Dedoose Publications

PUBLICATIONS

Dedoose has been field-tested and journal-proven by leading academic institutions and market researchers worldwide. Thousands of prominent researchers across the US and abroad have benefited from early versions of Dedoose in their qualitative and mixed methods work and have laid an outstanding publication and report trail along the way.

Education Based Publications

Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research

Johnson, R. Burke, Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J., & Turner, Lisa A. (2007)

Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133

Examines the definition of the emerging mixed methods research field. Surveyed major authors in the mixed method literature with regard to definition for the field and key issues that need to be addressed as the field advances. Results show a consensus of mixed methods as an emerging ‘research paradigm’ and a breadth of opinion around definition for the field.
Education Based Publications

Focus Groups

Morgan, David L. (2004)

S. N. Hesse-Biber and P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to Qualitative Research: A Reader on Theory and Practice, pp. 263-285. New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Written by a long-time authority on focus group, presents a brief history of focus group application up to, and including, information on the variety of current uses across many disciplines. Great section on the uses of focus groups in combination with other methods with a full compare/contrast discussion. Finally, goes into the specifics on ‘how to’ plan and conduct effective group data collection. My own preference (Morgan, 1996) is for a more inclusive approach that broadly defines focus groups as a research technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher. In essence, it is the researcher's interest that provides the focus, whereas the data themselves come from the group interaction. One reason for favoring an inclusive approach is that the exclusive approaches do not really exclude very much. Other than focus groups, the primary categories of group interviews in the existing typologies are things that are manifestly different from focus groups. On the one hand, there are nominal groups and Delphi groups (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990), which do not involve actual group interaction. On the other hand, there is the observation of naturally occurring groups, which typically do not involve the researcher in determining the topic of discussion. Thus, little is gained by excluding these categories of data collection because they already fall outside the broad definition of focus groups offered here. Among the more specific criteria that could be used to distinguish focus groups from other types of group interviews, both Frey and Fontana (1989) and Khan and Manderson (1992) assert that focus groups are more formal. In particular, they argue that focus groups are likely to involve inviting participants to the discussion and they also stress the distinctive role of the moderator. Although there is no doubt that group interviews vary along a continuum from more formally structured interaction to more informal gatherings, I do not believe it is possible to draw a line between formal and informal group interviews in a way that defines some as focus groups and others as something else. Instead, I find it more useful to think that the degree of formal structure in a focus group is a decision that the research makes according to the specific purposes of the research project. In par-ticular, the use of either a more formal or a less formal approach will depend on the researcher's goals, the nature of the research setting, and the likely reaction of the participants to the research topic. Among the other criteria that have been offered as distinguishing features of focus groups are their size and the use of specialized facilities for the interview (McQuarrie, 1996). Again, however, these supposedly exclu¬sive criteria are mostly a matter of degree. Who is to say when a group is too large or too small to be called a focus group or when a setting is too casual to qualify? Rather than generate pointless debates about what is or is not a focus group, I prefer to treat focus groups as a "broad umbrella" or "big tent" that can include many different variations. Of course, this approach requires researchers to make choices about doing focus groups one way rather than another. Fortunately, this need to make explicit decisions about data collection strategies is a familiar concern to social scientists, and it comes under the heading of "research design." As social scientists have gained increasing experience with focus groups, we also have produced insights into the situations in which different research designs are either more or less likely to be effective (e.g., Krueger, 1993; Morgan, 1992.a, 1995).
Education Based Publications

A Typology of Mixed Methods Sampling Designs in Social Science Research

Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J. & Collins, K. M. T. (2007)

The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281-316

Introduces a framework for developing sampling designs in mixed methods research. Discusses sample frames, recommended sample sizes, a typology for classification of strategies, guidance for sampling decisions, and issues related to how sampling decisions impact generalization.
Education Based Publications

Research Design Issues for Mixed Method and Mixed Model Studies

Tashakkori, Abbas & Teddlie, Charles (1998)

A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie, Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, pp. 40-58

Discusses the concept of triangulation from various perspectives and the variety of approaches to implementing mixed methods research. Builds on Patton’s (1990) discussion of ‘mixed form’ design to a broader model in order to develop a taxonomy for distinguishing various mixed method designs and approaches.
Education Based Publications

Integrating Data Analysis in Mixed Methods Research

Bazeley, Patricia (2009)

Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 203-207

Encourages a thinking about mixed methods work based on a qualitative-quantitative continuum. Focuses primarily on strategy for mixed methods data analysis at various stages of the process rather than just integration at the end. Discusses the use of computer solutions to assist in the process. Although the epistemological arguments of the "paradigm wars" sharpened our thinking about issues related to mixed methodology, their lingering legacy has been to slow the progress of integration methods.
Education Based Publications

A Systems Approach to Qualitative Data Management and Analysis

MacQueen, Kathleen M. & Milstein, Bobby (1999)

Field Methods, 11(1): 27-39

Introduces and illustrates a systematic approach to qualitative data management from a database architecture perspective. Discusses four main types of information collected in qualitative research: information about primary sources, information from primary sources, secondary information generated by coders, and information about the coders and how quantitative approaches can be used to evaluate qualitative analysis.
Education Based Publications

Mixed Methods Sampling - A Typology with Examples

Teddlie, Charles, & Yu, Fen (2007)

Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1): 77-100

Discusses mixed methods sampling techniques in creative and effective ways.
Medical Based Publications

Meta-integration for synthesizing data in a systematic mixed studies review: insights from research on autism spectrum disorder

Frantzen, Kirsten Krabek; Fetters, Michael D. (2015)

Systematic reviews conducted using either meta-analysis or meta-synthesis are well established methodological procedures for combining data and results across different quantitative or qualitative studies. Recently, a third option for systematic reviews has emerged. Systematic mixed studies reviews combine data and results across quantitative, qualitative and mixed method studies. An important challenge is how to integrate the quantitative, qualitative and mixed method studies. Here, we introduce the concept of “meta-integration”. Our overarching aim is to define and illustrate the novel concept of meta-integration as applied to convergent systematic mixed studies reviews using examples from our research on parental self-perception and autism spectrum disorder. Specifically, we present a typology for meta-integration procedures at two levels, both basic and advanced meta-integration. Three models, namely, basic convergent meta-integration, basic convergent qualitative meta-integration, and basic convergent quantitative meta-integration, combine quantitative and qualitative studies. Three additional models, namely, advanced convergent qualitative meta-integration, advanced convergent qualitative meta-integration, and advanced convergent quantitative meta-integration, combine quantitative, qualitative and mixed method studies. The models generally follow six steps: (1) categorize data sources; (2) transform the data; (3) conduct intra-method synthesis; (4) conduct inter-method synthesis and/or integration; (5) organize results and assess fit; and (6) draw final conclusions. One basic and one advanced model do not involve data transformation. These models for conducting convergent meta-integration in systematic mixed studies reviews provide guidance for researchers to apply rigorous and coherent methodology. Following these procedures can substantively improve the quality of systematic reviews seeking to use quantitative, qualitative and mixed method studies.
Education Based Publications

Measures of Interobserver Agreement: Calculation Formulas and Distribution Effects

House, Alvin E., House, Betty J., & Campbell, Martha B. (1981)

Calculation formulas and distribution effects Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 3(1): 37-57

Discusses issues, types, and calculations for inter-rater reliability. Seventeen measures of association for observer reliability (interobserver agreement) are reviewed and computational forumals are given in a common notational system. An empirical comparison of 10 of these measures is made over a range of potential reliability check results.
Education Based Publications

Mapping the Field of Mixed Methods Research

Creswell, John W. (2009)

Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 95-108

Terrific survey of what’s happening in the mixed methods literature and mixed methods field. Discusses a range of topics raised at the 2008 Mixed Methods Conference and provides a “Map” of these topics broken out across 5 domains: philosophical/theoretical, techniques, nature of mixed methods, the adoption and use of mixed methods, and the politicization of mixed methods. Concludes with a discussion of incorporating mixed methods into other designs, paradigms, general design issues, and advocacy through extramural funding.
11-20 of 42