SAGE Journal Articles
Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.
This study examined how leaders’ internal and external activities mediate the relationship of functional heterogeneity and interteam goal interdependence to team effectiveness (in-role performance and innovation) in interdisciplinary teams. The results of the structural equation model from a sample of 92 interdisciplinary teams indicate that leaders’ internal activities fully mediate the relationship of team functional heterogeneity and interteam goal interdependence to team in-role performance. The leaders’ external activities were found to fully mediate the relationship of interteam goal interdependence to team innovation. We discuss the implications of these findings for both theory and practice.
This article explores the group dynamics of mixed methods health sciences research teams. The authors conceptualize mixed methods research teams as “representational groups,” in which members bring both their organizational and professional groups (e.g., organizational affiliations, methodological expertise) and their identity groups, such as gender or race, to the work of research. Although diversity and complementarity are intrinsic to mixed methods teams, these qualities also present particular challenges. Such challenges include (a) dealing with differences, (b) trusting the “other,” (c) creating a meaningful group, (d) handling essential conflicts and tensions, and (e) enacting effective leadership roles. The authors describe these challenges and, drawing from intergroup relations theory, propose guiding principles that may be useful to mixed methods health sciences research teams.
Evaluators are challenged to understand human behavior in all of its natural complexity and individuality. Our work is conducted in natural settings, where history and context matter, where human behavior traces complex patterns of influence and relationship, where what is meaningful to those in the setting is both phenomenological and structural, arising from both lived experiences and the societal institutions that frame and shape those experiences. Engaging this complexity requires not a privileging of just one way of knowing and valuing, but rather a marshalling of all of our ways of understanding in a framework that honors diversity and respects difference. This framework is advanced in this article as a mixed-method way of thinking. A presentation of key concepts in the framework is followed by case examples from the US.
In recent years evaluators of educational and social programs have expanded their methodological repertoire with designs that include the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods. Such practice, however, needs to be grounded in a theory that can meaningfully guide the design and implementation of mixed-method evaluations. In this study, a mixed-method conceptual framework was developed from the theoretical literature and then refined through an analysis of 57 empirical mixed-method evaluations. Five purposes for mixed-method evaluations are identified in this conceptual framework: triangulation, complementarity, development, initiation, and expansion. For each of the five purposes, a recommended design is also presented in terms of seven relevant design characteristics. These design elements encompass issues about methods, the phenomena under investigation, paradigmatic framework, and criteria for implementation. In the empirical review, common misuse of the term triangulation was apparent in evaluations that stated such a purpose but did not employ an appropriate design. In addition, relatively few evaluations in this review integrated the different method types at the level of data analysis. Strategies for integrated data analysis are among the issues identified as priorities for further mixed-method work.
This article describes a series of research designs for combining qualitative and quantitative methods, using a Priority-Sequence Model that relies on the principle of complementarity. First, a decision about the priority of the two methods selects either a qualitative or a quantitative approach to be the principal method. Second, a decision about sequencing determines whether the complementary method will serve as either a preliminary or a follow-up to the principal method. These two decisions yield four basic research designs: (a) preliminary qualitative methods in a quantitative study, (b) preliminary quantitative methods in a qualitative study, (c) follow-up qualitative methods in a quantitative study, and (d) follow-up quantitative methods in a qualitative study. The conclusions consider further research designs and the expertise necessary for multiple-methods research.
Through presentation of two case studies, this article illustrates just how ambiguous and misleading results from quantitative studies can be if not supplemented by qualitative data. The focus is on the salvaging power of qualitative methods and their ability to ensure some return on an investment that might otherwise be partially or completely lost.