Several scholars have proposed frameworks for assessing the quality of mixed methods research (MMR) studies. However, no general consensus has emerged. The legitimation typology developed by Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006) is one promising approach that addresses quantitative, qualitative, and MMR elements. The aim of this intrinsic, exploratory case study is to explore the use of the legitimation typology in empirical MMR studies and through interviews with the developers, MMR scholars, and researchers who applied the legitimation typology to an empirical MMR study. We conducted a systematic methodological review using multiple databases and identified 49 empirical MMR studies that addressed the legitimation typology. Using a critical case sampling approach defined by participants’ unique experiences with the legitimation typology, semi-structured interviews were conducted with five authors of empirical MMR studies, a mixed methods researcher who has written about the typology, and one of the authors of the original legitimation typology to expand on ways the legitimation typology is used in practice. Four overarching themes were identified: (a) comprehensive approach to assessing quality, (b) researchers’ interpretation of legitimation types, (c) value of divergent findings, and (d) strategies for applying the legitimation typology. This case study adds to the MMR literature by clarifying the use of emic-etic and conversion legitimations and by proposing a new legitimation type: divergent findings legitimation. Hence, this study elucidates the application of one quality framework (i.e., legitimation) in MMR and provides recommendations to the field to further advance discussions on quality criteria and their implementation in mixed methods research.
Citizen science is known for increasing the geographic, spatial, and temporal scale from which scientists can gather data. It is championed for its potential to provide experiential learning opportunities to the public. Documentation of educational outcomes and benefits for citizen scientists continues to grow. This study proposes an added benefit of these collaborations: the transference of program impacts to individuals outside of the program. The experiences of fifteen citizen scientists in entomology citizen science programs were analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory methodology. We propose the substantive-level theory of transference to describe the social process by which the educational and attitudinal impacts intended by program leaders for the program participants are filtered by citizen scientists and transferred to others. This process involves individual and external phases, each with associated actions. Transference occurred in participants who had maintained a long-term interest in nature, joined a citizen science program, shared science knowledge and experiences, acquired an expert role to others, and influenced change in others. Transference has implications for how citizen scientists are perceived by professional communities, understanding of the broader impacts and contributions of citizen science to wicked problems, program evaluation, and the design of these programs as informal science education opportunities.
The adoption of mixed methods research is expanding into many different fields, including my own of entomology. Creswell and Plano Clark (2018) have described mixed methods as being in a reflection and refinement period. This developmental state was noted by the authors several years ago as well (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011), with discussions focused on philosophical issues, procedures, and the adoption and use of mixed methods. A decade ago, the first volume of this very journal celebrated the new era of evolution and refinement of mixed methods (Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007). This text provides researchers with a novel path for continued refinement as it is a guide to acknowledge and harness, rather than circumvent, complex, dynamic, and emergent research conditions. This text is divided into three sections, with appendices following. Part I, ''Getting Started with Essential Foundations,'' speaks to the practical dilemmas faced by mixed methods researchers, posits complexity science as a lens for approaching mixed methods research, and introduces conditions of complexity (chapters 1-3). Integrative thinking is proposed as a launch pad for transcending traditional mixed methods practice and allowing innovation in research. The opportunities afforded by complexity science principles are described within a mixed methods setting. The bulk of the text resides in Part II, ''Realizing Innovation in Guiding Practices,'' where six adaptive mixed methods research practices to navigate mixed methods research with a complexity-sensitive approach are presented. Adaptive research is a set of approaches influenced by complexity science and integrative thinking that concede the unpredictable and evolving context of some systems where traditional mixed methods cannot. The first practice, which helps avoid the hazards of assuming stable study conditions, is assessing complexity conditions using five dimensions of complexity as a framework (chapter 4). The second practice considers the implications of framing effects on research problems (chapter 5). It offers an iterative framing process focused on mixing purposes and outlines several strategies for framing and communicating the significance of a research problem. The third practice provides space to consider how a study might be influenced by social, interpersonal, and personal contexts and how to describe and adjust within such a research system (chapter 6). The fourth practice encourages a descriptive design approach to convey framing, logic, ethical, and procedural considerations taken by a researcher, and considers the hazards of trying to fit a study into an existing design typology (chapter 7). The fifth practice focuses on creating conditions that allow a mixed methods research team to achieve integrative interactions, critical for addressing complex research questions (chapter 8). The sixth, and final, practice is a generative evidence approach. Chapter 9 examines six sources of evidence of methodological rigor across qualitative, quantitative, and mixed (integrated) st...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.