No abstract

The complex phenomena of interest to family scientists require the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches. Researchers across the social sciences are now turning to mixed methods designs that combine these two approaches. Mixed methods research has great promise for addressing family science topics, but only if researchers understand the design options and procedures that accompany this methodological choice. Discussions of mixed methods in the family science literature are difficult to locate, and little has been written about how family scientists apply this approach in practice. This article presents an overview of mixed methods research, including its definition, terminology, and design types, and examines how it is being successfully used and reported in family research journals. The authors review the application of mixed methods designs in 19 studies and discuss design features and issues that arose during implementation. They conclude with recommendations for family scientists considering using this approach.

Mixed methods–grounded theory (MM–GT) has emerged as a promising methodology that intersects the value of mixed methods with rigorous qualitative design. However, recent reviews have found that MM–GT empirical studies tend to lack procedural details. The purpose of this article is to apply the “best practices” for conducting MM–GT in a study designed to develop and then test a theoretical model for how undergraduate engineering students develop interest in the engineering PhD. This study contributes to the field of mixed methods research by (a) illustrating best practices for MM–GT, (b) providing an MM–GT scale development example, (c) demonstrating how an MM-GT scale could potentially bypass exploratory factor analysis and proceed directly to confirmatory factor analysis for testing psychometric properties, and showing how a joint display for data collection planning can be used to strengthen integration in an instrument development study.

A central issue for mixed methods research is for researchers to effectively integrate (or mix) the quantitative and qualitative data in their studies. Despite extensive methodological discussions about integration, researchers using mixed methods approaches struggle with translating these discussions into practice and often make inadequate use of integration in their studies. The authors examined their integration practices as they applied three literature-based strategies within the context of one mixed methods study about a nontraditional graduate education program. From this examination, the authors describe the processes, products, uses, and challenges that materialized as they merged their quantitative and qualitative databases to develop a better understanding of participants’ perceptions of their experience in the program.

We live in a fast-paced world surrounded by technological advances. Engineers with advanced skills perform important functions in our society. However we know very little about how engineers consider obtaining advanced education and skills. The purpose of this study is to understand and develop a theory explaining the process domestic engineers undergo in developing an interest in obtaining a PhD in engineering. Our research was guided by the following central research question: What is the theory that explains the process of developing interest in doctoral-level engineering education for engineers? We used qualitative, grounded theory methods, to investigate the process of advanced engineering education interest. Interview data were collected from undergraduate engineering students, doctoral engineering students, engineering faculty, and engineers in industry with PhD degrees from seven institutional sites. Our theory explains that misperceptions, personal characteristics, and environmental elements are part of engineers' interest in advanced education. Engineers must be exposed to these factors and must also actively process this information to develop interest. This theory provides a framework for understanding and promoting doctoral education for engineers. Implications for educators are offered.