Advertisement

Abstract

Methodology (the systematic procedures of data collection and analysis) is closely related to a researcher’s philosophy, including ontology (the nature of reality) and epistemology (beliefs about the nature of knowledge). This chapter first explains and discusses three research approaches: quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. And then the chapter provides the rationale of adopting mixed methods in the current study and explains the philosophy behind it. This chapter ends with the research design adopted in this study and the summary of this chapter.

References

  1. Bazeley, P. (2004). Issues in mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. In R. Buber, J. Gadner, & L. Richards (Eds.), Applying qualitative methods to marketing management research (pp. 141–156). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Benson, P., Chik, A., Gao, X., Huang, J., & Wang, W. (2009). Qualitative research in language teaching and learning journals 1997–2006. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  4. Bergman, M. M. (2008). Advances in mixed methods research. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  6. Bryman, A. (1992). Quantitative and qualitative research: Further reflections of their integration. In J. Brannen (Ed.), Mixing methods: Quantitative and qualitative research (pp. 57–80). Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Quality inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2006). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. 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: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M., Jakobsen, L., & Karlsson, J. C. (2002). Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  18. Fishman, J. A. (2010). Theoretical and historical perspectives on researching the sociology of language and education. In K. A. King, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Research methods in language and education (Encyclopedia of language and education Vol. 10) (pp. 3–15). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Fletcher, A. J. (2017). Applying critical realism in qualitative research: Methodology meets method. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(2), 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  21. Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (New directions for evaluation, No. 74). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  22. 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(3), 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2010). Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  24. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  25. Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lazaraton, A. (2000). Current trends in research methodology and statistics in applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lazaraton, A. (2005). Quantitative research methods. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 209–224). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences revisited. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 97–128). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Mason, J. (2006). Six strategies for mixing methods and linking data in social science research. Real Life Methods (Working Paper, ESRC National Center for Research Methods (4/06)). University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  32. Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Research, 17(2), 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mead, G. H. (1932). The philosophy of the present. LaSalle: Open court publishing company.Google Scholar
  34. Melzi, G., & Caspe, M. (2010). Research approaches to narrative, literacy, and education. In K. A. King, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Research methods in language and education (Encyclopedia of language and education Vol. 10) (pp. 151–163). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Morgan, D. L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 362–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Murphy, J. P. (1990). Pragmatism: From Peirce to Davidson. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  39. Newman, I., & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Peirce, C. S. (1877). The fixation of belief. In E. C. Moore (Ed.), The essential writings of Charles S. Peirce (pp. 120–137). New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  43. Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  44. Riazi, A. M. (2016). The Routledge encyclopedia of research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Riazi, A. M. (2017). Mixed methods research in language teaching and learning. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  46. Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rorty, R. (1990). Pragmatism as anti-representationalism. In J. P. Murphy (Ed.), Pragmatism: From Peirce to Davison (pp. 1–6). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  48. Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9(5), 627–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sandelowski, M. (2000). Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed- method studies. Research in Nursing & Health, 23(3), 246–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sieber, S. D. (1973). The integration of fieldwork and survey methods. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1335–1359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Turner, C. E. (2013). Mixed methods research. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (pp. 1403–1417). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures (rev ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. Yauch, C. A., & Steudel, H. J. (2003). Complementary use of qualitative and quantitative cultural assessment methods. Organizational Research Methods, 6(4), 465–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zhejiang Normal UniversityJinhuaChina

Personalised recommendations