混合方法的实用性实证研究

IF 3.8 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Peter Dahler-Larsen
{"title":"混合方法的实用性实证研究","authors":"Peter Dahler-Larsen","doi":"10.1177/15586898211057359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While methodologists often assert that a mixed methods approach has greater practical utility than a monomethod approach used in a similar setting, empirical data have been lacking. To examine this assertion, we studied the practical utility of workplace assessments in 1801 public organizations in Denmark, of which 540 chose mixed methods. We measure utility in terms of action taken as well as perceived utility. We contribute to mixed methods research by documenting higher practical utility in mixed methods. Mixed methods share with qualitative methods an association with influence from local stakeholders and employee engagement, but not the weaknesses of qualitative methods (such as lack of documentation and incompatibility with management preferences). Mixed methods may serve diverse stakeholders as a successful hybrid rather than as a unique paradigm.","PeriodicalId":47844,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mixed Methods Research","volume":"17 1","pages":"187 - 208"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Practical Utility of Mixed Methods: An Empirical Study\",\"authors\":\"Peter Dahler-Larsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15586898211057359\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While methodologists often assert that a mixed methods approach has greater practical utility than a monomethod approach used in a similar setting, empirical data have been lacking. To examine this assertion, we studied the practical utility of workplace assessments in 1801 public organizations in Denmark, of which 540 chose mixed methods. We measure utility in terms of action taken as well as perceived utility. We contribute to mixed methods research by documenting higher practical utility in mixed methods. Mixed methods share with qualitative methods an association with influence from local stakeholders and employee engagement, but not the weaknesses of qualitative methods (such as lack of documentation and incompatibility with management preferences). Mixed methods may serve diverse stakeholders as a successful hybrid rather than as a unique paradigm.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47844,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Mixed Methods Research\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"187 - 208\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Mixed Methods Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898211057359\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mixed Methods Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898211057359","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

虽然方法论者经常断言,混合方法比在类似环境中使用的单一方法具有更大的实用性,但缺乏经验数据。为了检验这一论断,我们研究了丹麦1801个公共组织工作场所评估的实际效用,其中540个选择了混合方法。我们根据所采取的行动和感知到的效用来衡量效用。我们通过记录混合方法中更高的实用性,为混合方法研究做出了贡献。混合方法与定性方法一样,与当地利益相关者和员工参与度的影响有关,但与定性方法的弱点无关(如缺乏文件和与管理偏好不兼容)。混合方法可以作为一种成功的混合方法而不是一种独特的范式为不同的利益相关者服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Practical Utility of Mixed Methods: An Empirical Study
While methodologists often assert that a mixed methods approach has greater practical utility than a monomethod approach used in a similar setting, empirical data have been lacking. To examine this assertion, we studied the practical utility of workplace assessments in 1801 public organizations in Denmark, of which 540 chose mixed methods. We measure utility in terms of action taken as well as perceived utility. We contribute to mixed methods research by documenting higher practical utility in mixed methods. Mixed methods share with qualitative methods an association with influence from local stakeholders and employee engagement, but not the weaknesses of qualitative methods (such as lack of documentation and incompatibility with management preferences). Mixed methods may serve diverse stakeholders as a successful hybrid rather than as a unique paradigm.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Mixed Methods Research
Journal of Mixed Methods Research SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
28.20%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The Journal of Mixed Methods Research serves as a premiere outlet for ground-breaking and seminal work in the field of mixed methods research. Of primary importance will be building an international and multidisciplinary community of mixed methods researchers. The journal''s scope includes exploring a global terminology and nomenclature for mixed methods research, delineating where mixed methods research may be used most effectively, creating the paradigmatic and philosophical foundations for mixed methods research, illuminating design and procedure issues, and determining the logistics of conducting mixed methods research. JMMR invites articles from a wide variety of international perspectives, including academics and practitioners from psychology, sociology, education, evaluation, health sciences, geography, communication, management, family studies, marketing, social work, and other related disciplines across the social, behavioral, and human sciences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信