Mixed Method Research in Special Education
It is important to note that our effort to advance special education MMR is not a retreat from the important strides the field has made in the area of standards for evidence-based practices in special education. The work of the CEC, IES, and numerous special education leaders has laid the foundation for a discussion on special education MMR. The goal is to enhance the long tradition of quality special education research.
As a starting point, a cursory literature review of special education MMR was conducted. This preliminary review suggested there are a limited number of studies labeled as MMR. While there are potentially multiple reasons for why this seems to be the case, there are some possible ones to consider. One obvious reason is the lack of guidance from the field on MMR. While correlational, group experimental/quasi-experimental, qualitative, and single-case design research have justifiably been given substantial attention; minimal consideration has been given to MMR. Also, the structure of university coursework is often compartmentalized as being quantitative or qualitative without many explicit efforts to promote MMR. These two factors could contribute to unintentional consequences. For example, author guidelines in top special education journals often state an interest in publishing research studies that use the four previously stated methodologies but do not clearly indicate MMR.
Another indirect means of not encouraging MMR is page limitation requirements. Many high quality special education journals have maximum page length limitations of 30 to 35 typewritten double-spaced pages including references, tables, and figures. Considering most MMR articles are longer compared to single-methodology articles, the nature of this requirement could circuitously discourage the MMR studies from being conducted or published.
An additional potential issue might boil down to a numbers game. Given the “publish or perish” tenure and promotion criteria at research institutions, researchers logically feel the pressure to publish more instead of less. Conducting a MMR study often takes longer as compared to single-methodology studies. As the tenure and/or promotion clock ticks faster and louder, the survival instinct increasingly becomes more intense. Similarly, how funding agencies frame their requests for proposals, directly affects the kind of research conducted. Novice and seasoned researchers who seek out research funding may be discouraged from applying to agencies that do not explicitly encourage MMR.
These are but a few of the potential reasons why special education MMR is still in its infancy. Given that special education MMR is of interest, a collective reflection on how to design and evaluate it is warranted. Therefore, in addition to the future DR MMR publication, below is a brief list of MMR publications. Hopefully, these readings provide researchers with the common fundamental MMR foundation necessary to have a thoughtful conversation on the topic. A central part of the DR mission is to be of service to its members and the larger special education research community. We encourage researchers to provide us with constructive feedback on the journey towards gaining a better understanding of special education MMR.
Finally, I would like to note that this is my last DR presidential address. It has been a pleasure to serve in this capacity. I hope that I have served you well. If you are a DR member, thank you for your support. If you are not a member, I encourage you to join. DR is a place where you can grow professionally and get to know an exceptional group of people!
Mixed Methods Research Resources
Castro, F. G., Kellison, J. G., Boyd, S. J., & Kopak, A. (2010). A methodology for conducting integrative mixed methods research and data analysis. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 342-360.
Collins, K. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Johnson, R. B. (2012). Securing a place at the table: A review and extension of legitimation criteria for the conduct of mixed research. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 849-865. doi:10.1177/0002764211433799
Collins, K. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Sutton, I. L. (2006). A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed-methods research in special education and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(1), 67-100.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hitchcock, J. H., & Newman, I. (2013). Applying an interactive quantitative-qualitative framework: How identifying common intent can enhance inquiry. Human Resource Development Review, 12(1), 36-52. doi:10.1177/1534484312462127
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
Klingner, J. G. (2011). Addressing the "Research Gap" in special education through mixed methods. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(3), 208-218.
Newman, I., & Hitchcock, J. H. (2011). Underlying agreements between quantitative and qualitative research: The short and tall of it all. Human Resource Development Review, 10(4), 381-398. doi:10.1177/1534484311413867
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Corrigan, J. A. (2014). Improving the quality of mixed research reports in the field of human resource development and beyond: A call for rigor as an ethical practice. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(3), 273-299. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21197