Abstract
Debate surrounding the relative merits of quantitative and qualitative research methods continues. Scientists value quantitative methods, with rigid rules, statistical data analysis, and precise empirical results, whereas social science researchers value qualitative methods, yielding rich data and a big picture. Faced with this sometimes acrimonious debate, opting for mixed methods seems tempting, but is this the best of both worlds, or a clash of cultures? This chapter presents the debate and mixed-methods theory but focuses on my experience of meandering through the maze of this research mode. My time in the maze established my new identity as a mixed-methods researcher and involved manipulating the multiple data sets, maintaining a balance of focus, managing the cross-referencing, and mastering the writing up to create a coherent story.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Bryman, A. (1984). The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: A question of method or epistemology? The British Journal of Sociology, 35(1), 75–92.
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–113.
Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8–22.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Firebaugh, G. (2008). Seven rules for social research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Firestone, W. A. (1986). Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 16(7), 16–21.
Frye, N. (1957). Anatomy of criticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gage, N. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A “historical” sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4–10.
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Howe, K. R. (1992). Getting over the quantitative-qualitative debate. Educational Researcher, 100(2), 236–256.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
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.
Jones, C., & Kennedy, G. (2011). Stepping beyond the paradigm wars: Pluralist methods for research in learning technology. Research in Learning Technology. doi:10.3402/rlt.v19s1/7798.
Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 193–205.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Niglas, K. (1999, September). Quantitative and qualitative inquiry in educational research: Is there a paradigmatic difference between them? A paper presented at the European conference on education research, Lahti.
Sale, J. E. M., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality & Quantity, 36, 43–53.
Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative-quantitative debate: The analytic and systemic approaches to educational research. Educational Researcher, 20(6), 10–18.
Smith, J. K. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the issue. Educational Researcher, 12(3), 6–13.
Smith, J. K., & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 4–12.
Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed., Electronic version). Retrieved on October 19, 2014 from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualdeb.php
Venville, G., & Donovan, J. (2005, May). Naïve understandings of genes and DNA. In the proceedings of the international conference on education: Redesigning Pedagogy: Research, Policy, Practice. Singapore: Nanyang Technological University.
Venville, G., & Donovan, J. (2007). Developing Year 2 students’ theory of biology with the concepts of gene and DNA. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1111–1131.
Venville, G., & Donovan, J. (2008). How pupils use a model for abstract concepts in genetics. Journal of Biological Education, 43(1), 6–14.
Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Acknowledgements
My heartfelt thanks to my supervisor, Professor Grady Venville, and my partner, Adrian Rice, for helping me navigate my way through the mazes.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Donovan, J. (2016). Meandering in the Maze of Mixed Methods: Navigation Strategies of a Researcher into the Influence of the Mass Media on Children’s Science Understandings. In: Rossi, D., Gacenga, F., Danaher, P. (eds) Navigating the Education Research Maze. Palgrave Studies in Education Research Methods. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39853-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39853-2_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-39852-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-39853-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)