When numbers and words co-operate: Mixed methods design in examples from research into power in the classroom

Vol.26,No.3(2016)

Abstract
The study illustrates mixed methods research design (MMD) procedures on examples from three-year long research into power in the classrooms of student teachers funded by Czech Science Foundation. The integration of quantitative and qualitative methodology is shown at the level of theory, chosen type of MMD, research question, sampling, data collection, data analysis and their interpretation. The study shows examples of possible forms of integration of findings from quantitative and qualitative data which contribute to discovering of further dimensions of the studied phenomenon and differences in the participants perspectives or in the data interpretation. The study discusses the differences of quantitative and qualitative research and deconstructs them. It shows historical development of MMD and discusses what it is and what it is not. The study discusses three basic forms of MMD, integrated research design, and parallelization and integration as main principles of MMD. In the final chapter, some of the critical questions of MMD are opened.

Keywords:
mixed methods design; qualitative research; quantitative research; (in)compatibility thesis; deconstruction of differences; integrated research design; parallelization of research components; theory; research question; sampling; data collection method; d
References

Bergman, M. M. (2011). O nezbytnosti třetí generace ve smíšeném designu, teorii a výzkumu: o překonávání nekompatibility kvalitativního a kvantitativního výzkumu. Pedagogická orientace, 21(4), 457–473.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa">https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Bryman, A. (1984). The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: A question of method or epistemology. The British Journal of Sociology, 35(1), 76–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/590553">https://doi.org/10.2307/590553

Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906290531">https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906290531

Cohen, A. K. (1966). Deviance and control. New Yersey: Prentice Hall.

Cressey, P. G. (2008). The taxi-dance hall: A sociological study in commercialized recreation and city life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five designs. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Fetters, M. D., & Freshwater, D. (2015). Publishing a methodological mixed methods research article. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815594687">https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815594687

Flick, U. (2008). Managing quality in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. E. Cartwright & A. E. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (s. 259–269). New York: Harper & Row.

Gall, J. P., Gall, M. D., & Borg, W. R. (1999). Applying educational research: A practical guide. New York: Longman.

Goldthorpe, J. H. (2000). Sociological etnography today: Problems and possibilities. In J. H. Goldthorpe (Ed.), On sociology: Numbers, narratives, and the integration of research and theory (s. 65–93). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Wiley & Sons.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255">https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255

Guba, E. G. (1987). What have we learned about naturalistic evaluation? American Journal of Evaluation, 8(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821408700800102">https://doi.org/10.1177/109821408700800102

Hammersley, M. (2005). Troubles with triangulation. Příspěvek prezentovaný na Mixed Methods Workshop, ESRC, Research Methods Programme, Manchester.

Hendl, J. (2012). Kvalitativní výzkum: základní teorie, metody a aplikace. Praha: Portál.

Ivankova, N. V. (2014). Implementing quality criteria in designing and conducting a sequential QUAN → QUAL mixed methods study of student engagement with learning applied research methods online. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8(1), 25–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689813487945">https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689813487945

Johnson, B. R., & Christensen, L. B. (2013). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

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">https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014

King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton Unniversity Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (2008). Struktura vědeckých revolucí. Praha: Oikoymenh.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Lojdová, K. (2015). Legitimní báze moci aneb Vypůjčená moc studenta učitelství. In K. Vlčková, K. Lojdová, J. Lukas, J. Mareš, Z. Šalamounová, T. Kohoutek, … S. Ježek, Z posluchárny za katedru: mocenské vztahy ve výuce studentů učitelství (s. 66–81). Brno: Munipress.

Lojdová, K. (2016). „Kvalitativci“ diskutovali o disciplinovaném myšlení a vyprázdněné vědě. Pedagogická orientace, 26(3), 591–593.

Lukas J., & Švaříček, R. (2007, září). Reflexe problematiky zkoumání identity učitele. Příspěvek prezentovaný na XV. konferenci České asociace pedagogického výzkumu, Plzeň.

Lukas, J., & Lojdová, K. (2015). Donucovací báze moci aneb Dobrý učitel má vše pevně v rukou. In K. Vlčková, K. Lojdová, J. Lukas, J. Mareš, Z. Šalamounová, T. Kohoutek, … S. Ježek, Z posluchárny za katedru: Mocenské vztahy ve výuce studentů učitelství (s. 82–102). Brno: Munipress.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design. An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Ponterotto, J. G., Mathew J. T., & Raughley, B. (2013). The value of mixed methods designs to social justice research in counseling and psychology. Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 5(2), 42–68.

Richmond, V. P., & Roach, K. D. (1992). Power in the classroom: Seminal studies. In V. P. Richmond & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Power in the classroom: Communication, control and concern (s. 47–66). New York: Routledge.

Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L, & Turman, P. D. (2007). Reconsidering the measurement of teacher power use in the college classroom. Communication Education, 56(3), 308–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520701256062">https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520701256062

Silverman, D. (2005). Ako robiť kvalitatívny výskum: praktická príručka. Bratislava: Ikar.

Složilová, E. (2011). Pragmatismus jako filozofický základ smíšeného výzkumného designu. Pedagogická orientace, 21(1), 51–69.

Staton, A. Q. (1992). Teacher and student concern and classroom power and control. In V. P. Richmond & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Power in the classroom (s. 159–176). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stolz, J. (2014). Mixed methods: Angewandte integration qualitativer und quantitativer Methoden in den Sozialwissenschaften. Příspěvek prezentovaný na GESIS workshop, Mannheim.

Stolz, J. (2016). Opening the black box. How the study of social mechanisms can benefit from the use of explanatory mixed methods. Analyse & Kritik, 38(1), 257–286. https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2016-0112">https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2016-0112

Strauss, A., & Corbinová, J. (1999). Základy kvalitativního výzkumu. Boskovice: Albert.

Šalamounová, Z. (2015). Expertní báze moci aneb dobrý učitel jako mistr svého řemesla. In K. Vlčková, K. Lojdová, J. Lukas, J. Mareš, Z. Šalamounová, T. Kohoutek, … S. Ježek, Z posluchárny za katedru: Mocenské vztahy ve výuce studentů učitelství (s. 138–156). Brno: Munipress.

Šalamounová, Z., Bradová, J., & Lojdová, K. (2014). Mocenské vztahy mezi začínajícími učiteli a jejich žáky. Pedagogická orientace, 24(3), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.5817/PedOr2014-3-375">https://doi.org/10.5817/PedOr2014-3-375

Švaříček, R., & Šeďová, K., et al. (2007). Kvalitativní výzkum v pedagogických vědách. Praha: Portál.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research. Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Vlčková, K., Lojdová, K., Lukas, J., Mareš, J., Šalamounová, Z., Kohoutek, T., Bradová, J., & Ježek, S. (2015). Z posluchárny za katedru: Mocenské vztahy ve výuce studentů učitelství. Brno: Munipress.

Vlčková, K., Mareš, J., & Ježek, S. (2015). Adaptation of Teacher Power Use Scale to lower secondary students and student teachers. Pedagogická orientace, 25(6), 798–821. https://doi.org/10.5817/PedOr2015-6-798">https://doi.org/10.5817/PedOr2015-6-798

Vlčková, K., Mareš, J., Ježek, S., & Šalamounová, Z. (2016, v tisku). Báze moci používané učitelem ve školní třídě: česká adaptace dotazníku Teacher Power Use Scale. Pedagogika.

Vlčková, K., & Šalamounová, Z. (2015). Metodologie zkoumání moci. In K. Vlčková, K. Lojdová, J. Lukas, J. Mareš, Z. Šalamounová, T. Kohoutek, … S. Ježek, Z posluchárny za katedru: mocenské vztahy ve výuce studentů učitelství (s. 48–57). Brno: Munipress.

Woolley, C. M. (2008). Meeting the mixed methods challenge of integration in a sociological study of structure and agency. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689808325774">https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689808325774

Metrics

0


2510

Views

1290

PDF (Čeština) views