Mixed methods research in L2 pragmatics

The main aim of this article is to discuss the factors a researcher should take into account when selecting the appropriate research design or method (i.e. qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods). The article also discusses sample size determination and sampling procedures in qualitative and quantitative research. Further, the paper has provided an examination of qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods. The study used online desk research to collect data from online public access scholarly databases such as Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Academia, and many more freely accessible electronic books in research methods. Search terms that were used included, among many, the following: qualitative research, quantitative research, mixed-methods, qualitative and quantitative data collection, qualitative and quantitative data analysis; descriptive and inferential statistics. A wealth of relevant and timely scholarly literature was downloaded, read, and used to write this paper, and draw the conclusion provided. Keywords: Qualitative Research; Quantitative Research; Mixed-Methods Research; Qualitative Data Collection Techniques; Quantitative Data Collection Techniques; Qualitative Data Analysis Techniques; Quantitative Analysis Techniques; Descriptive Statistics; Inferential Statistics. DOI: 10.7176/JMCR/87-06 Publication date: November 30 th 2022

Background: The acute care settings have the potential to facilitate robust epidemiological and public health research necessary for evidence-based system. The methods in emergency research are well suited for mixed methods research. Despite the use of quantitative and qualitative data in emergency settings, mixed methods studies in this field are limited to help researchers to address health care issues. Therefore, we aim to assess the prospects and implications of mixed methods approach in acute care settings. Materials and Methods: We have reviewed the published English literature using the research databases (PubMed, Medline, CINHAL and Google Scholar) related to the implications of mixed methods in emergency research, in order to understand and broaden the scope of patient care in time critical conditions. Results: Basically, there are four mixed method approaches which integrate qualitative and quantitative methods (such as Triangulation, Embedded, Explanatory and Exploratory design) which can be selected depending upon the research question. In a single study, appropriate selection of mixed method approach enables quality research which involves understanding of the different aspects of human interaction and paradigms to characterize complex healthcare systems from societal standpoint. So, the combination approach may answer key issues in emergency settings which enriches and enhances the healthcare practice that may influence patient outcomes. Notably, emergency research has wider range of parameters which not only benefit the patients but also help in overcoming system-related clinical challenges. Of note, the ethical conduct of study is crucial in a complex emergency situation which remains challenging for recruitment and obtaining informed consent from subject or their nest of kin. Another impediment is the lack of trained emergency researcher to support the research activities and data collection in the emergent settings. Conclusion: Application of mixed approach is of great importance in emergency medicine to enhance our understanding of critical care research that may add valuable insight on various aspects of human behavior. Therefore, appropriate planning and integration of study design may help researchers to explore newer avenues to improve patients care in emergency settings.

SummaryMixed methods research is the use of quantitative and qualitative methods in a single study or series of studies. It is an emergent methodology which is increasingly used by health researchers, especially within health services research. There is a growing literature on the theory, design and critical appraisal of mixed methods research. However, there are few papers that summarize this methodological approach for health practitioners who wish to conduct or critically engage with mixed methods studies. The objective of this paper is to provide an accessible introduction to mixed methods for clinicians and researchers unfamiliar with this approach. We present a synthesis of key methodological literature on mixed methods research, with examples from our own work and that of others, to illustrate the practical applications of this approach within health research. We summarize definitions of mixed methods research, the value of this approach, key aspects of study design and analysis, and discuss the potential challenges of combining quantitative and qualitative methods and data. One of the key challenges within mixed methods research is the successful integration of quantitative and qualitative data during analysis and interpretation. However, the integration of different types of data can generate insights into a research question, resulting in enriched understanding of complex health research problems.

Despite some pioneering studies, mixed-methods research approaches are uncommon in the German history education community, in contrast to the general increase in mixed-methods research in the educational and social sciences. Conversely, German history education research currently appears to favour quantitative methods as opposed to qualitative approaches – at least in larger research projects. In this paper, we argue for a more inclusive research approach combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Discussion of a pioneering study from the 1980s (Jeismann et al ., 1987) highlights implementation of this unusual approach to history education research in Germany. To illuminate the added value of such a mixed-methods research approach, we discuss two published German studies that respectively rely on quantitative (Trautwein et al ., 2017) and qualitative (Köster, 2013) research methods. A mixed-methods approach might have illuminated each study's 'blind spots'.

L2 pragmatics investigates second language users' ability to engage in extended interaction with others and use language appropriately to the interlocutor, discourse context, and physical context. It was traditionally informed by speech act theory and politeness theory, but the theoretical framework has in recent years shifted toward conversation analysis. Mirroring research in second language acquisition, the main interest of second language pragmatics is learners' development. The impact of individual difference factors has also been investigated, with the roles of proficiency and the learning environment drawing most research attention. Research on L2 pragmatics and interaction has the potential to inform pedagogy and assessment, and L2 pragmatic and interactional abilities have been shown in research studies to be teachable and assessable. However, the integration of findings from L2 pragmatics and interaction research in curricula and test instruments is still lacking. This entry discusses these subtopics of L2 pragmatics research.

Triangulation is a measurement technique often used by surveyors to locate an object in space by relying on two known points in order to ‘‘triangulate’’ on an unknown fixed point in that same space. Early on, social scientists borrowed the concept of triangulation to argue for its use in the validation process in assessing the veracity of social science research results. There are alternative perspectives on the use of triangulation that argue for its usefulness as a ‘‘dialectical’’ process whose goals seek a more in-depth nuanced understanding of research findings and clarifying disparate results by placing them in dialogue with one another. This special issue of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research (JMMR) analyzes and explores the variety of ways triangulation is used in mixed methods research and the range of issues and controversies surrounding triangulation praxis. To date, there are few scholarly in-depth discussions of its deployment in mixed methods research. The choice of triangulation as the topic for this first special issue of JMMR is based on the claims made by many scholars in the field that triangulation provides a justification for the use of mixed methods. The contributors to this volume raise many questions about the meaning of triangulation, its philosophical positioning in the mixed methods community, and strategies for using triangulation in the design of mixed methods studies, analysis and interpretation of data, and making visible subjugated voices. They take provocative positions, suggesting that qualitative, constructivist, and interpretive pathways provide greater potential for research to address the social good than has been possible using mixed methods approaches that are more closely aligned with the postpositivist paradigm. They revisit the ‘‘paradigm wars’’ and ask this question: Are we still stuck with the incompatibility thesis that paralyzed advances in mixed methods in past decades? They explore and critique the potential of alternative methodologies for harnessing the synergy that is said to lie in the application of mixed methods research designs by asking another set of questions: Have members of the mixed methods community done an injustice to pragmatism as a philosophical frame for mixed methods? Is qualitatively framed mixed methods the way forward? Is it possible that qualitatively framed mixed methods are better suited to the ability of mixed methods researchers to demonstrate a causal relationship between variables? How and when should triangulation be brought into mixed methods research to obtain a more nuanced

Scholars in the social sciences are increasingly expected to incorporate both quantitative and qualitative techniques and methods into their research. The growth of “mixed-methods” research is evident in social science disciplines ranging from psychology and management to marketing and information systems. This book is designed to provide principles, strategies, and guidance specifically for researchers in these disciplines so that they can use mixed-methods research more effectively. In thirteen chapters, Conducting Mixed-Methods Research takes readers through the research process, from defining research questions to writing articles using a mixed-methods approach. For those who are well trained in either qualitative or quantitative methods, the book shows them how to think about the purposes of mixed-methods research, design mixed-methods studies, and develop meta-inferences by integrating findings from both methods. Throughout, the discussion is grounded in examples taken from published research, carefully chosen to highlight best practices, thus opening a window into a broad body of mixed-methods research applications.

Mixed methods research (the combined use of quantitative and qualitative methods within a single study) has developed rapidly in the last few years. This methodological approach is becoming increasingly articulated, attached to research practice and recognized, along with qualitative research and quantitative research, as the third major research approach (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007).The scientific fields with more tradition in using and developing mixed methods research are Education, Sociology, Psychology and Health Sciences. This methodological approach is championed by methodologists from these fields such as John Creswell, Abbas Tashakkori, Burke Johnson, Anthony Onwuegbuzie, Jennifer Greene, Charles Teddlie and David Morgan (Denscombe, 2008). Books specifically focused on mixed methods research are being published in these fields (Andrew & Halcomb, 2009; Bergman, 2008; Brewer & Hunter, 2006; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, 2011; Greene, 2007; Morse & Niehaus, 2009; Niglas, 2004; Ridenour & Newman, 2008; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003, 2010; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).In January 2007 the first issue of a journal solely devoted to mixed methods research (Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Sage Publications) was published. The two founding co-editors, John Creswell and Abbas Tashakkori, are researchers in the field of Education. Other methodological journals that publish mixed methods studies include this journal (International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, also launched in 2007), along with Quality and Quantity, Field Methods and the International Journal of Social Research Methodology. Empirical articles that employ a mixed methods approach using this distinct name in the title are also published in Education, Sociology, Psychology and Health Sciences, and literature reviews that analyze the prevalence and application of mixed methods are carried out. An annual conference devoted to mixed methods is organized by schools and researchers from these fields (in 2011 the 7th International Mixed Methods Conference was hosted by the School of Healthcare in the University of Leeds, UK). Moreover, a Special Interest Group on Mixed Methods Research was formed in the American Educational Research Association in 2005. In summary, as noted by Creswell and Plano Clark (2007), mixed methods research has only been carefully used and examined in a handful of disciplines.In the case of Business and Management, our fields of inquiry have not embraced this methodological approach as enthusiastically as the fields described. Although there are calls for using mixed methods research in Business and Management fields (Cameron, 2011, Currall & Towler, 2003; Jick, 1979; Molina-Azorin, 2007), the acceptance and attention devoted to mixed methods research is very low in relation to other fields. There is not any specific book on mixed methods research in Business and Management. To date and to the best knowledge of the two special issue editors, a special issue on mixed methods has not yet been published in any Business and Management journal. Moreover, Creswell and Tashakkori (2007) make the pertinent point that the literature base about mixed methods research may not be well known to individuals in specific fields. Cameron and Molina-Azorin (2011) and Molina-Azorin (2011) confirm this issue in the case of Business and Management studies.In addition, in contrast to studies in the fields of Education, Sociology, Psychology and Health Sciences, the term 'mixed methods' is not usually used in the title of mixed methods studies in Business and Management. Furthermore, in the journal Organizational Research Methods, the main methodological journal in our field, the term 'mixed methods' is not a listed keyword. This issue also occurs in other business and management discipline journals.On the basis of such broad scanning evidence it seems likely that the advantages, possibilities, purposes, designs and potential of mixed methods research may be yet still unknown to many researchers in Business and Management. …

Background: The use of mixed methods research (MMR) has become progressively important in the field of behavioral and social sciences. This article makes an argument for the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods in the study of childhood trauma. It focuses on the role of MMR in effectively exploring the traumatic life experiences and narratives of children and adolescents. Methods: The mixed method approach is beneficial for multi-dimensional research strategies, thereby surpassing the quantitative-qualitative divide. We also discuss the key characteristics of the mixed methods approach applicable to these behavioral studies. Results: This article concludes with a study example from the author’s MMR-driven doctoral research on the topic of divorce-related child custody issues in India. Conclusion: The implications for MMR use in future childhood trauma research are discussed.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the teaching practice course according to the views of the teaching staff, practice teachers and physical education teacher candidates who took the teaching practice course. As the program evaluation model, Stufflebeam's Context, Input, Process and Product Evaluation Model (CIPP) was used. Mixed research method, in which quantitative and qualitative research methods are used together, was used in the research. The quantitative data collection group of the research consists of physical education teacher candidates (n:63) who took the Teaching Practice course at Hatay Mustafa Kemal University Physical Education and Sports School in the 2021-2022 academic year. The qualitative data consisted of 7 instructors and 7 practice teachers who provided consultancy to the pre-service teachers participating in the study. The data collection tools of the research are the Teaching Practice Evaluation Questionnaire and Semi-Structured Interview Form developed by Aslan and Sağlam (2017). In the study, data were collected in two stages: In the first stage, quantitative data were collected and in the second stage, semi-structured interviews were conducted to explain the quantitative data in more detail. The SPSS package program was used in the analysis of the quantitative data obtained in the study, and the mean and standard deviation values for each item were included. In the analysis of qualitative data, descriptive analysis technique was used. As a result of the study, while there were some failing points in the context, input and process dimensions, the findings obtained in the product dimension indicated that the physical education teacher candidates considered the teaching practice to be effective at a sufficient level. When the data obtained from the interviews were examined, it was observed that all three stakeholders of the course made the same or similar statements on some issues, and while it was observed that their views were compatible with each other, the statements of the stakeholders were different from each other in some items. Depending on the results, suggestions can be made such as providing the necessary conditions in the practice schools, providing the necessary materials to the teacher candidates in order for the teaching practice to be efficient, and regularly giving the two-hour seminar courses given at the school by the practice instructors.

The aim of this research is to examine the effects of web 2.0 tools used in online astronomy education on the conceptual achievement of 5th grade secondary school students. For this purpose, the Sun, Earth and Moon unit was processed online using web 2.0 tools. The study was implemented in a public secondary school over a period of 6 weeks. Mixed research method, which combines qualitative and quantitative research methods, was used in the study. An easily accessible sample model was used to determine the study group. The sample of the study consists of 12 students (7 girls, 5 boys) in the 10-11 age group. The “Sun, Earth and Moon Achievement Test” developed by Sontay & Karamustafaoğlu (2020) was used as a quantitative data collection tool in the study. Qualitative data collection tool “Semi-Structured Telephone Interview on the Concepts of the Sun, Earth and Moon” was used. SPSS program was used in the analysis of quantitative data. Content analysis method was used in the analysis of qualitative data. As a result of the study, it was seen that online education supported by web 2.0 tools within the scope of the Sun, Earth and Moon unit had a positive effect on students’ conceptual success.

‘Mixed methods’ is a research approach whereby researchers collect and analyse both quantitative and qualitative data within the same study.1 2 Growth of mixed methods research in nursing and healthcare...

This paper will discuss the theoretical design considerations and the practical integration of quantitative and qualitative methods in disability and rehabilitation research, which have gained recent popularity among researchers of various disciplines. Whereas quantitative experimental and survey approaches allow researchers to draw generalizable conclusions that apply to a particular population as a whole, qualitative methods capture the depth of respondents' experiences in their own words. Qualitative methods may be used to explore new topical areas prior to implementing a population-based survey, or they may follow quantitative approaches to explain findings in greater detail. We will discuss research findings from two recent studies of rehabilitation industry professionals and people with physical disabilities to exemplify the utility of mixed-method designs in disability and rehabilitation research. The article will conclude with recommendations for rehabilitation nursing researchers to apply both qualitative and quantitative methods in their research practice.

The complexity of social problems addressed by the social work profession makes mixed methods research an essential tool. This literature review examined common quantitative and qualitative techniques used by social work researchers and what mixed methods research may add to social work research. Surveys and in-depth interviews were the most common quantitative and qualitative data collection methods, respectively. The t-test was the most frequently used quantitative data analysis method. Although thematic analysis was the most common qualitative data analysis method, 12% of the qualitative data analysis techniques were not specified. Mixed methods research adds three important elements to social work research: voices of participants, comprehensive analyses of phenomena, and enhanced validity of findings. For these reasons, the teaching and use of mixed methods research remain integral to social work.

The field of instructed SLA (ISLA) has grown rapidly in recent years to examine how systematic manipulations of instructional conditions can lead to the development of second language (L2) knowledge and use (Loewen & Sato, 2017). Following this trend, L2 pragmatics researchers have implemented various instructional methods and examined their effectiveness using experimental designs (Taguchi, 2015; Taguchi & Roever, 2017). The critical issue in this practice is how to assess learning outcomes in order to make a claim that certain instructional methods can produce robust pragmatic knowledge. To address this question, this chapter presents an overview of assessment methods used in analyzing pragmatics learning outcomes. The chapter surveys instructed L2 pragmatics studies published in the last four decades to identify common assessment methods (i.e., discourse completion tasks and role-play tasks). We provide step-by-step illustrations of expert studies in order to demonstrate how researchers design an assessment task, evaluate learning, and interpret results. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the challenges and limitations of current methods and provides direction for addressing such challenges in pragmatics research.