Metody mieszane w kontekście procesu badawczego w naukoznawstwie

• Authors: Paweł Kawalec

Title variants

EN

Mixed methods in the context of research process in science of science

• Languages of publication: PL EN

Abstracts

PL

Głównym tematem niniejszego artykułu, w kontekście najnowszych dyskusji w metodologii badań naukowych, jest charakterystyka podejścia badawczego, które pozwalałoby w adekwatny sposób prowadzić badania w zakresie naukoznawstwa. Trudność tkwi przede wszystkim w tym, że badania naukoznawcze obejmują zróżnicowane aspekty, które w bardziej tradycyjnym ujęciu odpowiadają konglomeratowi różnych dyscyplin, ale jednocześnie, oczekuje się – m.in. ze względu na rekomendacje na podstawie badań – że wynik będzie miał charakter spójny i jednolity. Tego rodzaju problem obserwuje się nie tylko w badaniach naukoznawczych, lecz – z uwagi na rosnącą złożoność podejść do przedmiotu badania – również w przypadku wielu dyscyplin w obrębie szeroko rozumianych badań społecznych. Artykuł zawiera przegląd zagadnień dotyczących jednej z nowszych propozycji metodologicznych rozwiązania powyżej zasygnalizowanego problemu – tzw. „metod mieszanych” – czyli podejścia stosującego w pojedynczym procesie badawczym różne metody badań w celu uzyskania spójnej i kompleksowej odpowiedzi na pytanie badawcze. Po ogólnej charakterystyce metod mieszanych oraz zarysowaniu dyskusji dotyczących ich podstaw, zaprezentowane są argumenty za oraz przeciw ich stosowaniu w badaniach, omówiona jest jedna z szerzej przyjętych typologii metod mieszanych, a także krótko przywołane są nieliczne przykłady badań naukoznawczych wykorzystujących to podejście.

EN

The main topic of this article, within the context of the recent discussions in methodology of scientific research, is a research approach that would allow to adequately conduct science of science research. The difficulty lies primarily in the fact that the science of science research includes diverse aspects, which in more traditional terms corresponds to a conglomerate of different disciplines, but at the same time, it is expected – primarily in view of the subsequent recommendations based on the research results – that the obtained result will be integral i unified. This kind of problem does not concern the science of science research only, but – due to the increasing complexity of approaches to the subject of the study – occurs also in the case of many disciplines within the broadly defined social research. The article contains an overview of the issues relating to one of the newer methodological proposals to solve the above problem – the so-called “mixed-methods” – namely, an approach within a single research process applying different research methods in order to achieve an integral i comprehensive answer to the research question. After the general characteristics of mixed-methods, i outlining the discussions on their underlying paradigms, the arguments for i against their use are presented, i next – one of the more widely accepted typology of mixed-methods is discussed. The paper concludes with an overview of a few examples of science of science research using the mixed-methods approach.

Keywords

PL

metodologia; naukoznawstwo; metody mieszane; proces badawczy

EN

methodology; science of science; mixed methods; research process

• Publisher: Science Studies Committee, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Journal: Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 50
• Issue: 1(199)
• Pages: 3-22

Dates

published

2013

Contributors

author

Paweł Kawalec

• Wydział Filozofii, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II

References

• Ahmed A., Sil R., 2012, When Multi-Method Research Subverts Methodological Pluralism—or, Why We Still Need Single-Method Research, “Perspectives on Politics” 10: 935–953.
• Bergman M.M., 2010, On Concepts and Paradigms in Mixed Methods Research, “Journal of Mixed Methods Research” 4: 171–175.
• Bloch C., Sørensen M.P., Graversen E.K., Schneider J.W., Schmidt E.K., Aagaard K., Mejlgaard N., 2014, Developing a Methodology to Assess the Impact of Research Grant Funding: A Mixed Methods Approach, “Evaluation and program planning” 43: 105–117.
• Bowman T.D., Tsou A., Ni C., Sugimoto C.R., 2014, Post-Interdisciplinary Frames of Reference: Exploring Permeability and Perceptions of Disciplinarity in the Social Sciences, “Scientometrics” 1–20.
• Brady H.E., Collier D., 2010, Rethinking Social Inquiry Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
• Bryman A., 2006, Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research: How Is It Done?, “Qualitative Research” 6: 97–113.
• Bryman A., 2007, Barriers to Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, “Journal of Mixed Methods Research” 1: 8–22.
• Campbell D.T., Fiske D.W., 1959, Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix., “Psychological Bulletin” 56: 81–105.
• Casebeer A.L., Verhoef M.J., 1997, Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods: Considering the Possibilities for Enhancing the Study of Chronic Diseases, “Chronic diseases in Canada” 18: 18–3.
• Chmielewski A., Dudzikowa M., Grobler A. (red.), 2012, Interdyscyplinarnie O Interdyscyplinarnoś ci: Mię dzy Ideą a Praktyką, Krakó w: Oficyna Wydawnicza Impuls.
• Clark V.L.P., Creswell J.W., 2011, Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, London: SAGE Publications.
• Collier D., Elman C., 2008, Qualitative and Multi-Method Research: Organizations, Publication, and Reflections on Integration, w: J. M. Box-Steffensmeier, H. E. Brady, D. Collier (red.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, Oxford: Oxford University Press,, 779–795.
• Creswell J.W., 2008, Mapping the Field of Mixed Methods Research, “Journal of Mixed Methods Research” 3: 95–108.
• Denzin N.K., 1978, The Research Act in Sociology: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods, New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Driscoll D.L., Appiah-Yeboah A., Salib,, Rupert D.J., 2007, Merging Qualitative and Quantitative Data in Mixed Methods Research: How to and Why Not, “Ecological and Environmental Anthropology” 3: 18–28.
• Faulkner A., 2009, Regulatory Policy as Innovation: Constructing Rules of Engagement for a Technological Zone of Tissue Engineering in the European Union, “Research policy” 38: 637–646.
• Fielding N.G., 2012, Triangulation and Mixed Methods Designs Data Integration With New Research Technologies, “Journal of Mixed Methods Research” 6: 124–136.
• Frodeman R., Klein J.T., Mitcham C. (red.), 2010, The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Greene J.C., Caracelli V.J., Graham W.F., 1989, Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs, “Educational evaluation and policy analysis” 11: 255–274.
• Guba E.G., Lincoln Y.S., 1988, Do Inquiry Paradigms Imply Inquiry Methodologies, w: D. M. Fetterman (ed.), Qualitative Approaches to Evaluation in Education, New York: Praeger,, 89–115.
• Heinze T., Shapira,, Rogers J.D., Senker J.M., 2009, Organizational and Institutional Influences on Creativity in Scientific Research, “Research Policy” 38: 610–623.
• Hewson C., 2006, Mixed Methods Research, w: V. Jupp (red.), The SAGE Dictionary of Social Research Methods, London: SAGE Publications, s.180–182.
• Howe K.R., 1988, Against the Quantitative-Qualitative Incompatibility Thesis or Dogmas Die Hard, “Educational Researcher” 17: 10–16.
• Howe K.R., 2012, Mixed Methods, Triangulation, and Causal Explanation, “Journal of Mixed Methods Research” 6: 89–96.
• Humphreys M., Jacobs A., 2014, Mixing Methods: A Bayesian Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative Inferences.
• Jacobs J.A., 2014, In Defense of Disciplines: Interdisciplinarity and Specialization in the Research University, University of Chicago Press.
• Jick T.D., 1979, Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action, “Administrative Science Quarterly” 24: 602–611.
• Johnson B., Gray R., 2009, A History of Philosophical and Theoretical Issues for Mixed Methods Research, w: C. Teddlie, A. Tashakkori (red.), Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, London: SAGE Publications, s. 69–94.
• Kamiński S., 1992, Nauka i metoda, Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL.
• Kawalec P., 2008, Dwie strategie kierowania procesem badawczym, w: P. Kawalec, S. Majdański (red.), Zarządzanie badaniami naukowymi i pracami rozwojowymi w jednostkach naukowych, Lublin: Wydawnictwo LBS, s. 41–78.
• Kawalec P., 2009, Kształtowanie nowej generacji modelu zarządzania B+R, [w:] R. Maciołek, W. Maik, K. Sikora (red.), Problemy nauki i szkolnictwa wyższego, Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Uczelniane WSG, ss. 81–96.
• Kawalec P., 2011, Wstęp, w: Carnap R., Logiczna struktura świata, tłum. P. Kawalec, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, s. XI-CXXV.
• Kawalec P., 2013, Założenia umiarkowanie pluralistycznej metodologii, “Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa” 49: 277–304.
• King G., Keohane R.O., Verba S., 1994, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Leech N.L., Onwuegbuzie A.J., 2009, A Typology of Mixed Methods Research Designs, “Quality & Quantity” 43: 265–275.
• Lieberman E.S., 2005, Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research, “American Political Science Review” 99.03: 435–452.
• Lijphart A., 1971, Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method, “The american political science review” 65: 682–693.
• Locke E.A., 2007, The Case for Inductive Theory Building, “Journal of Management” 33: 867–890.
• Lund T., 2005, A Metamodel of Central Inferences in Empirical Research, “Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research” 49: 385–398.
• Mahoney J., 2008, Toward a Unified Theory of Causality, “Comparative Political Studies” 41: 412–436.
• Martin B.R., 1996, The Use of Multiple Indicators in the Assessment of Basic Research, “Scientometrics” 36: 343–362.
• Mertens D.M., 2010, Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods, Los Angeles: Sage.
• Migiro S.O., Magangi B.A., 2011, Mixed Methods: A Review of Literature and the Future of the New Research Paradigm, “African Journal of Business Management” 5: 3757–3764.
• Morgan D.L., 2007, Paradigms Lost and Pragmatism Regained: Methodological Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods, “Journal of Mixed Methods Research” 1: 48–76.
• Morgan D.L., 2013, Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods, London: SAGE Publications.
• Morlacchi,, Martin B.R., 2009, Emerging Challenges for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Research: A Reflexive Overview, “Research Policy” 38: 571–582.
• O’Cathain A., 2009, Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences: A Quiet Revolution, “Journal of Mixed Methods Research” 3: 3–6.
• Przeworski A., Teune H., 1970, The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Reichardt C.S., Cook T.D., 1979, Beyond Qualitative versus Quantitative Methods, w: C. S. Reichardt, T. D. Cook (red.), Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research (Vol. 1), London: SAGE Publications, s. 7–32.
• Reichardt C.S., Rallis S.F., 1994, The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: New Perspectives, “New directions for program evaluation” 61: 1–98.
• Rohner R.P., 1977, Advantages of the Comparative Method of Anthropology, “Cross-Cultural Research” 12: 117–144.
• Rossman G.B., Wilson B.L., 1985, Numbers and Words Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in a Single Large-Scale Evaluation Study, “Evaluation Review” 9: 627–643.
• Sale J.E., Lohfeld L.H., Brazil K., 2002, Revisiting the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate: Implications for Mixed-Methods Research, “Quality and Quantity” 36: 43–53.
• Samarasinghe S., Strickert G., 2013, Mixed-Method Integration and Advances in Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for Computational Policy Simulations for Natural Hazard Mitigation, “Environmental Modelling & Software” 39: 188–200.
• Sieber S.D., 1973, The Integration of Fieldwork and Survey Methods, “American Journal of Sociology” 78: 1335–1359.
• Smith J.K., 1983, Quantitative versus Qualitative Research: An Attempt to Clarify the Issue, “Educational Researcher” 12: 6–13.
• Sommer Harrits G., 2011, More Than Method?: A Discussion of Paradigm Differences Within Mixed Methods Research, “Journal of Mixed Methods Research” 5: 150–166.
• Tashakkori A., 2009, Are We There Yet?: The State of the Mixed Methods Community, “Journal of Mixed Methods Research” 3: 287–291.
• Teddlie C., Tashakkori A., 2006, A General Typology of Research Designs Featuring Mixed Methods, “Research in the Schools” 13: 12–28.
• Teddlie C., Tashakkori A., 2009, Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, London: SAGE Publications.
• Venkatesh V., Brown S.A., Bala H., 2013, Bridging the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide: Guidelines for Conducting Mixed Methods Research in Information Systems, “MIS Quarterly” 37: 21–54.
• Webb E.J., Campbell D.T., Schwartz R.D., Sechrest L., 1966, Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences, Chicago: Rand McNally.
• Wheeldon J., 2010, Mapping Mixed Methods Research: Methods, Measures, and Meaning, “Journal of Mixed Methods Research” 4: 87–102.
• Wynn Jr D., Williams C.K., 2012, Principles for Conducting Critical Realist Case Study Research in Information Systems, “MIS Quarterly” 36: 787–810.
• Zachariadis M., Scott S.V., Barrett M., 2013, Methodological Implications of Critical Realism for Mixed-Methods Research, “MIS Quarterly” 37: 855–879.