This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1558689808330621v1 3/2/109    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Slonim-Nevo, V. Articles by Nevo, I. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Conflicting Findings in Mixed Methods Research: An Illustration From an Israeli Study on Immigration

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: slonim{at}bgu.ac.il.

	Abstract

Combining diverse methods in a single study raises a problem: What should bed one when the findings of one method of investigation conflict with those of another? The authors illustrate this problem using an example in which three study phases—quantitative, qualitative, and intervention—are applied. The findings from the quantitative phase did not fit those from the qualitative phase; there were discrepancies within the qualitative phase itself, and the findings from the single-case evaluations of the intervention using standardized scales did not fit the findings derived from self-made scales. The authors explain these inconsistencies by way of the complementary approach: Conflicting findings should be integrated, and consistency is restored by admitting complexity in the phenomenon under investigation.

First published on January 28, 2009, doi:10.1177/1558689808330621

Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2009;3:109.

A more recent version of this article appeared on April 1, 2009


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?