Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Utilizing Mixed Research and Evaluation Methodology in Peace Psychology and Beyond

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Methodologies in Peace Psychology

Part of the book series: Peace Psychology Book Series ((PPBS,volume 26))

Abstract

Following an initial analysis of research orientations of scholars who often identify themselves as members of qualitative and quantitative communities, this chapter examines the feasibility, desirability, and effectiveness of mixed methodology for asking and answering complex questions in peace research. Rooted in a mixed methodological orientation, a critical integrated research and evaluation (CIRE) model is presented as an alternative to more restrictive approaches to enquiry.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Mertens (2005) pushes this argument to a different level by suggesting that even the “Constructivist Researchers still consist of a relatively small group of powerful experts doing work on a larger number of relatively powerless research subjects” (p. 16), suggesting that a “transformative paradigm” is needed for reversing these power differentials.

  2. 2.

    We believe that the phrase integrated research (and integrated methodology) might be more appropriate than the term mixed methods research (or mixed methodology) because it emphasizes integration beyond using multiple approaches or methods. However, to maintain consistency, as much as possible, we have remained faithful to the current and historical utilization of the latter term (mixed methods, mixed methodology).

  3. 3.

    Uppercase (e.g., QUAN) represents the researchers’ acknowledgement that an approach (e.g., quantitative) component or strand is more pronounced than the lowercase approach, (e.g., qual, for qualitative) in their designs. We do not find this practice particularly useful or even feasible for complex studies.

References

  • American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berghof, F. (2012). Peace and conflict transformational research. http://www.berghoffoundation.org/images/uploads/berghof_glossary_2012_11_peace_and_conflict_transformation_research.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2015.

  • Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation. (2014). http://www.berghof-handbook.net/dialogue-series/no.-4-new-trends-in-peace-and-conflict-impact-assessment-pcia. Accessed 23 Jan 2015.

  • Biesta, G. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 95–117). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (2006). Foundations of multimethod research: Synthesizing styles (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christ, T. W. (2010). Teaching mixed methods and action research: Pedagogical, practical, and evaluative considerations. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 643–676). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Church, C., & Shouldice, J. (2003). The evaluation of conflict resolution interventions: Framing the state of play, Part II: Emerging practice and theory. Derry: INCORE International Conflict Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Johnson, R. B., & Frels, R. K. (2013). Practice note: Using debriefing interviews to promote authenticity and transparency in mixed research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 7, 271–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielding, N., & Cisneros-Puebla, C. A. (2009). CAQDAS-GAS convergence: Toward a new integrated mixed method research practice? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3, 349–370. doi:10.1177/1558689809344973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1964). What is peace research? Journal of Peace Research, 1(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleditsch, N. P., Nordkvelle, J., & Strand, H. (2014). Peace research—Just the study of war? Journal of Peace Research, 51, 145–158. doi:10.1177/0022343313514074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorard, S. (2010). Research design, as independent of methods. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods research in social and behavioral research (pp. 237–252). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, B., & Madill, A. (2012). Subjectivity in psychological science: From problem to prospect. Psychological Methods, 17, 374–384. doi:10.1037/a0029313.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C. (2006). Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 93–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. C., & Hall, J. (2010). Dialectics and pragmatism: Being of consequence. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 119–143). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B., & Howard, K. (2008). A synergistic approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, 248–269. doi:10.1177/1558689808314622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2010). Feminist approaches to mixed methods research: Linking theory and praxis. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 169–192). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, M. (2004). Peace and conflict impact assessment methodology. In B. Austin, M. Fischer, & H. J. Giessmann (Eds.), Advancing conflict transformation: The Berghof handbook II (pp. 1–19). Opladen: Barbara Budrich Publishers. http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents/publications/hoffman_handbook.pdf.

  • Johnson, R. B., & Gray, R. (2010). A history of philosophical and theoretical issues for mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 69–94). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. B., McGowan, M. W., & Turner, L. A. (2010). Grounded theory in practice: Is it inherently a mixed method? Research in the Schools, 17(2), 65–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Journal of Mixed Methods Research. (2014). Aims and scope. http://www.sagepub.com/journals/Journal201775?siteId=sage-us&prodTypes=any&q=jmmr&pageTitle=productsSearch#tabview=aimsAndScope. Accessed 23 Jan 2015.

  • Jutila, M., Pehkonen, S., & Väyrynen, T. (2008). Resuscitating a discipline: An agenda for critical peace research. Millennium—Journal of International Studies, 36, 623–640. doi:10.1177/03058298080360031201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. S. (2012). World peace through intercultural research: From a research culture of war to a research culture of peace. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 3–13. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.11.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knigge, L., & Cope, M. (2006). Grounded visualization: Integrating the analysis of qualitative and quantitative data through grounded theory and visualization. Environment and Planning A, 38, 2021–2037. doi:10.1068/a37327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepgold, J., & Nincic, M. (2002). Beyond the ivory tower. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis-Beck, M. S., Bryman, A. E., & Liao, T. F. F. (2004). The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayoh, J., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2015). Towards a conceptualization of mixed methods phenomenological research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9, 91–107. doi:10.1177/1558689813505358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Megoran, N. (2011). War and peace? An agenda for peace research and practice in geography. Political Geography, 30, 178–189. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2010.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mertens. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertens, D. M., Bledsoe, K. L., Sullivan, M., & Wilson, A. (2010). Utilization of mixed methods for transformative purposes. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 193–214). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrow, R. A., & Brown, D. D. (1994). Critical theory and methodology (Contemporary social theory). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neufeldt, R. C. (2011). “Frameworkers” and “circlers”—Exploring assumptions in impact assessment. In B. Austin, M. Fischer, & H. J. Giessmann (Eds.), Advancing conflict transformation: The Berghof handbook II (pp. 483–504). Opladen: Barbara Budrich Publishers. http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents/publications/neufeldt_handbookII.pdf.

  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2012). Introduction: Putting the mixed back into quantitative and qualitative research in educational research and beyond: Moving towards the radical middle. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 6, 192–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Frels, R. K. (2013). Introduction: Toward a new research philosophy for addressing social justice issues: Critical dialectical pluralism 1.0. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 7, 9–26. doi:10.5172/mra.2013.7.1.9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Hitchcock, J. H. (in press). A meta-framework for conducting mixed methods impact evaluations. In D. Muijs (Ed.), International handbook of educational effectiveness and improvement research. Oxford, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Wisdom, J. P. (2013, October). Towards a conceptualization of mixed methods case study research. Paper presented at the Analysis for NCD Prevention Policies in Africa (ANPPA) Fellowship meeting on behalf of the African Population and Health Research Center (AHPRC) and the International Development Research Center (IDRC), Nairobi, Kenya.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patomäki, H. (2001). The challenge of critical theories: Peace research at the start of new century. Journal of Peace Research, 38, 723–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1892/1923). The law of mind. In C. S. Peirce (Ed.), Chance, love and logic (pp. 202–237). London: Kegan Paul, Trench and Trubner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reychler, R. (2006). Challenges of peace research. International Journal of Peace Studies, 11(1), 1–16. http://www.gmu.edu/academic/ijps/vol11_1/11n1Reychler.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, M. H., & Rothman, J. (Eds.). (1999). Theory and practice in ethnic conflict management: Theorizing success and failure. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, J. (1998). Action-evaluation and conflict resolution in theory and practice. Mediation Journal, 15, 119–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharbatke-Church, C. (2011). Evaluating peacebuilding: Not yet all it can be. In B. Austin, M. Fischer, & H. J. Giessmann (Eds.), Advancing conflict transformation: The Berghof handbook II (pp. 459–482). Opladen: Barbara Budrich Publishers. http://www.berghof-handbook.net/documents/publications/scharbatke_church_handbook.pdf.

  • Schensul, J. J., & LeCompte, M. D. (2012). Essential ethnographic methods: A mixed methods approach (Ethnographer’s Toolkit (2nd ed.). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schensul, S. L., Schensul, J. J., & LeCompte, M. D. (2012). Initiating ethnographic research: A mixed methods approach (Ethnographer’s Toolkit (2nd ed.). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Putting the human back in “human research methodology”: The researcher in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4, 271–277. doi:10.1177/1558689810382532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C., & Sines, M. C. (2013). Utilizing mixed methods in psychological research. In I. Weiner, J. A. Schinka, & W. F. Velicer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 2, research methods in psychology) (2nd ed., pp. 428–450). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, N. (2013, December). Identity considerations for elicitive conflict transformation. Paper presented at the Peace Practitioners’ Research Conference, Siem Reap, Cambodia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. (1993). Doing critical ethnography. Qualitative research methods (Vol. 26). London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vogt, W. P. (2008), Quantitative versus qualitative is a distraction: Variations on a theme by Brewer & Hunter (2006). Methodological Innovations Online, 3 (1). http://www.methodologicalinnovations.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2.-Vogt1-18-24.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2015.

  • Vollhardt, J. K., & Bilali, R. (2008). Social psychology’s contribution to the psychological study of peace: A review. Social Psychology, 39, 12–25. doi:10.1027/1864-9335.39.1.12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waszak, C., & Sines, M. (2003). Mixed research in psychological research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral science research (pp. 557–576). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiberg, H. (2005). Investigacao para a paz: Passado, presente e future. Revista Critica de Ciências Sociais, 71, 21–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Anthony Onwuegbuzie

  2. Department of Educational Psychology, University of North Texas, Denton, USA

    Abbas Tashakkori

Authors
  1. Anthony Onwuegbuzie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abbas Tashakkori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony Onwuegbuzie .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia

    Diane Bretherton

  2. Victoria University, Melbournne, Victoria, Australia

    Siew Fang Law

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Onwuegbuzie, A., Tashakkori, A. (2015). Utilizing Mixed Research and Evaluation Methodology in Peace Psychology and Beyond. In: Bretherton, D., Law, S. (eds) Methodologies in Peace Psychology. Peace Psychology Book Series, vol 26. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18395-4_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation