本期:混合方法研究与评论中的质量,偶然性与配置性比较方法,以及混合方法研究中的回溯理论化与批判现实主义

IF 3.8 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
José F. Molina-Azorín, T. Guetterman
{"title":"本期:混合方法研究与评论中的质量,偶然性与配置性比较方法,以及混合方法研究中的回溯理论化与批判现实主义","authors":"José F. Molina-Azorín, T. Guetterman","doi":"10.1177/15586898221143555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This January 2023 issue of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research (JMMR) includes an editorial, 5 articles, and 2 media reviews. In the editorial, Guetterman et al. (2023) discuss the issue of quality in mixed methods research. Major developments are reviewed and some remaining gaps and needs are identified. Quality is challenging given different use of terms. For example, quality, validity, and legitimation are often used interchangeably. Quality is further complicated by concerns that research is too contextual and discipline specific to have common quality criteria. However, common criteria are needed, and we concluded with a call to the field to develop core quality reporting criteria for mixed methods research as a way of reaching consensus. Regarding the 5 articles published in this issue, 3 manuscripts focus on quality in mixed methods research. Specifically, in the first article, Hirose and Creswell (2023), with affiliations in psychology and education, proposed 6 core quality criteria: a rationale for mixed methods; quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods questions or aims; separate quantitative and qualitative data; a mixed methods design and a diagram; integration in a joint display; and metainferences and value from the integration analysis. The authors provided a specific case illustration of these criteria, examining their application in an empirical study. In the second article, Perez et al. (2023), with affiliations in educational psychology and health sciences, also focused on quality standards in mixed methods research, exploring and extending the legitimation typology developed by Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006). Specifically, the purpose of this article is to examine how researchers are using this typology in their mixed methods studies and to extend and refine the typology for a better use in mixed methods research.","PeriodicalId":47844,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mixed Methods Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In This Issue: Quality in Mixed Methods Studies and Reviews, Contingency and Configurational Comparative Methods, and Retroductive Theorizing and Critical Realism in Mixed Methods Research\",\"authors\":\"José F. Molina-Azorín, T. Guetterman\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15586898221143555\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This January 2023 issue of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research (JMMR) includes an editorial, 5 articles, and 2 media reviews. In the editorial, Guetterman et al. (2023) discuss the issue of quality in mixed methods research. Major developments are reviewed and some remaining gaps and needs are identified. Quality is challenging given different use of terms. For example, quality, validity, and legitimation are often used interchangeably. Quality is further complicated by concerns that research is too contextual and discipline specific to have common quality criteria. However, common criteria are needed, and we concluded with a call to the field to develop core quality reporting criteria for mixed methods research as a way of reaching consensus. Regarding the 5 articles published in this issue, 3 manuscripts focus on quality in mixed methods research. Specifically, in the first article, Hirose and Creswell (2023), with affiliations in psychology and education, proposed 6 core quality criteria: a rationale for mixed methods; quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods questions or aims; separate quantitative and qualitative data; a mixed methods design and a diagram; integration in a joint display; and metainferences and value from the integration analysis. The authors provided a specific case illustration of these criteria, examining their application in an empirical study. In the second article, Perez et al. (2023), with affiliations in educational psychology and health sciences, also focused on quality standards in mixed methods research, exploring and extending the legitimation typology developed by Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006). Specifically, the purpose of this article is to examine how researchers are using this typology in their mixed methods studies and to extend and refine the typology for a better use in mixed methods research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47844,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Mixed Methods Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Mixed Methods Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221143555\",\"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/10.1177/15586898221143555","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: 0

摘要

2023年1月出版的《混合方法研究杂志》(JMMR)包括一篇社论、5篇文章和2篇媒体评论。在社论中,Guetterman等人(2023)讨论了混合方法研究中的质量问题。审查了主要的发展情况,并确定了一些剩余的差距和需要。考虑到不同的术语使用,质量是具有挑战性的。例如,质量、有效性和合法性经常互换使用。由于担心研究过于背景化和学科特定,无法制定共同的质量标准,质量变得更加复杂。然而,需要共同的标准,我们最后呼吁该领域为混合方法研究制定核心质量报告标准,以此达成共识。关于本期发表的5篇文章,有3篇关注混合方法研究中的质量。具体而言,在第一篇文章中,Hirose和Creswell(2023)提出了6个核心质量标准:混合方法的基本原理;定量、定性和混合方法问题或目标;分开的定量和定性数据;混合方法设计和图表;在联合显示器中集成;以及综合分析的元推论和价值。作者提供了这些标准的具体案例说明,并在实证研究中检验了它们的应用。在第二篇文章中,Perez等人(2023),隶属于教育心理学和健康科学,也关注混合方法研究中的质量标准,探索和扩展了Onwuegbuzie和Johnson(2006)开发的合法化类型学。具体而言,本文的目的是检验研究人员如何在混合方法研究中使用这种类型学,并扩展和完善类型学,以便更好地用于混合方法研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
In This Issue: Quality in Mixed Methods Studies and Reviews, Contingency and Configurational Comparative Methods, and Retroductive Theorizing and Critical Realism in Mixed Methods Research
This January 2023 issue of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research (JMMR) includes an editorial, 5 articles, and 2 media reviews. In the editorial, Guetterman et al. (2023) discuss the issue of quality in mixed methods research. Major developments are reviewed and some remaining gaps and needs are identified. Quality is challenging given different use of terms. For example, quality, validity, and legitimation are often used interchangeably. Quality is further complicated by concerns that research is too contextual and discipline specific to have common quality criteria. However, common criteria are needed, and we concluded with a call to the field to develop core quality reporting criteria for mixed methods research as a way of reaching consensus. Regarding the 5 articles published in this issue, 3 manuscripts focus on quality in mixed methods research. Specifically, in the first article, Hirose and Creswell (2023), with affiliations in psychology and education, proposed 6 core quality criteria: a rationale for mixed methods; quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods questions or aims; separate quantitative and qualitative data; a mixed methods design and a diagram; integration in a joint display; and metainferences and value from the integration analysis. The authors provided a specific case illustration of these criteria, examining their application in an empirical study. In the second article, Perez et al. (2023), with affiliations in educational psychology and health sciences, also focused on quality standards in mixed methods research, exploring and extending the legitimation typology developed by Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006). Specifically, the purpose of this article is to examine how researchers are using this typology in their mixed methods studies and to extend and refine the typology for a better use in mixed methods research.
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