Abstract
By moving from broad definitions of policy, policy inquiry, and mixed methods to the paradigmatic and analytical choices involved in conducting mixed methods research, this chapter provides guidance to education policy scholars interested in mixed methods. Recent peer-reviewed mixed methods studies on complex education policy problems illustrate how researchers have used mixed methods to interrogate these issues while attending to various perspectives and contexts. Ultimately, by outlining how to conceptualize a mixed methods inquiry for a hypothetical policy problem, we present an example of the decision-making processes essential to effective mixed methods research design. The guidance serves as a useful starting point for novices considering whether and how mixed methods research can inform their work to alleviate the complicated policy problems facing today’s education leaders.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Brannen, J., & Moss, G. (2012). Critical issues in designing mixed methods policy research. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 789–801. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211433796.
Creswell, J. W., & Garrett, A. L. (2008). The “movement” of mixed methods research and the role of educators. South African Journal of Education, 28, 321–333 Retrieved from http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S0256-1002008000300003&script=sci_arttext&tlng=pt.
DeLeon, P. (1994). Reinventing the policy sciences: Three steps back to the future. Policy Sciences, 27(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999600.
Eckert, S. A. (2013). What do teaching qualifications mean in urban schools? A mixed-methods study of teacher preparation and qualification. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112460279.
Guba, E. G. (1984). The effect of definitions of policy on the nature and outcomes of policy analysis. Educational Leadership, 42(2), 63–70.
Hall, J. N., & Ryan, K. E. (2011). Educational accountability: A qualitatively-driven mixed-methods approach. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410389761.
Hesse-Biber, S., Rodriguez, D., & Frost, N. A. (2015). A qualitatively-driven approach to multimethod and mixed methods research. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 3–20). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260.
Johnson, R. B. (2017). Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has come. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11, 156–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607692.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224.
Kerr, D. (1976). Educational policy: Analysis, structure, and justification. New York: David McKay.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. E. (1986). Research, evaluation and policy analysis: Heuristics for disciplined inquiry. Review of Policy Research, 5, 546–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1986.tb00429.x.
Luft, J. A., Firestone, J. B., Wong, S. S., Ortega, I., Adams, K., & Bang, E. (2011). Beginning secondary science teacher induction: A two-year mixed-methods study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1199–1224. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20444.
Mark, M. M. (2015). Mixed and multimethods in predominantly quantitative studies, especially experiments and quasi-experiments. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 21–41). New York: Oxford University Press.
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Transformative mixed methods research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 469–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364612.
Mertens, D. M., Bazeley, P., Bowleg, L., Fielding, N., Maxwell, J., Molina-Azorin, J. F., & Niglas, K. (2016). Expanding thinking through a kaleidoscopic look into the future: Implications of the mixed methods international research association’s task force report on the future of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10, 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816649719.
Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 48–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462.
Nagel, S. S. (1990). Bridging theory and practice in policy/program evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 13, 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(90)90058-5.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Hitchcock, J. H. (2017). A meta-framework for conducting mixed-methods impact evaluations: Implications for altering practice and the teaching of evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.02.001.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48–63.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2006). Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures. The Qualitative Report, 11, 474–498. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR113/Onwuegbuzie.pdf
Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Plano Clark, V. L., & Badiee, M. (2010). Research questions in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 275–304). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Rutledge, S. A., Harris, D. N., & Ingle, W. K. (2010). How principals “bridge and buffer” the new demands of teacher quality and accountability: A mixed-methods analysis of teacher hiring. American Journal of Education, 116, 211–242. https://doi.org/10.1086/649492.
Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2–3), 129–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136406.
Sharp, J. L., Mobley, C., Hammond, C., Withington, C., Drew, S., Stringfield, S., & Stipanovic, N. (2012). A mixed methods sampling methodology for a multisite case study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(1), 34–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689811417133.
Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 207–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807302814.
Wolf, F. (2010). Enlightened eclecticism or hazardous hopscotch? Mixed methods and triangulation strategies in comparative public policy research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4, 144–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689810364987.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chesnut, C.E., Hitchcock, J.H., Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2018). Using Mixed Methods to Inform Education Policy Research. In: Lochmiller, C. (eds) Complementary Research Methods for Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93539-3_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93539-3_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-93538-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-93539-3
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)