Creswell, John W.
2003 (pages incorrect in PDF, use pages from 2009 3rd edition instead!)
Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches

5
“Crotty’s (1998) ideas established the ground work for this frame work. He suggested that in designing a research proposal, we consider four questions:

1. What epistemology — theory of knowledge embedded in the theoretical perspective — informs the research (e.g., objectivism, subjectivism, etc.)?
2. What theoretical perspective –– philosophical stance-lies behind the methodology in questions (e.g., objectivism, subjectivism. etc)?
3. What methodology — strategy or plan of action that links methods to outcomes — governs our choice and use of methods) e.g., experimental research, survey research, ethnography, etc.)?
4. What methods — techniques and procedures — do we propose to use (e.g., questionnaire, interview, focus group, etc).”

5f
“With these ideas in mind, I conceptualized Crotty’s model to address three questions central to the design of research:

1. What knowledge claims are being made by the researcher (including a theoretical perspective)?
2. What strategies of inquiry will inform the procedures? [next page]
3. What methods of data collection and analysis will be used?”

6
“Setting a knowledge claim means that researchers start a project with certain assumptions about how they will learn and what they will learn during their inquiry. These claims might be called paradigms (Lincoln and Guba, 2000; Martens, 1998); or broadly conceived research methodologies (Neuman, 2000). Philosophically, researchers make claims about what is knowledge (ontology), how we know it (epistemology), what values go into it (axiology), how we write about it (rhetoric), and the processes for studying it (methodology) (Creswell, 1994).”

7
“Postpositivism reflects ad deterministic philosophy in which causes probably determine effects or outcomes. Thus, the problems studied by postpositivists reflect a need to examine causes that influence outcomes, such as issues examined in experiments. It is also reductionistic in that the intent is to reduce he ideas into a small, discrete set of ides to test, such as the variable that constitute hypotheses and research questions. The knowledge that develops through a postpositivist lens is based on careful observation and measurement of the objective reality that exists “out there” in the world. Thus, developing numeric measures of observations and studying the behavior of individual become paramount for a postpositivist. Finally, there are laws or theories that govern the world, and these need to be tested or verified and refined so that we can understand the world. Thus, in the scientific method – the accepted approach to research by postpositivists- an individual begins with a theory, collects data that either supports or refutes the theory, and then makes necessary revisions before additional tests are conducted.”
-> NO

8
“Social constructivism [is] (often combined with interpretivism; see Mertens, 1998)”
-> See Patton WoiBlog

9
Socially Constructed knowledge
“Assumptions identified in these works hold that individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work. They develop subjective meanings of their experiences-meanings directed toward certain objects or things. These meanings are varied and multiple, leading the researcher to look for the complexity of views rather than narrowing meanings into a few categories or ideas. The goal of research, then, is to rely as much as possible on the participants views of the situation being studied. The questions become broad and general so hat the participants can construct the meaning of a situation, a meaning typically forged in discussions or interactions with other persons. The more open-ended he questioning, the better, as the researcher listens carefully to what people say or do in their life setting. Often these subjective meanings are negotiated socially and historically. In other words, they are not simply imprinted on individuals but are formed through interaction with others (hence social constructivism) and through historical and cultural norms that operate in individuals’ lives.”
-> Maybe

10f
“Advocacy/participatory knowledge”
“In the main, these inquires felt that the constructivist stance did not go far enough in advocating for an action agenda to help marginalized people. These researchers believe that inquiry needs to be intertwined with politics and a political agenda. Thus, the research [next page] should contain an action agenda for reform that may change the lies of the participants, the institutions in which individuals work or live, and the researcher’s life. Moreover, specific issues needed to be addressed that speak to important social issues of the day, issues such as empowerment, inequality, oppression, domination, suppression, and alienation. The advocacy researcher often begins with one of these issues as the focal point of research. This research also assumes that the inquirer will proceed collaboratively so as to not further marginalize the participants as a result of the inquiry. In this sense, the participants may help design questions, collect data, analyze information, or receive rewards for participating in the research. The “voice” for the participants becomes a united voice for reform and change. This advocacy may mean providing a voice for these participants, raising their consciousness, or advancing an agenda for change to improve the lives of the participants.”
-> NO

13f
“Pragmatic Knowledge”
“For many of them, knowledge claims arise out of actions, situations, and consequences rather than antecedent conditions (as in post positivism).there is a concern with applications-“what works” – and solutions to problems (Patton, 1990). Instead of methods being imp0rotant, the problem is most important, and researchers use all approaches to understand the problem, (see Rossman and Wilson, 1985). As a philosophical underpinning for mixed methods studies, Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) and Patton (19990) convey the importance for focusing attention on the research problem is social science research and then using pluraistick approaches to derive knowledge about the problem. According to Cherrholmes (1992), Murphy (1990), and my own 9nterpretaions of these writers, pragmatism provides a basis for the following knowledge claims:

1. Pragmatism is not committed to any one system of philosophy and reality. This applies to mixed methods research in that assumptions when they engage in their research.
2. Individual researchers have a freedom of choice. They are ” free” to choose the methods, techniques, and procedures of research that best meet their needs and purposes.
3. Pragmatists do not see the world as an absolute unity. In a similar way, mixed methods researchers look to many approaches to [next page] collecting and analyzing data rather than subscribing to only one way (e.g. quantitative or qualitative).
4. Truth is what works at the time: it is not based in a strict dualism between the mind and reality completely independent of the mind. Thus, in mixed methods research, investigators use both quantitative and qualitative data because they work to provide the best understanding of a research problem.
5. Pragmatist researchers look to the “what” and “how” to research based on its intended consequences—where they want to go with it. Mixed methods researchers need to establish a purpose for their “mixing,” a rational for the reasons why quantitative and qualitative data need to be mixed in the first place.
6. Pragmatists agree that research always occurs in social, historical, political, and other contexts. In this way, mixed methods studies may include a postmodern turn, a theoretical lens that is reflexive of social justice and political aims.
7. Pragmatists believes (Cherrolmes, 1992) that we need to stop asking questions about reality and the laws of nature. “they would simply like to change the subject” (Rorty, 1983, P. xiv)

Thus, for the mixed methods researcher, pragmatism opens the door to multiple methods, different worldviews, and different assumptions, as well as to different forms of data collection and analysis in the mixed methods study.”

-> Yo! I think.

16
“Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998) have explicated the procedures of grounded theory.”

“Grounded theory, in which the researcher attempts to derive a general, abstract theory of a process, action, or interaction grounded in the views of participants in a study. This process involves using multiple stages of data collection and the refinement and interrelationship of categories of information (Strauss and Corbin, 1990, 1998). Two primary characteristics of this design are the constant comparison of data with emerging categories and theoretical sampling of different groups to maximize the similarities and the differences of information”
-> Yeah, baby! Maybe?

18
“Recognizing that all methods have limitations, researchers felt that biases inherent in any single method could neutralize or cancel the biases of other methods. Triangulating data sources-a means for seeking convergence a cross qualitative and quantitative methods -were born (Jack, 1979). From the original concept of triangulation emerged additional reasons for mixing different types of data. For example, the results form one method can help develop or inform the other method (Green, Caracelli, and Graham, 1989). Alternatively, one method can be nested within another method to provide insight into different levels or units of analysis (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1989).”
-> Yup.

18f
“there general strategies and several variations within them will be illustrated in this book:

• Sequential procedures, in which the researcher seeks to elaborate on or expand the findings of one method with another method. This may involve beginning with a qualitative method for exploratory purposes and following up with a quantitative method with a large sample so that the researcher can generalize results to [next page] a population. Alternatively, the study may begin with a quantitative method in which theories or concepts are tested, to be followed by a qualitative method involving detailed exploration with a few cases or individuals.
• Concurrent procedures, […]
• Transformative procedures, in which the researcher uses a theoretical lens (see chapter 7) as an overarching perspectives within a design that contains both quantitative an qualitative data. This lens profiles a framework for topics of interest, methods for collecting data, and outcomes or changes anticipated by the study. Within this lens could be a data collection method that involves a sequential or a concurrent approach.“

21
“a qualitative [research] approach is one in which the inquirer often makes knowledge claims based primarily on constructivist perspectives (i.e., the multiple meanings of individual experiences meanings socially and historically constructed, with an intent of developing a theory or pattern) or advocacy/participatory perspectives (i.e., political, issue-oriented, collaborative, or change oriented) or both. It also sues strategies of inquiry such as narratives, phenomenologies, ethnographies, grounded theory studies, or case studies. The researcher collect open-ended, emerging data with the primary intent of developing themes from the data.
Finally, a mixed methods approach is one in which the researcher tends to base knowledge claims on pragmatic grounds (e.g., consequence-oriented, problem-centered, and pluralistic). It employs strategies of inquiry that involve collecting data either simultaneously or sequentially to best understand research problem. The data collection also involves gathering both numeric information (e.g., on instruments) as well as text information (e.g., on interviews) so that the final database represents both quantitative and qualitative information.”

22f
“Mixed methods approach: pragmatic knowledge claims, collection of both quantitative and qualitative data sequentially.
The researcher bases the inquiry on the assumption that collecting diverse types of data best provides on understanding of a research problem. The study begins with a broad survey in order to generalize [next page] results to a population and then focuses, in a second phase, on detailed qualitative, open-ended interviews to collect detailed views from participants.”
-> Yes, slightly adjusted.

23
“if a concept or phenomenon needs to be understood because little research has been done on it, then it merits a qualitative approach. Qualitative research is exploratory and is useful when the researcher does not know the important variable to examine. This type of approach may be needed because the topic is new, the topic has never been addressed with a certain sample or group of people, or existing theories do not apply with the particular sample or group under study (Morse, 1991).”

24
“A mixed methods design is useful to capture the best of both quantitative and qualitative approaches. For example, a researcher may want to both generalize the findings to a population and develop a detailed view of the meaning of a phenomenon or concept for individuals. In this research, the inquirer first explores generally to learn about what variables to study and then studies hose variables with a large sample of individuals. Alternatively, researchers may first survey a large number of individuals, then follow up with a few of them to obtain their specific language and voices about the topic. In these situations the advantages of collecting both closed-ended quantitative data and open-ended qualitative data prove advantageous to best understand a research problem.”

2??
“Concurrent Nested Strategy
Like the concurrent triangulation approach, the concurrent nested model can be identified by its use of one data collection phase, during which both quantitative and qualitative data are collected simultaneously (see Figure 11.3b). Unlike the traditional triangulation model, a nested approach has a predominant method that guides the project. Given less priority, the method (quantitative or qualitative) is embedded, or nested, within the predominant method (qualitative or quantitative). This nesting may mean that the embedded method addresses a different question than the dominant method or seeks information form different levels (the analogy to hierarchical analysis in quantitative research is helpful in conceptualizing these levels-see Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998). The data collected form the two methods are mixed during the analysis phase of the project. This strategy may or may not have a guiding theoretical perspective.”
-> Yup.

2??f
How to write a methodology:
“In designing the procedures for a mixed methods study, begin by conveying the nature of mixed methods research. This includes tracing its history, defining it, and motioning its applications in many fields of research. The, state and employ four criteria to select in appropriate mixed methods strategy. Indicate the implementation strategy for data collection (Concurrent or sequential). Also state the priority or weight given to the quantitative or quantitative approach in the study, such as equal weight, or a priority to quantitative or qualitative data. Mention the phase of research (e.g., data collection, analysis, interpretation) in which integration of the approaches will occur. Finally, identify whether a theoretical lens or framework will guide the study, such as a theory from the social sciences or a lens from and advocacy perspective (e.g., [next page] feminism, racial perspective). These four factors help in choosing the strategy to use.
Six strategies are organized around whether the data are collected sequentially (explanatory and exploratory), concurrently (triangulation and nested), or with a transformative lens (sequential or concurrent). Each model has strength and weaknesses, although the sequential approach is the easiest to implants.”