This article is based on a relevant issue and research question, and two theoretical models and takes two hypotheses as a starting point for a quantitative study. It ends with six limitations of the study after discussing the results in the light of theory and research question. It presents a transparent quantitative design around a survey with several established scales.

Vantieghem, W., and Van Houtte, M. (2018) ‘Differences in study motivation within and between genders: An examination by gender typicality among early adolescents,’ Youth & Society, 50(3), 377–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X15602268

Critical Thinking Questions:

• What are additional limitations of the study?
• Does it provide any guidance for practice or policy-oriented audiences?
• Where would you see the experiences and values of the study participants in this design?
• Do you think that the study and its results can be generalized beyond the area where the study was conducted?
• Was the selection of the methods that were applied justified?
   

This article is based on using mixed methods but puts this use in the methodological context of a systematic triangulation of perspectives. It refers to the ongoing methodological debates about these two concepts. It presents the qualitative and quantitative methods that were applied in the study and excerpts from the results of both approaches. It ends with a methodological outlook.

Flick, U., Garms-Homolová, V., Herrmann, W.J., Kuck, J. and Röhnsch, G. (2012) ‘“I can’t prescribe something just because someone asks for it …”: Using mixed methods in the framework of triangulation,’ Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437183

Critical Thinking Questions:

• How far did the link and differences between triangulation and mixed methods become clear?
• Is the selection of the methods and of the design in the study transparent?
• What are the limits of this study or the article?