What Is Happening Now? An Overview of Mixed Methods Applications in Special Education

• In Event: Advancing Mixed Methods Special Education Research

Abstract

Since the publication of the first edition of the Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research in 2003 (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003), the presence of mixed methods research (MMR) studies in the published literature has increased (e.g., Ivankova & Kawamura, 2010). Since this landmark publication, several researchers (e.g., Alise & Teddlie, 2010; Powell, Mihalas, Onwuegbuzie, Suldo, & Daley, 2008) have provided insights into the utilization of MMR designs across numerous fields via what Alise and Teddlie (2010) refer to as prevalence rate studies (i.e., “a line of inquiry into research methods in the social/behavioral sciences [referring to the proportion of articles using a particular methodological approach], p. 104). The use of MMR designs has the potential to help researchers who represent special education to address relatively complex questions compared to their mono-method counterparts. It is important to determine the prevalence of MMR designs in special education. The two prevalence studies conducted in special education research have revealed prevalence rates that range from 11.5% (Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Sutton, 2007) to 15% (Taylor & Abernathy, 2014). However, both of these articles were conducted on studies published either the same year or before the publication of the second edition of the Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010), whose h-index of 19 for chapters published in this edition already is approaching the h-index of 24 for chapters published in the first edition 7 years earlier. It is clear that an update of these two prevalence studies is needed. Thus, the first purpose of the current study was to determine the prevalence of mixed methods research designs among articles published between 2010 and 2015 in five leading special education journals (e.g., Journal of Special Education). The second purpose was to conduct what we call a meta-prevalence study, which involved identifying the prevalence of MMR designs across the array of fields and disciplines reported in the previous prevalence studies (n = 27) with the goal of contextualizing the prevalence of MMR designs in special education. The third purpose was to identify the characteristics (e.g., whether the design was concurrent or sequential) of the MMR studies identified in these five journals. The final purpose was to evaluate for rigor the reporting of key components, based on accepted standards for evaluating the quality of MMR research reports. Findings revealed that the prevalence rate for special education, although higher than that reported for the fields of counseling and sociology was lower than that for fields such as health and mathematics education. A key finding was that the majority of studies that were identified as representing MMR, relatively few authors actually labelled their studies as such. These and other findings and their implications will be presented.

Authors

• Julie Anne Corrigan, University of Ottawa

• Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Sam Houston State University