Journal of Mixed Methods Research current issue

Editorial: Integrating Data Analyses in Mixed Methods Research

Bazeley, P. — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:52:07 PDT

On Quantitizing

Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., Knafl, G. — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:52:07 PDT

Quantitizing, commonly understood to refer to the numerical translation, transformation, or conversion of qualitative data, has become a staple of mixed methods research. Typically glossed are the foundational assumptions, judgments, and compromises involved in converting disparate data sets into each other and whether such conversions advance inquiry. Among these assumptions are that qualitative and quantitative data constitute two kinds of data, that quantitizing constitutes a unidirectional process essentially different from qualitizing, and that counting is an unambiguous process. Among the judgments are deciding what and how to count. Among the compromises are balancing numerical precision with narrative complexity. The standpoints of ``conditional complementarity,'' ``critical remediation,'' and ``analytic alternation'' clarify the added value of converting qualitative data into quantitative form.

A Pragmatist Argument for Mixed Methodology in Medical Informatics

Scott, P. J., Briggs, J. S. — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:52:07 PDT

The aim of this article is to advance the case of pragmatism as a research philosophy and to illustrate its applicability as a mixed methodology perspective in medical informatics. Epistemology is empirical not foundational. Pragmatism offers a practical starting point for a pluralist methodology. Medical practice is pragmatist, empirical, and situated. Medical informatics is a hybrid sociotechnical field that requires multimethod research.

Validating for Use and Interpretation: A Mixed Methods Contribution Illustrated

Morell, L., Tan, R. J. B. — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:52:07 PDT

Researchers in the areas of psychology and education strive to understand the intersections among validity, educational measurement, and cognitive theory. Guided by a mixed model conceptual framework, this study investigates how respondents' opinions inform the validation argument. Validity evidence for a science assessment was collected through traditional paper-and-pencil tests, surveys, and think-aloud and exit interviews of fifth- and sixth-grade students. Item response theory analyses supplied technical descriptions of evidence investigating the internal structure. Surveys provided information regarding perceived item difficulty and fairness. Think-aloud and exit interviews provided context and response processes information to clarify and explain issues. This research demonstrates how quantitative and qualitative data can be used in concert to inform the validation process and highlights the use of think-aloud interviews as an explanatory tool.

Meeting the Challenge of Doing an RCT Evaluation of Youth Mentoring in Ireland: A Journey in Mixed Methods

Brady, B., O'Regan, C. — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:52:07 PDT

The youth mentoring program Big Brothers Big Sisters is one of the first social interventions involving youth in Ireland to be evaluated using a randomized controlled trial methodology. This article sets out the design process undertaken, describing how the research team came to adopt a concurrent embedded mixed methods design as a means of balancing ethical, feasibility, and scientific issues associated with the randomized controlled trial method, establishing an epistemological position and integrating data from various methods and multiple sources.