Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing legitimation in mixed research: a new framework

  • Published:
Quality & Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, we have merged or intersected two typologies: Greene’s (Res Sch 13(1):93–98, 2006) four-domain typology for developing a methodological or research paradigm in the social and behavioral sciences and Onwuegbuzie and Johnson’s (Res Sch 13(1):48–63, 2006) nine-component typology for assessing mixed research legitimation. We argue that merging or interconnecting these typologies present a framework for assessing legitimation in mixed research. Specifically, we demonstrate how the nine types of legitimation map onto Greene’s (Res Sch 13(1):93–98, 2006) four methodological domains and illustrate how legitimation in mixed research, rather than being viewed as a procedure that occurs at a specific step of the mixed research process, is better conceptualized as a continuous iterative, interactive, and dynamic process. Additionally, in presenting this framework, we hope to reduce misperceptions that some researchers have voiced about mixed research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bhaskar R.: A Realist Theory of Science. Harvester Press, Sussex (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracht G.H., Glass G.V.: The external validity of experiments. Am. Edu. Res. J. 5, 437–474 (1968)

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandom, R.B. (eds): Rorty and his Critics. Blackwell, Malden, MA (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell D.T.: Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychol. Bull. 54, 297–312 (1957)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell D.T., Stanley J.C.: Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Rand McNally, Chicago (1963)

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, K.M.T.: Advanced sampling designs in mixed research: Current practices and emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds.) The Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (in press)

  • Collins K.M.T., Onwuegbuzie A.J., Sutton I.L.: A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed methods research in special education and beyond. Learn. Disabil. A Contemp. J. 4, 67–100 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook T.D., Campbell D.T.: Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Rand McNally, Chicago (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis S., Gesler W., Smith G., Washburn S.: Approaches to sampling and case selection in qualitative research: examples in the geography of health. Soc. Sci. Med. 50, 1001–1014 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dellinger A.: Validity and the review of the literature. Res. Sch. 12(2), 41–54 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhart M.A., Howe K.R.: Validity in educational research. In: LeCompte, M.D., Millroy, W.L., Preissle, J. (eds) The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education, pp. 643–680. Academic Press, San Diego, CA (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ely M., Anzul M., Friedman T., Garner D., Steinmetz A.C.: Doing Qualitative Research: Circles within Circles. Falmer, New York (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  • Etheredge, C.: Living in guild wars: a cultural analysis of the discourse, dance and evolution of an MMOG phenomenon. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama (2006)

  • Glaser B.G., Strauss A.L.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine De Gruyter, New York (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene J.C.: Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Res. Sch. 13(1), 93–98 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene J.C.: Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology?. J. Mix. Method Res. 2, 7–22 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene J.C., Caracelli V.J.: Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. In: Greene, J.C., Varacelli, J.C. (eds) Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms. New Directions for Evaluation, vol. 74, pp. 5–17. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene J.C., Caracelli V.J.: Making paradigmatic sense of mixed methods practice. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 91–110. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene J.C., Caracelli V.J., Graham W.F.: Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Edu. Eval. Policy Anal. 11, 255–274 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene J.C., Benjamin L., Goodyear L.: The merits of mixing methods in evaluation. Evaluation 7(1), 25–44 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guba E.G., Lincoln Y.S.: Fourth Generation Evaluation. Sage, Newbury Park, CA (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba E.G., Lincoln Y.S. : Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd edn, pp. 191–215. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley M.: What’s Wrong with Ethnography. Routledge, London (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe K.R.: Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Edu. Res. 17(8), 10–16 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  • Huck S.W., Sandler H.M.: Rival Hypotheses: Alternative Interpretations of Data Based Conclusions. Harper Collins, New York (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson R.B.: Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education 118, 282–292 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson R.B.: Editorial: living with tensions. J. Mix. Method Res. 2, 203–207 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson R.B.: Toward a more inclusive scientific research in education. Edu. Res. 38, 449–457 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson R.B., Christensen L.B.: Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson R.B., Turner L.A.: Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 297–319. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson R.B., Onwuegbuzie A.J.: Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Edu. Res. 33(7), 14–26 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson R.B., Onwuegbuzie A.J., Turner L.A.: Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J. Mix. Method Res. 1(2), 1–22 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn T. : Postscript—1969. In: Kuhn, T. (eds) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn, pp. 174–210. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn T.: The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn T.: The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1996) (Original work published 1962)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn T.: The Road Since Structure. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvale S.: The social construction of validity. Qual. Inq. 1, 19–40 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lather P.: Issues of validity in openly ideological research: between a rock and a soft place. Interchange 17, 63–84 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lather P.: Fertile obsession: validity after poststructuralism. Soc. Q. 34, 673–693 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li S., Marquart J.M., Zercher C.: Conceptual issues and analytical strategies in mixed-method studies of preschool inclusion. J. Early Interv. 23, 116–132 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln Y.S.: Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qual. Inq. 1, 275–289 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madey D.L.: Some benefits of integrating qualitative and quantitative methods in program evaluation, with some illustrations. Edu. Eval. Policy Anal. 4, 223–236 (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxcy S.J. : Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 51–89. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell J.A.: Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harv. Edu. Rev. 62, 279–299 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell J.A.: Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Edu. Res. 33(2), 3–11 (2004a)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J.A.: Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 2004b

  • McLean, J.E.: Foreword: From qualitative to quantitative and half way back. Res. Sch. 13(1), iii–iv (2006)

  • McMillan, J.H.: Examining categories of rival hypotheses for educational research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 2000

  • Mertens D. : Mixed methods and the politics of human research: the transformative-emancipatory perspective. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 135–164. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick S.: Validity. In: Linn, R.L. (eds) Educational Measurement, 3rd edn, pp. 13–103. Macmillan, Old Tappan, N.J (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick S.: Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. Am. Psychol. 50, 741–749 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles M.B., Huberman A.M.: Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: toward a shared craft. Edu. Res. 13, 20–30 (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan D.L.: Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J. Mix. Method Res. 1(1), 48–76 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman I., Ridenour C.S., Newman C., DeMarco G.M.P.: A typology of research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 167–188. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie A.J.: Effect sizes in qualitative research: a prolegomenon. Qual. Quant. Int. J. Methodol. 37, 393–409 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie A.J. : Mixed methods research in sociology and beyond. In: Ritzer, G. (eds) The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, vol. VI, pp. 2978–2981. Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie A.J., Johnson R.B.: The validity issue in mixed research. Res. Sch. 13(1), 48–63 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie A.J., Leech N.L.: On becoming a pragmatist researcher: the importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. Theory Pract. 8, 375–387 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Leech, N.L.: Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures. Qual. Rep. 11, 474–498. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR11-3/onwuegbuzie.pdf (2006) Accessed 29 Nov 2006

  • Onwuegbuzie A.J., Leech N.L.: A call for qualitative power analyses. Qual. Quant. Int. J. Methodol. 41, 105–121 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie A.J., Witcher A.E., Collins K.M.T., Filer J.D., Wiedmaier C.D., Moore C.W.: Students’ perceptions of characteristics of effective college teachers: A validity study of a teaching evaluation form using a mixed methods analysis. Am. Edu. Res. J. 44, 113–160 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie A.J., Daniel L.G., Collins K.M.T.: Problems associated with student teaching evaluations. Qual. Quant. Int. J. Methodol. 43, 197–209 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M.Q.: Foreword: Trends and issues as context. Res. Sch. 13(1), i–ii (2006)

  • Phillips D.C.: Validity in qualitative research: why the worry about warrant will not wane. Edu. Urban Soc. 20, 9–24 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam H.: The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichardt C.S., Rallis S.F.: Qualitative and quantitative inquiries are not incompatible: a call for a new partnership. In: Reichardt, C.S., Rallis, S.F. (eds) The Qualitative–Quantitative Debate: New Perspectives, pp. 85–91. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher N.: Realistic Pragmatism: An Introduction to Pragmatic Philosophy. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandelowski M.: Real qualitative researchers don’t count: the use of numbers in qualitative research. Res. Nurs. Health 24, 230–240 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandelowski M. : Tables or tableaux? The challenges of writing and reading mixed methods studies. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 321–350. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandelowski, M., Voils, C.I., Barroso, J.: Defining and designing mixed research synthesis studies. Res. Sch. 13(1), (2006)

  • Smith M.L., Glass G.V.: Research and evaluation in education and the social sciences. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tashakkori A., Teddlie C.: Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol. 46. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tashakkori A., Teddlie C.: The past and future of mixed methods research: from data triangulation to mixed model designs. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 671–701. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003a)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds): Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003b)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C.: Validity issues in mixed methods research: calling for an integrative framework. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American educational research association. San Francisco, CA, April, 2006

  • Teddlie C., Stringfield S.: Schools Make a Difference: Lessons Learned from a 10-year Study of School Effects. Teachers College Press, New York (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  • Teddlie C., Tashakkori A.: Major issues and controversies in the issue of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 3–50. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Willems E.P., Raush , H. L.: Naturalistic Viewpoints in Psychological Research. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams D.D.: Naturalistic evaluation: potential conflicts between evaluation standards and criteria for conducting naturalistic inquiry. Edu. Eval. Policy Anal. 8, 87–99 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar S.C., Williams D.D.: Reconsidering the compatibility thesis and eclecticism: five proposed guidelines for methods use. Edu. Res. 35(9), 3–12 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA

    Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie

  2. College of Education, University of South Alabama, UCOM 3700, Mobile, AL, 36688-0002, USA

    R. Burke Johnson

  3. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, 310 Peabody Hall, Fayetteville, AR, USA

    Kathleen M. T. Collins

Authors
  1. Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Burke Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathleen M. T. Collins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Johnson, R.B. & Collins, K.M.T. Assessing legitimation in mixed research: a new framework. Qual Quant 45, 1253–1271 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-009-9289-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-009-9289-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation