SAGE Journal Articles

Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Ercikan, K., Wolff-Michael Roth. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative. Educational Researcher, 35 (5), 14–23.

Abstract: In education research, a polar distinction is frequently made to describe and produce different kinds of research: quantitative versus qualitative. In this article, the authors argue against that polarization and the associated polarization of the “subjective” and the “objective,” and they question the attribution of generalizability to only one of the poles. The purpose of the article is twofold: (a) to demonstrate that this polarization is not meaningful or productive for education research, and (b) to propose an integrated approach to education research inquiry. The authors sketch how such integration might occur by adopting a continuum instead of a dichotomy of generalizability. They then consider how that continuum might be related to the types of research questions asked, and they argue that the questions asked should determine the modes of inquiry that are used to answer them.

Greene, J. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2 (1), 7–22.

Abstract: This article addresses the merits of and warrants for considering mixed methods social inquiry as a distinctive methodology. In each of four methodological domains—philosophy, methodology, practical guidelines, and sociopolitical commitments—the status of the mixed methods field is reviewed. Signal accomplishments are noted in each domain, as are important priorities for further development.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (2), 112–133.

Abstract: The purpose of this article is to examine how the field of mixed methods currently is being defined. The authors asked many of the current leaders in mixed methods research how they define mixed methods research. The authors provide the leaders' definitions and discuss the content found as they searched for the criteria of demarcation. The authors provide a current answer to the question, “What is mixed methods research?” They also briefly summarize the recent history of mixed methods and list several issues that need additional work as the field continues to advance. They argue that mixed methods research is one of the three major “research paradigms” (quantitative research, qualitative research, and mixed methods research). The authors hope this article will contribute to the ongoing dialogue about how mixed methods research is defined and conceptualized by its practitioners.