{"title":"本期:混合方法研究与评论中的质量,偶然性与配置性比较方法,以及混合方法研究中的回溯理论化与批判现实主义","authors":"José F. Molina-Azorín, T. Guetterman","doi":"10.1177/15586898221143555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This January 2023 issue of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research (JMMR) includes an editorial, 5 articles, and 2 media reviews. In the editorial, Guetterman et al. (2023) discuss the issue of quality in mixed methods research. Major developments are reviewed and some remaining gaps and needs are identified. Quality is challenging given different use of terms. For example, quality, validity, and legitimation are often used interchangeably. Quality is further complicated by concerns that research is too contextual and discipline specific to have common quality criteria. However, common criteria are needed, and we concluded with a call to the field to develop core quality reporting criteria for mixed methods research as a way of reaching consensus. Regarding the 5 articles published in this issue, 3 manuscripts focus on quality in mixed methods research. Specifically, in the first article, Hirose and Creswell (2023), with affiliations in psychology and education, proposed 6 core quality criteria: a rationale for mixed methods; quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods questions or aims; separate quantitative and qualitative data; a mixed methods design and a diagram; integration in a joint display; and metainferences and value from the integration analysis. The authors provided a specific case illustration of these criteria, examining their application in an empirical study. In the second article, Perez et al. (2023), with affiliations in educational psychology and health sciences, also focused on quality standards in mixed methods research, exploring and extending the legitimation typology developed by Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006). Specifically, the purpose of this article is to examine how researchers are using this typology in their mixed methods studies and to extend and refine the typology for a better use in mixed methods research.","PeriodicalId":47844,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mixed Methods Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In This Issue: Quality in Mixed Methods Studies and Reviews, Contingency and Configurational Comparative Methods, and Retroductive Theorizing and Critical Realism in Mixed Methods Research\",\"authors\":\"José F. Molina-Azorín, T. Guetterman\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15586898221143555\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This January 2023 issue of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research (JMMR) includes an editorial, 5 articles, and 2 media reviews. In the editorial, Guetterman et al. (2023) discuss the issue of quality in mixed methods research. Major developments are reviewed and some remaining gaps and needs are identified. Quality is challenging given different use of terms. For example, quality, validity, and legitimation are often used interchangeably. Quality is further complicated by concerns that research is too contextual and discipline specific to have common quality criteria. However, common criteria are needed, and we concluded with a call to the field to develop core quality reporting criteria for mixed methods research as a way of reaching consensus. Regarding the 5 articles published in this issue, 3 manuscripts focus on quality in mixed methods research. Specifically, in the first article, Hirose and Creswell (2023), with affiliations in psychology and education, proposed 6 core quality criteria: a rationale for mixed methods; quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods questions or aims; separate quantitative and qualitative data; a mixed methods design and a diagram; integration in a joint display; and metainferences and value from the integration analysis. The authors provided a specific case illustration of these criteria, examining their application in an empirical study. In the second article, Perez et al. (2023), with affiliations in educational psychology and health sciences, also focused on quality standards in mixed methods research, exploring and extending the legitimation typology developed by Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006). Specifically, the purpose of this article is to examine how researchers are using this typology in their mixed methods studies and to extend and refine the typology for a better use in mixed methods research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47844,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Mixed Methods Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Mixed Methods Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221143555\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mixed Methods Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221143555","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
In This Issue: Quality in Mixed Methods Studies and Reviews, Contingency and Configurational Comparative Methods, and Retroductive Theorizing and Critical Realism in Mixed Methods Research
This January 2023 issue of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research (JMMR) includes an editorial, 5 articles, and 2 media reviews. In the editorial, Guetterman et al. (2023) discuss the issue of quality in mixed methods research. Major developments are reviewed and some remaining gaps and needs are identified. Quality is challenging given different use of terms. For example, quality, validity, and legitimation are often used interchangeably. Quality is further complicated by concerns that research is too contextual and discipline specific to have common quality criteria. However, common criteria are needed, and we concluded with a call to the field to develop core quality reporting criteria for mixed methods research as a way of reaching consensus. Regarding the 5 articles published in this issue, 3 manuscripts focus on quality in mixed methods research. Specifically, in the first article, Hirose and Creswell (2023), with affiliations in psychology and education, proposed 6 core quality criteria: a rationale for mixed methods; quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods questions or aims; separate quantitative and qualitative data; a mixed methods design and a diagram; integration in a joint display; and metainferences and value from the integration analysis. The authors provided a specific case illustration of these criteria, examining their application in an empirical study. In the second article, Perez et al. (2023), with affiliations in educational psychology and health sciences, also focused on quality standards in mixed methods research, exploring and extending the legitimation typology developed by Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006). Specifically, the purpose of this article is to examine how researchers are using this typology in their mixed methods studies and to extend and refine the typology for a better use in mixed methods research.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Mixed Methods Research serves as a premiere outlet for ground-breaking and seminal work in the field of mixed methods research. Of primary importance will be building an international and multidisciplinary community of mixed methods researchers. The journal''s scope includes exploring a global terminology and nomenclature for mixed methods research, delineating where mixed methods research may be used most effectively, creating the paradigmatic and philosophical foundations for mixed methods research, illuminating design and procedure issues, and determining the logistics of conducting mixed methods research. JMMR invites articles from a wide variety of international perspectives, including academics and practitioners from psychology, sociology, education, evaluation, health sciences, geography, communication, management, family studies, marketing, social work, and other related disciplines across the social, behavioral, and human sciences.