On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher: The Importance of Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methodologies

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J.; Leech, Nancy L.

doi:10.1080/13645570500402447

Cited by 666 publications

(490 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

463

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, quantitative methods tend to make strong assumptions regarding how the decision-making process unfolds, which can be misleading as they ignore the multiplicity and complexity of economic geographies in which the study's subjects are embedded. To overcome these shortcomings, we performed a further analysis based on qualitative data (Greene et al 1989;Morgan 2007;Onwuegbuzie and Leech 2005).…”

Section: Qualitative Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do they return? Beyond the economic drivers of graduate return migration

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the factors that shape the location choices of formerly mobile graduates (FMGs) initially resident in Sardinia, Italy, a less developed European region. Combining qualitative and quantitative techniques, the paper examines the reasons why some individuals decide to return after their studies, the factors that shape their decisions and how these choices unfolded in space and time. It counters the literature, which suggests that migration is a one-off linear process driven only by wealth-maximising behaviour, positing rather that access to opportunities in open meritocratic job markets and circular migration trajectories are far more salient to FMGs. This suggests that policy makers should concentrate on promoting labour market opportunities and invest in social networks that will aid brain circulation. JEL Classification

show abstract

Section: Qualitative Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do they return? Beyond the economic drivers of graduate return migration

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This debate is most often Developing mixed methods research 10 located within the frame of a quantitative paradigm versus a qualitative paradigm. Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005) suggest that purists exist at one end of a continuum and tend to focus on the differences between the paradigms rather than on similarities.…”

Section: Critical Reflection 2: Purists Pragmatists and Mixing Paradmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing mixed methods research in sport and exercise psychology: Critical reflections on five points of controversy

Sparkes

2015

Psychology of Sport and Exercise

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To stimulate debate in sport and exercise psychology about the nature of mixed methods research as currently practiced and how this approach might develop in the future.Design: An exploration of five points of controversy relating to mixed methods research. Results:The examples provided of mixed methods research in action indicate that a number of problematic issues regarding both process and product have been neglected. Conclusions.Mixed methods research offers a number of conceptual, practical and pedagogical challenges that need to be addressed if this form of inquiry is to develop its full potential in sport and exercise psychology.Keywords: mixed methods, paradigms, integration, criteria, power.Developing mixed methods research 3 Developing Mixed Methods Research in Sport and Exercise Psychology: Critical Reflections on Five Points of ControversyIn a decade review (2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009) of qualitative research in three leading sport psychology journals, that included Psychology of Sport and Exercise, Culver, Gilbert and Sparkes (2012) found that a total of 57 articles used mixed methods, which accounted for 31.1% of the articles classified as qualitative in their selected sample. Of these 57 mixed methods articles, '25 employed open-ended questions within a survey or test; 23 used tests and interviews; and 10 used systematic observation in conjunction with interviews ' (p. 265).This suggests a growing acceptance of mixed methods research (MMR) in the field.Moran, Matthews and Kirby (2011) propose that MMR 'has much to offer sport and exercise psychology researchers who believe that quantitative and qualitative methods may be combined effectively ' (p. 367). The benefits proposed for undertaking a mixed methods study according to Doyle, Brady and Byrne (2009) The views of Mason (2006) suggest that researchers in sport and exercise psychology are well advised to approach MMR with caution. Rich and critical debates within the social sciences about MMR show it is best viewed as a contested and ambiguous concept (Gill, 2011;Johnson, Onwuegbuzie & Turner, 2007;Whaley & Krane, 2011). Cresswell (2011), a leading advocate of MMR, highlights an extensive range of controversies in an emerging field that include the following: basic issues of the legitimacy and meaning, philosophical underpinnings, and the pragmatics of conducting a mixed methods study. These controversies, he argues, need to be squarely placed on the table for discussion and their presence honoured. In this article, therefore, I offer some critical reflections on five points of controversy with the aim of stimulating dialogue within the sport and exercise psychology Developing mixed methods research 5 community about what MMR is, how it is currently practiced, how it might be developed in the future, and the pedagogical challenges that flow from all of this.,Gaining an understanding of MMR as an emerging field is difficult. The term 'mixed methods' has multiple meanings depending on the st...

show abstract

“…Edley,200x) but with the end of the 'paradigm wars' (Oakley, 1999;Bryman, 2006) pluralistic approaches also provide a pragmatic adherence to moving beyond the constraints of adopting just one epistemological or ontological position. They offer an 'agnostic' position, where pragmatism (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005) means that 'epistemology and ontological issues have been marginalised to a significant extent' (Bryman, 2007: 17). The focus instead is on linking the approach adopted to the purpose of the research and the nature of the research question (Creswell, 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%