, I encourage contributors to this
developmental work to be as welcoming of divergence
and dissonance as of convergence and consonance.
One vitally important role for mixed methods social
inquiry is to trouble taken-for-granted understandings
or assumed common meanings of constructs by
incorporating a diversity of perspectives, voices, values
and stances. In this role, mixed methods inquiry honors
complexity alongside diversity and difference, and
thereby resists simplification of inherently contextual
and complex human phenomena. Convergence and
consonance in the service of stronger validity are
indeed important contributions of mixed methods
inquiry, but so are divergence, dissonance, and
difference. All are valuable and important.
Second, and related to the first point, I encourage
participants in the mixed methods conversation to keep
the debate about the “paradigmatic foundations for
mixed methods research” alive and lively. As many
authors have suggested (including many of the authors
in this volume), there may well be an alternative
paradigm that offers a sensible and substantive
positioning and justification for mixed methods
inquiry. And critical realism (Maxwell, 2004) or
pragmatism (Biesta & Burbules, 2003) may indeed be
strong candidates for such an alternative paradigm.
But, for this argument to be made persuasively, further
Spring 2006 RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS
97

TOWARD A METHODOLOGY OF MIXED METHODS SOCIAL INQUIRY
work is needed on just how such a paradigm shapes
and guides mixed methods practice. For example,
where do the consequential, actionable assumptions
about social knowledge that are advanced in most
pragmatic philosophies show up in practice? What does
such knowledge looks like, and how is it validated? Or
perhaps there is not just one paradigm that
meaningfully justifies and guides mixed methods social
inquiry. Perhaps a distinctive characteristic of a mixed
methods methodology is its paradigmatic pluralism.
Third, it is important for the vitality and viability
of a mixed methods methodology for social inquiry
that it be relevant and useful to multiple domains of
human activity. We therefore need participants and
perspectives from all corners of the social science
community, including traditional academic disciplines
of psychology, sociology, and even economics, as well
as applied fields like nursing, social work, education,
and organizational development. Perhaps current
participants in this developmental effort can invite
colleagues from other fields to join them.
Fourth and finally, the development of a mixed
methods methodology will continue to be dynamic and
open to good ideas and fresh insights if we continue to
honor both theory and practice. Some of the most
generative conceptual ideas about mixing methods
have come from field trials of mixed methods ideas or
analytic reviews of mixed methods practice, most
recently by Katrin Niglas (2004). It is not enough to
think well; we must also demonstrate the value and
importance of a mixed methods way of thinking in our
practice.
The lead editors for this article were R. Burke Johnson
and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie.
References
Bazeley, P. (2006). The contribution of computer
software to integrating qualitative and
quantitative data analyses. Research in the
Schools, 13(1), 64-74.
Biesta, G. J. J., & Burbules, N. C. (2003). Pragmatism
and educational research. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Caracelli, V. J. (2006). Enhancing the policy process
through the use of ethnography and other
study frameworks: A mixed-method strategy.
Research in the Schools, 13(1), 84-92.
Caracelli, V. J., & Greene, J. C. (1997). Crafting
mixed-method evaluation designs. In J.C.
Greene& V. J. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in
mixed- method evaluation: The challenges
and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms
(pp. 19-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chen, H. T. (2006). A theory-driven evaluation
perspective on mixed methods research.
Research in the Schools, 13(1), 75-83.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., &
Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods
research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C.
Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in
social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., Shope, R., Plano Clark, V. L., &
Green, D. O. (2006). How interpretive
qualitative research extends mixed methods
research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 1-11.
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.
Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Realism as a stance for mixed
methods research. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago.
Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and
multimethod research design. In A.
Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of
mixed methods insocial and behavioral
research (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Niglas, K. (2004). The combined use of qualitative and
quantitative methods in educational research.
Dissertation, Faculty of Educational Sciences
Tallinn Pedagogical University, Tallinn,
Estonia.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2006). The
validity issue in mixed research. Research in
the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.
Phillips, D. C. (1996). Philosophical perspectives. InD.
C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook
of educational psychology (pp. 1005-1019).
Old Tappan, NJ: Macmillan.
Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Barroso, J. (2006).
Defining and designing mixed research
synthesis studies. Research in the Schools,
13(1), 29-40.
Smith, M. L. (1997). Mixing and matching: Methods
and models. In J. C. Greene & V. J. Caracelli
(Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation:
The challenges and benefits of integrating
diverse paradigms. New Directions for
Evaluation 74 (pp. 73-85). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed
methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Spring 2006 RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS
98

JENNIFER C. GREENE
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and
controversies in the use of mixed methods in
the social and behavioral sciences. In A.
Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook
of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general
typology of research designs featuring mixed
methods. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 12-
28.
Yin, R. K. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are
methods genuinely integrated or merely
parallel? Research in the Schools, 13(1), 41-
47.
Spring 2006 RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS
99