login

A Mixed Methods Investigation of Mixed Methods Sampling Designs in Social and Health Science Research

Journal of Mixed Methods ResearchPublished 21 June 2007
Kathleen M. T. Collins, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Qun G. Jiao
Citations549
SJR quartileQ1
SJR score2.33
SNIP3.43

TL;DR

Qualitative analysis suggested that across a number of studies the researchers made statistical generalizations that were not sufficiently warranted—culminating in interpretive inconsistency and contributing to crises of representation, legitimation, integration, and politics.

Abstract

A sequential design utilizing identical samples was used to classify mixed methods studies via a two-dimensional model, wherein sampling designs were grouped according to the time orientation of each study's components and the relationship of the qualitative and quantitative samples. A quantitative analysis of 121 studies representing nine fields in the social or health sciences revealed that more studies utilized a sampling design that was concurrent (66.1%) than sequential (33.9%). Also, identical sampling designs were the most prevalent, followed by nested sampling, multilevel sampling, and parallel sampling, respectively. Qualitative analysis suggested that across a number of studies the researchers made statistical generalizations that were not sufficiently warranted—culminating in interpretive inconsistency and contributing to crises of representation, legitimation, integration, and politics.

Keywords

Social SciencesHealth Professions