The last chapter of this book goes over mixed methods as well as strategies for deciding and writing proposals for mixed methods. Creswell begins with the how to define, or rather ways to incorporate the definition of, mixed methods to your proposal. He suggested that you could provide a sort of an evolutionary timeline of how the origins of this type of study came to be. Creswell also included using his own definition from the beginning of this book, because we all know there’s no shame in self-promoting your own work, he cites himself enough in every chapter. Another example of defining mixed methods is to use the “growth of interest” (205) that expands from scholarly bodies of work such as journals, books, and other academic discourses. Creswell also expands on this idea to include the opposite perception and define mixed methods by the challenges research faces and the need for this type of inquiry. He then goes on to discuss the importance of timing, weighting, mixing and theorizing. These four aspects structure the type of proposal you will take on. Timing is further divided into sequentially (one type of data is taken before the other) or concurrently (data collected simultaneously). Weighting is the author’s decision to emphasize qualitative or quantitative qualities based on audience, topic, and research. Mixing is how the author effectively mixes quantitative and qualitative data and interpretations. Mixing is further divided into connected, where the data and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative methods are “connected” throughout the proposal; integrated, where the two methods merge during the interpretation or analysis; or embedding, which uses both methods, but one form is used within the other form as a support. This section, most specifically, gave me the most trouble out of the chapter when trying to understand the different concepts. This is the one time I would have like Creswell to but in examples even if they were short, fictional excerpts. Instead I had to wait six pages and five strategies until I got an example and by that time I had already caught on since the strategies incorporates the three types of mixing. Theorizing is the last step to situate the proposal to include the author’s biases. The next portion of the chapter Creswell begins to explain the rudimentary elements that develop the base for the strategies for inquires. He notes six different types of mixed method strategies which are sequential explanatory strategy, sequential exploratory strategy, sequential transformative strategy, concurrent triangulation strategy, concurrent embedded strategy and concurrent transformative strategy. The sequential explanatory strategy’s main difference is when the quantitative data (taken first) mixes to inform the qualitative data (taken second). For the, sequential exploratory strategy, the different characteristics are “mix[ing] through being connected between the qualitative data analysis and…quantitative data collection” (211) and this method is exploratory. Sequential transformative strategy has a distinct quality in that it incorporates a theoretical lens. The concurrent triangulation strategy differs from the rest because the mixing is done in the interpretation portion or it can be used to compare results simultaneously in the discussion. The concurrent embedded strategy can be used to show the unevenness in a situation by not being compared but by having the data embedded and side by side. The last strategy, concurrent transformative strategy, is different because it leaves the author free to incorporate features of triangulation and embedding. Creswell later goes on to explain how to choose a strategy, which he just did when he introduced the six strategies. He also continues to describe how to analyze data and represent it within your proposal.
No comments:
Post a Comment