Questions related to Mixed Methods
To define quantitative analysis as such in a mixed methods approach, is it necessary to include a regression analysis?
How do you write an OBJECTIVE with a Moderating variable, considering that its a mixed method study?
I'm conducting an explanatory mixed methods study, which requires me to select my qualitative phase participants from my quantitative phase.
I have two sets of data for my quantitive study: a large national dataset from 2009 and a contemporary (smaller) dataset from distributing the same survey.
I'm wondering if 1) it is acceptable to add the new participants to the larger data set before doing quantitative analysis and 2) if I could then choose my qualitative sample from the contemporary participants as a purposive sample? I recognize I will need to address all of this in my limitations section (merging data that is 10 years apart, etc.) but I'm more interested in the technicality of "can I do it?"
For additional context: my current sample is small and recruitment has been going poorly so I'm trying to find a solution that keeps me moving ahead in my study but won't be an issue later.
I would be interested in what you see as the advantages and disadvantages of mixed-methods research in the social sciences. Do you do research with a mixture or combination of e.g. qualitative and quantitative research? Do you combine different quantitative or qualitative methods?
What challenges do you face (e.g., sampling, implementation, scope) and where do you see the limitations of the combination?
I am conducting a qualitative study with semi structured interviews (N=10), and the method of analysis is thematic analysis. In my questionnaire, I included 3 dichotomous questions related to participants' knowledge, education and experience. I would like to present the data on a likert scale. Could that be possible? Preferably, I would not like to change my method to a mixed method analysis.
Thank you very much.
Dear fellow researchers,
Usually we use lavaan for continuous variable, so can we still use lavaan for categorical variable (e.g. high and low ethnic diversity composition)?
Thank you very much!
Exploring challenges and prospects of online assessment at higher education. I want to explore challenges by students and prospects by teachers so please guide me accordingly
In an Exploratory Sequential Mixed Method Research, I have done qualitative research in stage 1.
I found some new construct, and discover linkage between the new found construct and the constructs under study. After that, based on the findings of qualitative research, I proposed a conceptual framework and I was able to offer some hypothesis.
After that I empirically verified few hypothesis by conducting a Quantitative research.
Now the thesis reviewer criticized that in Literature Review, I should discuss the conceptual framework and the relationships (proposed in the hypothesis). But I found that relationships after I concluded my qualitative research. How should I supposed to know them when I was writing the Literature review.
Please, someone guide me, where I am wrong.
Someone, please guide me, how to write literature review for Mixed method Research.
Greetings, I am a student enrolled in a research class for Arizona State University, and we are discussing the topic of research and evaluation. For this discussion we are drawing from Mertens (2020) Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology. While I believe there is a link and they overlap, research is how we find related tops and information, while evaluation is how we add validity. Mertens stated that research is knowing and understanding while evaluation is the applied inquiry process.
I think we use a mix method approach in our research, to see what may be factual and biased and what may be just theory.
Through different approaches, how can we still maintain the discipline of being objective while not falling into a biased opinion, where we only post, follow or research an opinion that we agree with? Out of the for theories, postpositivism, constructivism, transformative and pragmatic, which would be the most effective in being open and unbiased?
Thank you for your time
Could someone provide some practical examples for the explanation, as I am doing the research as part of my MSC safety and risk management degree? I have chosen mixed-methods surveys, and I was trying to learn about integrating data analyses obtained by surveys and interviews; the participants are kept anonymized.
I am conducting an exploratory mixed methods Ph.D-level investigation that focuses on situating management in online learning and concerns two phases.The concluded qualitative phase (QUAL) yielded a testable framework for the quantitative phase (quan). I need to test the factors that explain learning success when learners study partially or fully in an online environment. The link below gives access to the measurement instrument with items requiring scale responses. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe2xERY-IX6Cx8aOs5hJw82Xe4f0eoeNYLycS9IQy13Gy8mFA/viewform?usp=sf_link
Given the insular nature educational institutions, I need the help of research practitioners to reach persons who have studied fully or partly online or are doing so. All persons around the world aged 13 and above who have completed all or part of their academic- or professional units, courses, or programs online, and those who are self-taught using online repositories, are eligible to participate in this study. Respondents' identities will be kept secret and their responses will not be divulged to third parties. Only the aggregated data from the entire study shall be analyzed to answer the research questions.
Thank you for your willingness to support this cause.
Victor Avasi Ph.D. Candidate Instructional Design and Open Learning Euclid University, Gambia
Hi, I am writing a project on the impact of COVID 19 on consumer buying behaviour and initially i was going to use a qualitative research method coupled with a secondary data collection but i noticed from most of the available research online, scholars have used various methods such as quantitative, mixed method etc to approach their objectives. What i would like to know pls is what is the best research method to approach my topic, should i use a systematic literature review and do i necessarily need a peer group to carry on with this, if so what are the best alternative option available. A reply will be much appreciated as i have a limited time to carry out this research
All quant/quali research project have a literature review component which selects relevant literature for writing Introduction or discussion part. However if one is using scoping review as well as qualitative interviews to answer the research question and the methods are clearly written in the methodology section with an aim to present the results of both scoping review and qualitative research, can this be called a mixed methods research. Or is the use of two methods like this rational at all in terms of study design.
We are intending to do this for our student research but have not seen examples of these kinds of methodology so far.
Can you good people share your thoughts and also share some papers if you think this is reasonable and have seen this being done somewhere?
I'm currently working on defining the research design for my master's thesis and unfortunately I'm struggling a bit. In my master's thesis, I want to research a possible positioning of a start-up in the coffee market. I would like to interview potential customers to get an understanding of their wants, needs, etc. and then finally define the USP, the value proposition, or the positioning against the competition. I have already read some of the literature and the mixed method theory makes sense to me because I can bring more certainty to my research. However, I now have the question of which approach I should choose here? I thought it would make the most sense to first conduct an explorative interview, from which I can then derive concrete requirements and then formulate hypotheses, such as: With coffee, it is more important to me that it is sustainable than that it is cheap.
However, I have read in the literature that this approach is called a pre-study when, for example, a questionnaire is developed in psychology. I think the word pre-study irritates me because I don't want to do one. Do you think that the proposed research design could apply to my application?
I say thank you for your help in advance!
I am conduction an exploratory sequential design study, and the students in the experiment are 30. Can I conduct a questionnaire to the same students as a quantitative instrument THOUGH THE NUMBER IS NOT THAT BIG AS A QUANTITATIVE STUDY.
I am a qualitative research newbie. This study is for my doctoral dissertation. I am interviewing music professors about their experiences working with student musicians who have an occupational injury. I wish to understand and discuss the themes that emerge most frequently from the interviews of my 15 subjects. Does analysis of my interview data using the code frequency method mean that my research is both qualitative and quantitative?
I have a question about what constitutes mix methods research. If a research project uses a case study methodology and also analyzes statistical data, can this be considered a mixed methods approach. On one hand it seems that it might because it uses the qualitative method of a case study (the qualitative part) with some analyzing of statistics (the quantitative part). However, if no actual qualitative data was collected or analyzed, would this research simply just be considered a case study with some statistics?
Mixed-methods researchers promote pragmatism as a paradigm by suggesting that it is directly linked to the needs of mixed-methods research. Scholars maintain that pragmatism provides a philosophical foundation for social science research, in general, and mixed-methods research, in particular (Morgan 2014a).
Many researchers still believe that mixed methodology should be done separately.
What is the take on the pragmatic approach where mixed methods adopt the use of both methods using one instrument/tool to collect data at the same time? This will either be QUANT+qual or QUAL+quant.
Looking for quant or mixes method psychological distress measures to assess climate or environmental distress in extractive settings. Any recommendation most welcome.
I use two research methods in my thesis (quantitative and qualitative), which focus on different samples (the offer side and the demand side).
How should I organize the research methodology section in this case?
Should I (1) divide it in two sections (one for the first research methodology, the second for the second one), or should I (2) keep the standard outline and just introduce the two approaches, data collection methods and samplings one after the other within these sub-sections?
The second option seems less optimal in my opinion, as it can create confusion, but I am afraid choosing the first one is not standard enough.
Sorry in advance if this is a basic question.
I am designing my study which will use Hall's encoding/ decoding model. I am using mixed methods to answer my research question which is :
Q1 How are social media platforms are used compared to what the developers intended?
My research design is as you can see have four phases( attached) phase 1: will analyse the platforms by a qual methodology, phase two will analyse the usage of the platforms (Quan), phase three will analyse the perceived meaning (Qual) and phase four will be the integration of the data.
My question is: What type of mixed methods is that? and as I am not following any mixed-methods typology, is it acceptable?
The thesis comprise of three papers:
1. Paper 1 survey data
2. Paper 2 semi structured interviews
3. Paper 3 semi structured interviews
Kindly seeking clarification. When writing a PhD thesis, following a mixed method approach and quan-qual convergent design with regard to objectives, hypothesis and research questions, what is acceptable? Can one only have objectives and corresponding hypotheses or is it ok to have both hypotheses and a research question covering the qualitative data.
Will appreciate your feedback
Chuka University, Kenya
I am conducting mixed-methods cross-cultural research on an organizational phenomenon in two different countries, specifically an exploratory sequential design.
However, I managed to finalize the interviews in one country but could not find a sufficient number of interviews in the other country. Thus, due to the time limit, I was thinking of considering the interviews I have in hand in country A (where we have no idea about the phenomena), analyze them and inform surveys to be distributed in country B along with country A to see whether the participants in country B perceived the phenomena the same way it's perceived in country A.
But, as far as I know, in mixed methods, we need to apply both methods (e.g., interviews and surveys) in both samples, meaning we can't use one method in one sample but not in the other one.
So, my question is: is it possible to do what is suggested above? or will the samples be underrepresented in this case? What other solutions I can adopt to overcome this weakness?
can I use a combination of a vignette (for one variable i.e. dependent variable) with a self-report survey questionnaire (for all other variables IVs, Mediators, and moderators)? if I can what types of analysis and software for that analysis I may use? if I can't what should I do? (scale development is not a good solution, neither scale for survey research is used nor available in previous research for that Dependent variable). I mean can I use a vignette for one variable with a self-report scale for all other variables in combination (it is somehow a mix of experimental and self-report methodology).
I'm trying to analyse some data from my last experiment, where I grew two varieties of potato in a range of pot sizes with well-watered and water-restricted conditions, to see if the size of the pot would affect the relationships between water restriction and measures of plant morphophysiology over time.
Unfortunately, I have absolutely no idea how to analyse these data, which looks like this (5 pot sizes, 2 genotypes, 2 treatments, and about 11 dates)... Each combination of factors was replicated in triplicate. To be honest, I'm not even sure what I'm trying to look for, my brain's not great with numbers so I'm just sitting staring at Minitab. Any help at all would be amazing. Thanks.
I need to assess the perception and compliance of people about the COVID-19 vaccine.
I'm doing my BA dissertation on generation Z’s perceptions of social media advertising and how their multiplatform usage affects their advertising interactions. I have designed a methodology but now I don't know what type of analysis to do. I have a mix method survey in which there are likert scale questions (strongly disagree-strongly agree) and open ended questions for them to explain their experience with social media and advertising on these platforms. I have looked at thematic analysis, sequential explanatory design, rank correlation etc but i am getting more confused on which method to use to find the relationship between consumer’s social media usage and social media advertising behaviours.
The study aims at investigating the scope for implementing certain types of activities at the higher secondary level and to verify this the researcher wants to visualize what the samples existing perception about these.
I am conducting a longitudinal case study to explore a new phenomenon and gain better insights into participants' views. Quantitative data is required to check any preconceptions participants have through the use of questionnaires. The analyzed data will provide input for QUAL data. So, it is a sequential mixed-method approach yet it is exploratory not an exploratory case study. Is it possible or am I missing out on something?
Your help is highly appreciated
What are the other ways in which I can do mixed methods? I'm just a beginner in the research arena. Maybe, you could provide also some resources here which can help me. Thank you!
As a part of my phd work, I plan to construct an assessment tool for a clinical population using a mixed method sequential exploratory design (I plan to use a grounded theory approach to build a theory, based on which the instrument will be developed). The instrument that I plan to develop is going to be a 45-60 minutes semi-structured interview which will have standardized scoring.
Since the tool is targeting clinical population and is quite lengthy, it won't be possible for me administer it on a large sample in the quantitative phase (planning to recruit around 100). And this might further cause a challenge in running Factor analysis for validation.
1) I wanted to know what could be some other ways to establish validity with such limitation.
I will be establishing content validity in the first phase itself. I am not administering any other standardized tool due to paucity of time and resources.
2) can factor analysis be done for a small sample i.e. within 100?
3) If not, then can I just establish reliability, and content validity and skip construct concurrent validity all together?
The combination of mixed method research and the specific order of whether to go qualitative first followed with quantitative vice versa and the reasoning needs a clear explanation
I plan to develop a tool specific to a clinical population using a sequential exploratory mixed method design- the first phase will be Qual (FGDs and in-depth interviews and literature review). Second Quan phase will be focused on constructing the instrument and psychometric properties.
However, there isn't any specific theory from which I can entirely borrow the tool items or even define the variables. So I plan to consider different existing theories for item generation and definition of my variables.
I would like to know if I need to develop a particular model based on my qualitative analysis to build my tool on. If yes, how can it be done? If not, do we call it a pan-theoretical scale or what?
Eager to get your valuable inputs!
I plan to develop a semi-structured interview tool using sequential exploratory mixed design. Qual - Quan. The semi-structured interview will be assigned a scoring/rating.
I would like to know if there are studies existing where similar methodology has been used for semi structured tool construction.
I am conducting qualitative evidence synthesis for my dissertation. Some of the included papers used mixed method which have some insights about my research question.
Hello, I am a researcher in Psychology, who is gradually getting more and more interested in mixed methods research. My area of interest is trauma and gender based violence, with a focus on South Asia. Recently, I have been trying to understand if we can map GBV in South Asia on to a continuous trauma structure, and assess mental health and well-being from that perspective. For this my initial plan was to use a sequential exploratory mixed methods design, with a qualitative study informing a larger, quantitative study with well validated questionnaires. I had initially conceptualized the qualitative study as a post-positivist (aka Boyatzis 1998) analysis.
The interview schedule was very open and we have collected quite a bit of data. I recently found out, one of my students have already analyzed some of the data using reflexive thematic analysis (aka Braun and Clarke 2006-2021). Now I am in a bit of a fix, because I do not want to lose the interview data we have collected, yet I do not see how the social constructionist position used in reflexive TA fits into the quantitative parts of the study , which will involve variables etc.
Now, here are my specific questions
1. Can I have the collected data (transcripts), re-analyzed from a post-positivist position, using reliability coding TA, by another researcher? (We haven't published the reflexive TA analysis)
2. Can a qualitative study with a social constructionist position ever be used in a mixed methods study- if so, how? If there are good references here, I would be grateful if someone can lead me to those.
thanks in advance.
For the fabrication of the counter electrode (activated carbon (95%) and PTFE (5%)), I am using the mortar pestle mixing method and the overnight stirring method followed by a rolling or doctor blade on the glass slide. But in both methods when I peel it off it got cracks or breaks down. I continuously repeating it and it's not working.
I've been asked to give feedback on a study that used a survey with the option for comments in each question. Some participants decided to share additional observations and thoughts for some questions. I've found that these additional comments carry rich qualitative data so I'm suggesting they analyze them and integrate them into the results (since they're currently not).
However, I'm not sure how to justify this methodologically (or even if it's appropriate). Even though these comments add insightful information about the participant's perceptions, they only account for a portion of them.
Options I'm currently considering:
(1) Use a common theme analysis for the qualitative data and relabel the study from quantitative to mixed-methods.
(2) Still define it as quantitative, but mention that some qualitative data was gathered as optional comments and analysed as well (would this be methodologically correct?).
(3) Do not use the qualitative data for the results, since it doesn't come from all participants.
Thank you very much in advance!
I plan to conduct a mixed-method study which will start with a questionnaire followed by qualitative interviews. I will purposefully select interviewees based on the questionnaire data. I am wondering if there is anyway to identify the participants from the questionnaire and keep the questionnaire anonymous at the same time? I would appreciate your feedback!
i can't do a simple correlation studies. topic must have a strong research methodology. it does not matter with quantitative or qualitative research. you may suggest mixed method research topic.
I am in the process of developing an energy behaviour maturity model for organisations in my PhD. So far, I have conducted expert interviews and focus groups on developing factors and maturity level descriptions (for 5 maturity levels against the factors). The structure of the findings so far is given below.
As the final step, I am going to develop the tool further as an assessment tool. Therefore, I am seeking ways of assigning weights for each main factor and sub-factor (Reason: The main factors/subfactors identified seem to have different impact levels for the energy behaviour maturity. Therefore, if I can assign weights that can be reflected in the results of the maturity assessments conduct using this model in the future)
Note: There are no subfactors for some of the main factors. Altogether, under the 3 Areas, 15 main factors and 5 subfactors are available. If required, the 3 areas can also be assigned with weights.
The structure of the current findings is as follows:
- Main factor 1.1
- subfactor 1.1.1 ------------ Level 1 to Level 5 maturity descriptions against factors
- Main factor 2.1
- subfactor 2.1.1 ------------ Level 1 to Level 5 maturity descriptions against factors
- Main factor 3.1
- subfactor 3.1.1 ------------ Level 1 to Level 5 maturity descriptions against factors
I would be grateful if you could provide your thoughts on this matter.
I am undertaking a SR using COVIDENCE. I am at the data extraction stage. The studies that meet my inclusion criteria are diverse and of a heterogeneous nature which means that a mixed method analysis and synthesis will be required. Do I include an excellent paper that is a reflective 'personal narrative' rather than a study. The experience is rich and meaningful but is it too bias?
- I am fabricating ceramic-polymer composite by solvent mixing method.
- During synthesis process ultra-sonication (bath Sonicator) treatment is given to ceramic filled polymer (mixed solution) for homogeneous dispersion of ceramic in polymer matrix.
- As per the literature the dispersion quality is checked by AFM, SEM, or TEM after the fabrication of material. Also I found that zeta potential also gives the dispersion quality, but 'zetacizer' or 'zeta potential analyzer' equipment's are much more expensive.
- Is there any other feasible method is available, which helps to check the dispersion quality during synthesis process? So that we can give the right and proper time, for sonication treatment.
Please I need your guidance. I am doing a study on eliciting students’ misconceptions in electric circuit. I intend using a four-tier diagnostic test instrument to elicit the students’ misconceptions. Those identified to have misconceptions from the four-tier test are subjected to an interview using a semi-structure interview items to probe further on their misconceptions and if possible see if other forms of misconceptions could be unraveled. Data from the both instruments will analyzed to answer my research questions. Please which type of mixed method design could best fit this study?
I'm currently collecting longitudinal repetitive quantitative measures (survey tool has been developed based on initial qualitative data - exploratory sequential) from the same population (n=39) to understand patients' perception of a health problem, once they experience it during a 14-month trajectory. Also, my idea is to use the initial qualitative data (used to develop the tool), to contextualise the prospective longitudinal information about health problems obtained from this quantitative tool. Considering that the health problems, their severity and their perceptions experienced along the trajectory are very individualistic, are there any mixed-method approaches that allow interpretation of findings at an individual level? Can one simply present, interpret and discuss individual data from the whole sample?
When it comes to Mix-Method Research it's a bit challenging to engaged both the qualitative and quantitative research together, besides, it's difficult to portray accurate results and critical analysis to the given data/hypothesis. How to manage this emerging kind of Research and understand its nature, Is there any special treatment for this to succeed? I cannot thank you enough for your creative suggestions.
If I am doing a Mixed Method approach, Can I start the research by doing a questionnaire with students followed by interviews with lecturers ? or should I only do the interviews with students?
I have designed a framework to minimise execution challenges in B2B market segmentation. I plan to use exploratory sequential design qual - QUAN. Would this the correct choice or should I use explanatory sequential design qual-QUAN. I would appreciate a prompt response from an expert on Mixed method. Thank you you in advance.
After reading Mertens' Introduction to Educational Research, I have a preliminary understanding of the four main research paradigms of research, which are post-positivism paradigm, constructivism paradigm, transformational paradigm and pragmatic paradigm. In the future, I plan to focus on the education direction of adult lifelong growth and learning. In this direction, I think the pragmatic paradigm will be more helpful to the education and research work I want to do. There are three reasons as follows:
#1 I focus on the growth and learning of adults, whose needs for growth and learning also change with the development of the times. The axiology of the pragmatic paradigm is that knowledge is acquired in the process of pursuing expected goals, and it is necessary to contact with multiple groups to obtain different understandings (Morgan 2007). This is suitable for the study of adult education in different Settings.
#2 The ontology of the pragmatic paradigm emphasizes the creation of knowledge through lines of action, pointing out that different people or groups can work together to complete "joint actions" or "projects". The emphasis is on the actual actions (" courses of action "), the beliefs behind those actions (" guaranteed claims "), and the possible consequences of different actions (" maneuverability ") (Morgan 2007). In my opinion, the personal growth and learning of growing people is the change of their beliefs or beliefs to action, and the positive feedback brought by the action promotes the occurrence of continuous learning. So at this point I also think that the pragmatic paradigm is more suitable for the direction of adult growth and learning.
#3 The epistemology of the pragmatic paradigm proposes that researchers need to interact with different members of society to understand problems in order to determine wise courses of action and determine the appropriateness of these actions, once implemented, to solve problems. The researchers did not position themselves as distant observers. Educational research on adult growth and learning requires interaction with group members, and researchers themselves are also part of the group, so they cannot be merely observers.
Mertens, D. M. (2020). Research and evaluation in education and psychology : Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods (5th edition). ISBN:9781544333762
#1 我关注的是成年人的自身成长学习，成年人本身成长学习的需要也是在时代的发展中也是变化的，实用主义范式的价值论是在追求预期目标的过程中获得知识，需要与多个群体接触，从而获得不同解度的理解（Morgan 2007）。这对于在不同环境下的成人成长教育的研究会很适合。
#2 实用主义范式的存在论强调通过行动路线创造知识，指出了不同的人或群体可以共同完成“联合行动”或“项目”。重点在于实际行为（“行动路线”）、这些行为背后的信念（“有保证的主张”）以及不同行为可能带来的后果（“可操作性”）（Morgan 2007）。在我看来，成长人的自身成长学习正是基本其信念或信念的改变，到有所行动，以及行动后带来的正向反馈促进持续学习的发生。所以在这一点上我也认为实用主义范式更适合用于成人自身成长学习的方向。
Mertens, D. M. (2020). Research and evaluation in education and psychology : Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods(第 5 版)赛奇出版社。ISBN:9781544333762
I am looking for a mixed method to measure religiosity, particularly among Muslim migrants in the Western societies. I am familiar with Glock, 1962; Sethi and Seligman 1993, and El-Menouar 2014. Can you recommend some more insightful studies?
I'm currently conducting a research project for my MA; long story short there was something wrong with the wording in one section of my questionnaire that made the meaning ambiguous. I've changed it now but the first 15 participants might have been influenced by that wording to answer differently. I'm thinking of doing this:
1. Anyone after the 15th participant will get to answer the edited questions.
2. Some participants who answered the misleading questions have agreed to the second phase of my research, which is either an open-ended survey or oral interview. There, I will ask them to answer the edited questions before proceeding with the 2nd interview.
3. The participants who answered the misleading questions and declined a second interview, I will have to disclose somewhere in my write-up why I'm not including their answers in my analysis.
However, point 3 doesn't feel right to me because I keep thinking it'll affect the analysis of the data. Would it be worth just scrapping that entire section? Also, I wanted to ask if anyone had any tips on how to actually go about writing this up in the report itself?
Thank you for your time.
I am doing my dissertation on the effects of complaints on sonographers in obstetric ultrasound.
I am doing survey as a mixed methods design. So a convergent design (questionnaire/data validation variant). I was advised to use descriptive statistics only for the quantitative data analysis. I cannot find any justification for this. Is this acceptable? Creswell seems to suggest I should be using inferential statistics as well.
I know its standard for surveys to be used a quantitative data only but I have done a lot of work on the justification for using it in a mixed methods study.
Also is thematic analysis standard in this type of study for the qualitative data analysis?
I have conducted open ended surveys for which the responses I am analysing qualitatively/thematically. There are some questions in the survey which are yes/no answers that then follow up with a further question asking for further expansion and detail on it. My question is twofold, should I conduct descriptive statistical analysis on these yes/no, gender etc questions, or should I focus on the qualitative theme analysis? And if I do conduct descriptive statistics should I call my method "mixed" and include the SPSS outputs in my results section, because I will not be running any inferential tests.
My issue is that I will not be using the descriptive data in any depth in my analysis, it will simply be more of a n=xx xx% of participants said yes they had completed disability hate crime training, then I will go onto to discuss this training within my theme. Within the theme analysis I will refer back to these figures but the statistics will simply be as a description.
I am using a Mixed Method Research approach (online survey to gauge perceptions as school stakeholders, and a semi structured interview with a small sample). The survey and interview data will be used to converge findings, and happen concurrently.
Can I use an Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis for my data analysis, or should i use a different approach?
Mt study is in the interpretivist paradigm as I am gauging (survey) motivations, and also delving deeper for meaning with the interview. I believe meaning is subjective and not constrained by time or place.
I am researching parenting styles practiced in a particular country and the relationship it has on academic achievement. I used a single case study (a class of students to examine the grades of the students in relation to the parents style of child rearing but I also included other participants from the wider society to analyze other variables such as age and gender. I need direction please
I am a PhD student. I want to integrate results of systematic review, qualitative and quantitative studies. The designs i see are mainly QUAN and QUAL. Please how do i address SYST+QUAL+QUAN? They are separate studies with different aims and i conducted the studies concurrently due to time and funding constrains.
I reached out to John W Creswell. He referred me to his book "Please go to my book, "A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research" (SAGE, 2015) to see the mixed methods designs possible. Thanks. John W Creswell".
So I'm running an explanatory sequential mixed methods study and I want to use thematic analysis. Only thing is I'm struggling to find any papers with guidance on which type, I have considered codebook ta due the the fact that I already have some idea of what themes will come up due to my stage 1 quant however I also like the idea of using relflexive ta to give a more in depth description and not assume what my participants want to say to me...any advice?
I used quantitative (questionnaire) as my main research procedure and both qualitative (interview) and quantitaive (pretest posttest) as my supporting.
Does my research consider as multi method or mixed method?
I used mixed methods for assessing modular distance learning to propose a program for the coming school year. I have three respondents (10 learners, 10 parents, 10 teachers) and used a questionnaire and an open-ended question for my respondents. What is statistical treatment should I used?
In a recent qualitative research, we are constructing purposeful sampling, we are thinking to use a specific scale to select a small group of participant. I think that this scale can help us (credibility criterion) is to select the participants that a specific emotional experience. How do you consider this methodological strategy? Uncommon? Should I describe this operation as a mixed method strategy?
Thank you for your attention
Alfonso Santarpia (Université de Sherbrooke, Canada)
Since the dissertation is led by research questions in the first qualitative phase and hypotheses are formulated only later, before quantitative phase, I wonder about the structure of the dissertation - should hypotheses be presented together with research questions in the same chapter? Or qualitative and quantitative phases should be entirely separated from the beginning - having also research questions and hypotheses in different chapters? For the moment, I separately describe methodologies and results of two phases, but introductory chapters (incl. research questions and hypotheses) are written together. Thank you!
We are conducting a systematic review looking at varies research designs, some mixed methods and mixed studies. Through previous experience the MMAT is applicable Microsoft Word - MMAT_2018_criteria-manual_2018-08-08.docx (pbworks.com).
But wonder if there any other tools out there that can be recommended please? Something generated in the last 5 year if possible. Or if the MMAT is recommended as a framework to review such studies.
I'm researching the effect of a self-compassion intervention on well-being. There are 2 groups (intervention and control) and 3 time points (pre, post and follow-up).
Since I have multiple dependent variables (life satisfaction, positive affect, psychological well-being, optimism, negative affect, depression, stress) I wanted to run a Mixed MANOVA instead of a Mixed ANOVA but can't seem to find how to include multiple dependent variables in Mixed Models in SPSS.
Is this the correct study design and is it possible to run the Mixed MANOVA in SPSS or do I have to run multiple Mixed ANOVAS?