Combining qualitative and quantitative methods can strengthen design by enhancing generalizability

• Bazeley, Pat, and Lynn Kemp. 2012. Mosaics, triangles, and DNA: Metaphors for integrated analysis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 6:55–72.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bryman, Alan. 2006. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research 6:97–113.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Cook, Thomas D. 1985. Postpositivist critical multiplism. In Social science and social policy, Eds. R. Lance Shotland and Melvin M. Mark, 21–62. Beverly Hills: Sage.

  Google Scholar 

• Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark. 2011. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 2nd ed.. Los Angeles: Sage.

  Google Scholar 

• Erzberger, Christian, and Gerald Prein. 1997. Triangulation: Validity and empirically-based hypothesis construction. Quality and Quantity 31:141–154.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Greene, Jennifer C. 2007. Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  Google Scholar 

• Greene, Jennifer C. 2015. Preserving distinctions within the multimethod and mixed methods research merger. In Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry, Eds. Sharlene Hesse-Biber and R. Burke Johnson. New York: Oxford University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Greene, Jennifer C., Valerie J. Caracelli, and Wendy F. Graham. 1989. Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11:255–274.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Greene, Jennifer C., and Jori N. Hall. 2010. Dialectics and pragmatism. In SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, Eds. Abbas Tashakkori and Charles Teddlie, 2nd, 119–167. Los Angeles: Sage.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Guest, Greg. 2013. Describing mixed methods research: An alternative to typologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 7:141–151.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hesse-Biber, Sharlene. 2010. Qualitative approaches to mixed methods practice. Qualitative Inquiry 16:455–468.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Johnson, R. Burke. 2017. Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has come. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 11:156–173.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Johnson, R. Burke, and Larry B. Christensen. 2017. Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. 6th Los Angeles: Sage.

  Google Scholar 

• Johnson, R. Burke, and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie. 2004. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher 33(7):14–26.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Johnson, R. Burke, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, and Lisa A. Turner. 2007. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1:112–133.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Mathison, Sandra. 1988. Why triangulate? Educational Researcher 17:13–17.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Maxwell, Joseph A. 2013. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. 3rd Los Angeles: Sage.

  Google Scholar 

• Maxwell, Joseph A., and Diane M. Loomis. 2003. Mixed methods design: An alternative approach. In Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, Eds. Abbas Tashakkori and Charles Teddlie, 241–271. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

• McMahon, Sarah. 2007. Understanding community-specific rape myths: Exploring student athlete culture. Affilia 22:357–370.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Mendlinger, Sheryl, and Julie Cwikel. 2008. Spiraling between qualitative and quantitative data on women’s health behaviors: A double helix model for mixed methods. Qualitative Health Research 18:280–293.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Morgan, David L. 2014. Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. Los Angeles: Sage.

  Google Scholar 

• Morse, Janice M. 1991. Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research 40:120–123.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Morse, Janice M., and Linda Niehaus. 2009. Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J., and R. Burke Johnson. 2006. The “validity” issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools 13:48–63.

  Google Scholar 

• Roth, Louise Marie. 2006. Selling women short: Gender and money on Wall Street. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Schoonenboom, Judith. 2016. The multilevel mixed intact group analysis: A mixed method to seek, detect, describe and explain differences between intact groups. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 10:129–146.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Schoonenboom, Judith, R. Burke Johnson, and Dominik E. Froehlich. 2017, in press. Combining multiple purposes of mixing within a mixed methods research design. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches.

• Teddlie, Charles B., and Abbas Tashakkori. 2009. Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Los Angeles: Sage.

  Google Scholar 

• Yanchar, Stephen C., and David D. Williams. 2006. Reconsidering the compatibility thesis and eclecticism: Five proposed guidelines for method use. Educational Researcher 35(9):3–12.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Yin, Robert K. 2013. Case study research: Design and methods. 5th Los Angeles: Sage.

  Google Scholar 

Page 2

From: How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research DesignWie man ein Mixed Methods-Forschungs-Design konstruiert