LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Stockman, Caroline (2015)
Publisher: Academic Conference and Publishing International Limited
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: X390, X342
The journey of any doctorate is a challenging one. It constitutes a learning curve for postgraduate students towards becoming effective and fully independent academics. Through a concern for effective mentoring, the challenges of the doctoral effort have been well-documented. The particular issues a Ph.D. student may face when choosing a mixed methods design merits some further attention, however. Mixed-methods research is growing in popularity across academic domains and levels. Achieving a doctorate through a mixed methods study can be a very fruitful endeavour indeed. Excellent core handbooks, example studies and ongoing formalisation of the approach aid in delivering successful work. Yet the chosen methodological path may also bring up some specific hurdles. This paper aims to discuss some of those potential barriers as learning opportunities, and offer an initial discussion of the support systems. Specifically highlighted as potential challenges are the current ‘trendy’ nature of mixed methods research, the search for optimal design, the development of skills, domain loyalties and paradigm problems, specific difficulties in publishing, isolation threat and justification needs. For Ph.D. students, an understanding of these challenges is a first step towards overcoming them, and achieving conscious competence.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Bazeley, P. (2003) “Teaching Mixed Methods”, Qualitative Research Journal, Vol 3, pp117-126.
    • Beeler, K. D. (1991) “Graduate student adjustment to academic life: A four-stage framework”, NASPA Journal, Vol 28, pp163-171.
    • Bezzina, F. & Saunders, M.N.K. (2013) “The Prevalence of Research Methodology Mis/conceptions among Business and Management Academics”, in Mesquita, A. & Ramos, I. (eds) Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, Reading, ACPI, pp40-47.
    • Bliss, L. (2008) “Review of Jennifer Greene's Mixed methods in social inquiry” Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol 2, No.2, pp190-192.
    • Brown, S.E. (2014) “Student Characteristics, Prior Experiences, and the Perception of Mixed Methods as an Innovation”, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska.
    • Byers, V. T. et al. (2014) “Survival strategies: Doctoral students' perceptions of challenges and coping methods”, International Journal of Doctoral Studies, Vol 9, pp109-136.
    • Creswell, J. & Plano Clark, V. (2011) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, Sage Publications, London.
    • Deacon, D. (2008) "Why Counting Counts”, in Pickering, M. (Ed), Research Methods for Cultural Studies, Edinburgh UP, Edinburgh, pp89-104.
    • De Lisle, J. (2011) “The Benefits and Challenges of Mixing Methods and Methodologies: Lessons Learnt from Implementing Qualitatively Led Mixed Methods Research Designs in Trinidad and Tobago”, Caribbean Curriculum, Vol 18, pp87-120.
    • Denzin, N. K. (2008) “The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry”, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education”, Vol 21, pp315-325.
    • Durani, P. (2006) “Duplicate publications: redundancy in plastic surgery literature“, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, Vol 59, pp975-977.
    • Early, M. (2007) “Developing a Syllabus for a Mixed-Methods Research Course”, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Vol 10, No.2, pp145-162.
    • Finn, J.A. (2005) Getting a Phd: an Action Plan to Help Manage Your Research, Your Supervision and Your Project, Routledge, Abingdon.
    • Gitelman, L. (2013) Raw Data Is an Oxymoron, Infrastructures Series, MIT Press, Harvard (US).
    • Goodhue, D. (2007) "Comment on Benbasat and Barki's “Quo Vadis Tam” Article", Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol 8, No.4, pp219-22.
    • Halcomb, E. & Andrew, S. (2009) “Practical considerations for higher degree research students undertaking mixed methods projects”, International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, Vol 3, No.2, pp153-162.
    • Hall, B., & Howard, K. (2008). “A synergistic approach: Conducting mixed methods research with typological and systemic design considerations”, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol 2, No.3, pp248-269.
    • Jairam, D. & Kahl, Jr. D. H. (2012) “Navigating the doctoral experience: The role of social support in successful degree completion”, International Journal of Doctoral Students, Vol 7, pp311-329.
    • Johnson, R. B. & Christensen, L. B. (2008) Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks (US).
    • Jones, M. (2013) “Issues in Doctoral Studies - Forty Years of Journal Discussion: Where have we been and where are we going?”, International Journal of Doctoral Studies, Vol 8, pp83-104.
    • Lamb, D. (2013) “Promoting the case for Using a Research Journal to Document and Reflect on the Research Experience”, The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol 11, No.2, pp84-92.
    • Lee, A. (2008) “How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol 33, No.3, pp.267-281.
    • Ma, Q. & Liu, L. (2004) "The Technology Acceptance Model: A Meta-Analysis of Empirical Findings", Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, Vol 16, No.1, pp59-72.
    • Neumann, R. (2003) The Doctoral Education Experience: Diversity and Complexity. Evaluations and Investigations Program, Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra, Australia.
    • O'Cathain, A. (2009) “Reporting mixed methods projects”, in Andrew, S. & Halcomb, E. (Eds), Mixed methods research for nursing and the health sciences. Wiley-Blackwell, London UK, pp135-158.
    • Phillips, E.M. & Pugh, D.S. (2005) How to Get a Phd, 4th ed, Open University Press, Maidenhead.
    • Plowright, D. (2013) “To what extent do postgraduate students understand the principles of mixed methods in educational research?”, International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, Vol 7, No.1, pp66-82.
    • Rich, M. (2014) “Learning Research Methods: How Personalised Should we be?”, European Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol 12, No.2, pp131-138.
    • Saunders, M., Lewis. P & Thornhill, A. (2012) Research methods for business students, 6th ed, Pearson, Harlow.
    • Shulha, L. & Wilson, R. (2003) “Collaborative mixed methods research”, in A. Tashakkori & Teddlie, C. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, Sage, Thousand Oaks: CA, pp639-670.
    • Spaulding, L. S. & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J. (2012) “Hearing their voices: Factors doctoral candidates attribute to their persistence”, International Journal of Doctoral Studies, Vol 7, pp199-219
    • Stockman, C. (2015) “A Cultural Studies Contribution to Technology Acceptance in Education”, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
    • Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2009) Foundations of Mixed Methods Research : Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Sage Publications, Los Angeles.
    • Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2012) “Common “Core” Characteristics of Mixed Methods Research: A Review of Critical Issues and Call for Greater Convergence”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol 56, No. 6, pp774-788.
    • Watkins, D. C. & Gioia, D. (2015) Mixed Methods Research: Pocket Guides to Social Work Research Methods Series, Oxford University Press, New York (US).
    • Wisker, G. (2012) The Good Supervisor: Supervising Postgraduate and Undergraduate Research for Doctoral Theses and Dissertations, 2nd ed, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article