Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come

By R. Burke Johnson, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie. 2004

11,555 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Management Science and Operations Research, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/81d7af2bc1f769494b2d8820541e48fc1c412c32

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

1. Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
2. José F. Molina-Azorίn
3. Nancy L. Leech
4. V. Venkatesh
5. Susan A. Brown
6. Yulia W. Sullivan
7. Chareen Snelson
8. Kathleen M. T. Collins

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
2. Nancy L. Leech
3. José F. Molina-Azorίn
4. Kathleen M. T. Collins
5. Mieke Heyvaert
6. C. Teddlie
7. V. Venkatesh
8. Susan A. Brown

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Susan A. Brown
2. Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie
3. Nancy L. Leech
4. V. Venkatesh
5. Yulia W. Sullivan
6. Kathleen M. T. Collins
7. Zehra Akyol
8. C. Teddlie

Citations in the corpus

• Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students' use of digital technologies (2011, methodology): “Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) emphasise that to be considered a mixed-method design, findings must be integrated during the interpretation of the results.”
• Project governance: Balancing control and trust in dealing with risk (2015, methodology): “In order to test these hypotheses, an approach based on quantitative study using a survey was chosen, as it can test constructed theories, and produce precise and numerical data (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).”
• Improving Impact Studies of Teachers’ Professional Development: Toward Better Conceptualizations and Measures (2009, background): “…measurement strategies hold excellent promise for transforming research in teacher learning (see Day, Sammons, & Gu, 2008; Desimone, in press; R. B. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998), even this approach does not circumvent the inherent biases, implicit or explicit, often…”
• Cheating in the First, Second, and Third Degree: Educators' Responses to High-Stakes Testing. (2010, neutral): “…about these test-related behaviors, collecting data from conducting an online survey, individual interviews, and a focus group (Creswell, 2008; Day, Sammons, & Gu, 2008; Ercikan & Wolff-Michael, 2009; Flowers, 2010; Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Miretzky, 2009).”
• Combining Individual and Group-Level Perspectives for Studying Collaborative Knowledge Construction in Context. (2007, methodology): “This kind of approach follows the lines of mixed-method research (cf. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).”
• Mixed methods research synthesis: definition, framework, and potential (2011, methodology): “…of a complex phenomenon, which is unavailable in a qualitative or a quantitative study undertaken in isolation (Gelo et al. 2008; Greene et al. 1989; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004; Morgan 1998; O'Cathain et al. 2007; Onwuegbuzie and Johnson 2006; Plano Clark et al. 2008; Robins et al. 2008).”
• Students’ Perceptions of Characteristics of Effective College Teachers: A Validity Study of a Teaching Evaluation Form Using a Mixed-Methods Analysis (2007, methodology): “Moreover, the researchers sought to use mixed-methods data-analytic techniques in an attempt to combine descriptive precision (i.e., Stages 1 and 3) with empirical precision (i.e., Stages 2 to 4) (Caracelli & Greene, 1993; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2006).”
• Measuring and Understanding the Effects of Entrepreneurial Awareness Education (2013, methodology): “To overcome this incommensurability and to provide a standard instrument for measuring EIs, Liñán and Chen (2009) developed the “entrepreneurial intention questionnaire” (EIQ) and successfully validated their instrument on student samples from Spain (n = 387) and Taiwan (n = 132).”
• Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Model of Training Criteria to Evaluate Training Programmes for Head Teachers (2021, methodology): “The behaviour level was evaluated by qualitative and quantitative data (open- and closed-ended questions) with trainee head teachers because a quantitative study may not be sufficiently flexible to facilitate an understanding of complex human behaviour or to address sensitive matters [82].”
• Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL (2006, positive): “The foregoing discussion of complementary traits suggests that we explore mixed and hybrid research methodologies, drawing upon the strengths of each (Creswell, 2003; Hakkinen, Jarvela, & Makitalo, 2003; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004 ).”