Mixed methods research in service-learning: an integrative systematic review

Abstract

In view of the challenges involved in designing a study of Mixed Methods (MM), as well as the problematics inherent in studying Service-Learning (S-L) from new research perspectives, and considering the lack of systematic reviews of MM in S-L, this study proposes to analyse the use of MM research to evaluate S-L through a systematic integrative review of scientific papers published in international databases (ERIC, DIALNET, SCOPUS, and Web of Science) using the terms ‘mixed methods research’ and ‘service-learning’. The contextual and methodological variables were analysed descriptively and inferentially using Excel and Stata programs. Moreover, 149 predefined codes were created and analysed using the qualitative program Atlas.ti to identify which terms associated with the research methodology were used most frequently in relation to the MM for S-L methodology, and how and why they were used. Of the 192 papers found, only 93 met the inclusion criteria. The results show that very few investigations specify the MM they used in sufficient detail. Only 28% provide information to estimate the effect size, suggest interventions based on S-L, and collect measures for post-intervention evaluation. This demonstrates that the relationship between MM and stages of the S-L are not complemented in the methodological design. The results demonstrated that researchers should continue working with MM in S-L for the integration of qualitative and quantitative results. This research can be a methodological guide for professionals and academics who want to investigate MM in S-L because it identifies methodological deficiencies and strengths and offers and alternative designs to evaluate the service.

Belief, attitude and critical understanding. A systematic review of social justice in Service‐Learning experiences

“…With regard to the geographical representation of the publications and methodological concerns, our results align with recent reviews (Camilli Trujillo, Cuervo Calvo, García Gil, & Bonastre Valles, 2021; Stewart & Wubbena, 2015). Although it may be affected by the language and the “Service‐Learning” term selection criteria, the prevalence of US publications (58%, n = 27) is more likely to reflect the more extensive adoption of SL programs in North America compared to other areas of the world.…”

“…Although it may be affected by the language and the “Service‐Learning” term selection criteria, the prevalence of US publications (58%, n = 27) is more likely to reflect the more extensive adoption of SL programs in North America compared to other areas of the world. Camilli Trujillo et al (2021) suggested that qualitative methodology is prevalent in SL research and asked for more methodological strength in SL research, calling for more mixed‐method studies, where qualitative data can corroborate quantitative results and lead to additional insights not gleaned from one approach alone (Creswell, 2015; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). The results of our review converged with those suggestions.…”

Stand Together by Staying Apart: Extreme Online Service-Learning during the Pandemic

“…A mixed-method longitudinal approach was chosen for triangulation to assess the extent to which qualitative and quantitative findings corroborate each other [ 29 ]. The choice of this approach was also determined by the reported scarcity of mixed-method studies in SL research to stimulate additional insights and further understanding not gleaned from one approach alone [ 30 ].…”

Response to a letter to the editor, "Impact of smartphone radiation on pregnancy: A systematic review"

“…However, for mixed method-systematic reviews, Pluye and Hong (2014) suggested that the phrase "mixed studies review" should be chosen over "mixed methods review" because a review that includes a mixture of studies with diverse designs is referred to as "mixed studies review," and a review that included only studies of mixed methods refer to "mixed methods review." Camilli Trujillo et al. (2021) used the concept of "Integrative Systematic Review."…”