Explanatory sequential design of mixed methods research: Phases and challenges
Keywords:Explanatory Sequential Design, Mixed Methods Research, Estonia
The purpose of this essay is to discuss the phases and challenges of the explanatory sequential design (ESD hereinafter) of mixed methods research (MMR hereinafter) by reviewing relevant literature. The literature was explored during the design stage of a Ph.D. project that sought to examine the relationship among social capital, education, and employment for foreign students graduating from several Estonian universities. The review finds that the explanatory sequential design of MMR is much more complex than just sequencing how and what kind of data to collect; it also entails selecting how data will be processed and presented using a range of techniques that are often riddled with difficulties. By addressing these ideas, this paper will aid those interested in comprehending the summary of the explanatory sequential design of MMR.
Abdul, A. (2015). The Central Arguments of Critical Realism and Positivism Approaches and an Evaluation of Their Impact upon a Proposed Research Project. International Journal of Current Research, 7(12), 23867 -23870.
Abowitz, D. A., & Toole, T. M. (2010). Mixed Method Research: Fundamental Issues of Design, Validity, and Reliability in Construction Research. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(1), 108-116. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000026
Al-Ababneh, M. M. (2020). Linking Ontology, Epistemology and Research Methodology. Science & Philosophy, 8(1), 75-91. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3708935
Baert, P. (2005). Critical Realism. In P. Baert, Philosophy of the Social Sciences: Towards Pragmatism (pp. 87-105). UK: Polity Press.
Bhaskar, R. (2009). Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation. London, UK: Routledge.
Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 8-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806290531
Burks, A. W. (1946). Peirce's Theory of Abduction. Philosophy of Science, 13(4), 301-306.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Creswell, J. (2011). Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. New York: Pearson.
Creswell, J., & Clark, V. (2017). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.
Creswell, J., & Tashakkori, A. (2007). Editorial: Developing Publishable Mixed Methods Manuscripts. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 106-111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298644
Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. London: SAGE.
Dilshad, R. M., & Latif, M. I. (2013). Focus Group Interview as a Tool for Qualitative Research: An Analysis. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS), 33(1), 191-198.
Doyle, L., Brady, A. M., & Byrne, G. (2016). An Overview of Mixed Methods Research - Revisited. Journal of Research in Nursing, 21(8), 623-635. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987116674257
Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2008). Qualitative Research Evaluation. In P. Eriksson, & A. Kovalainen, Qualitative Methods in Business Research (pp. 290-297). CA: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028044
Gabor, M. R. (2010). Descriptive Methods of Data Analysis for Marketing Data-Theoretical and Practical Considerations. Management and Marketing, 5(3), 119-134.
Gray, D. E. (2014). Doing Research in the Real World. Washington DC: SAGE publication.
Guest, G. (2013). Describing mixed methods research: An alternative to typologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 141-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812461179
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied Thematic Analysis. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Ivankova, N. V., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Students' Persistence in a Distributed Doctoral Program in Educational Leadership in Higher Education: A Mixed Methods Study. Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 93-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-006-9025-4
Jamshed, S. (2014). Qualitative Research Method-Interviewing and Observation. Journal of Basic and Clinical Pharmacy, 5(4), 87-88. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-0105.141942
Kaushik, V., & Walsh, C. A. (2019). Pragmatism as a Research Paradigm and Its Implications for Social Work Research. Social Sciences, 8(9), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8090255
Kawulich, B. B. (2005). Participant Observation as a Data Collection Method. Forum qualitative social research, 6(2), Article 43. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0502430
Kelly, L. M., & Cordeiro, M. (2020). Three Principles of Pragmatism for Research on Organizational Processes. Methodological Innovations, 13(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799120937242
Kemp, S. (2005). Critical Realism and the Limits of Philosophy. European Journal of Social Theory, 8(2), 171-191.
Kincheloe, J. L., & Tobin, K. (2009). The Much Exaggerated Death of Positivism. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 513-528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-009-9178-5
Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical Guidance to Qualitative Research, Part 4: Trustworthiness and Publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kumar, V., & Garg, M. L. (2018). Predictive Analytics: A Review of Trends and Techniques. International Journal of Computer Applications, 31-37. https://doi.org/10.5120/ijca2018917434
Lepenioti, K., Bousdekis, A., Apostolou, D., & Mentzas, G. (2020). Prescriptive Analytics: Literature Review and Research Challenges. International Journal of Information Management, 57-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.04.003
Lewis, M., Saunders, P., & Adrian, T. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students. Essex: Pearson.
Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging Criteria for Quality in Qualitative and Interpretive Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049500100301
Linneberg, M. S., & Korsgaard, S. (2019). Coding Qualitative Data: A Synthesis Guiding the Novice. Qualitative Research Journal, 19(3), 259-270. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-12-2018-0012
Merom, D., & John, J. R. (2019). Measurement Issues in Quantitative Research. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences, 663-679. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_95
Middleton, F. (2019, August 08). Types of Reliability and How to Measure Them. Retrieved from www.scribbr.com/methodology/types-of-reliability [Accessed 20 February 2021]
Morey, N. C., & Luthans, F. (1984). An Emic Perspective and Ethno-science Methods for Organizational Research. The Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 27-36. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277836
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Morgan, D. L. (2014). Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: A Pragmatic Approach. Thousand Oaks CA: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544304533
Morse, J. M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed Method Design: Principles And Procedures. London: Routledge.
Nassaji, H. (2015). Qualitative and descriptive research: Data Type Versus Data Analysis. Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 129-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815572747
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. (2007). A Typology of Mixed Methods Sampling Designs in Social Science Research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281-316.
Onwuegbuzie, A., & Johnson, R. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. In V. L. Clark, & J. W. Creswell, The Mixed Methods Reader (pp. 273-298). California: Thousand Oaks, SAGE.
Park, D., Bahrudin, F. I., & Han, J. (2020). Circular Reasoning for the Evolution of Research through a Strategic Construction of Research Methodologies. International Journal of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods, 8(3), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-00969-9
Ponto, J. (2015). Understanding and Evaluating Survey Research. Journal of Advance Practitioner in Oncology, 6(2), 168-171. https://doi.org/10.6004/jadpro.2015.6.2.9
Robert, D. (2019, Feb 12). Is survey Research Based on Inductive or Deductive Reasoning? Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-survey-research-based-on-inductive-or-deductive-reasoning/5c620fbc661123047b2f1feb/citation/download [Accessed 24 January 2021]
Saunders, M. N., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., & Bristow, A. (2019). Research Methods for Business Students (8th ed.). UK: Pearson.
Smit, B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2018). Observations in Qualitative Inquiry: When What You See Is Not What You See. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918816766
Talja, S. (1999). Analyzing Qualitative Interview Data: The Discourse Analytic Method. Library & Information Science Research, 21(4), 459-477. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-8188(99)00024-9
Taylor, S. P. (2018). Critical Realism Vs Social Constructionism & Social Constructivism: Application to a Social Housing Research Study. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research, 37(2), 216-222.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Los Angeles: SAGE.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 Mohammad Abu Sayed Toyon
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
For all articles published in IJRBS, copyright is retained by the authors. Articles are licensed under an open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, meaning that anyone may download and read the paper for free. In addition, the article may be reused and quoted provided that the original published version is cited. These conditions allow for maximum use and exposure of the work, while ensuring that the authors receive proper credit.