Conducting Team-Based Qualitatively Oriented Mixed-Methods Research About Students With Disabilities in STEM Clubs

• In Event: Tell Me How It Really Happened: Qualitative Analyses in Education Research

Abstract

Purpose
Our paper showcases team-based qualitative and mixed methods analysis processes across two studies. In the first study, we examined the characteristics of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) clubs and teachers’ training to work with students with disabilities (SWD) in these clubs (Authors, date1). Our second study explored the experiences of SWD and their parents in STEM clubs (Authors, date2).
Perspectives
Our paper draws upon the literature about qualitatively oriented mixed methods, which centers qualitative practices in mixing qualitative and quantitative data and centers the participants’ voices (Author1, date1, date2; Cameron, 2016; Hesse-Biber, 2010, 2018). Additionally, our work draws on the literature about research teams that use members’ complementary strengths to make their work more culturally responsive, accessible to diverse audiences, and cross-disciplinary (Aarons et al., 2019; Bazeley, 2018; Hemmings et al., 2013; Hesse-Biber & Johnson, 2013; Jordan & Bartel, 2023; Plano Clark & Ivankova, 2016).
Methods and Data
Study 1 (Authors, date1) investigated the characteristics of STEM clubs in rural-based schools and the credentials of teachers who lead them. We used initial quantitative surveys sent to teachers in the southeast of the USA. Teacher participants were then intentionally selected for the second qualitative interview phase. In study 2 (Authors, date2), we explored students’ and their parents’ experiences related to STEM clubs. We followed the same sequence of methods but at the US national level: a quantitative survey to qualitative focus groups and interviews.
Results
We describe (a) how this line of inquiry evolved, (b) the collaborative coding processes, (c) how research team members taught and learned qualitative coding, (d) the creation of visuals that integrated qualitative findings with supplementary quantitative data, (e) challenges to publishing the second study, and (f) recommendations for engaging in similar future research. Due to space limitations, we share from c and d below.
(c) During Study 1, the team collaboratively coded using an a priori framework based on our literature review, allowing us to explore the meaning behind and examples of themes based on participant interviews (Authors, date1). During Study 2 (Authors, date2), we split the research team into two groups to emphasize teaching descriptive and in vivo coding processes (Saldaña, 2016) in a smaller environment. The process also allowed us to validate codes better and provide a more intimate teaching environment for qualitative coding.
(d) Creating visuals is an essential practice in communicating how data sets converge and diverge (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017; Plano Clark & Sanders, 2015). Our paper showcases draft visuals and reflections on meaningfully displaying quotes in visuals.
Significance
Few publications offer specific guidance on prioritizing qualitative approaches in mixed methods studies or while working in a research team. Our paper addresses both gaps by providing detailed descriptions with images of the qualitative and mixed methods analyses and our reflections on working collaboratively over time.

Authors

• Peggy Shannon-Baker, Georgia Southern University

• Kania Greer, Georgia Southern University

• Karin Fisher, Georgia Southern University