International Journal of Humanities and Social Science

      ISSN 2220-8488 (Print), 2221-0989 (Online) 10.30845/ijhss

      Call for Papers

      International Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IJHSS) is a monthly peer reviewed journal

      Read more...

      Recruitment of Reviewers

      Reviewer's name and affiliation will be listed in the printed journal and on the journal's webpage.

      Read more...

      The Usage of Mixed Methods within Public Administration Doctoral Dissertations
      Dr. Najwa Mordhah

      Abstract
      This study aims to answer these questions: How didpublic administration doctoral students combine qualitative and quantitative methods to conduct their dissertations? Which type of integration methods (simultaneous or sequential) are commonly used in public administration doctoral dissertations that employ mixed methods? Do they articulate the purpose of using that particular type of mixed methods? Is it easy to explicitly or implicitly acquire the type of mixed methods or not (clarity)? The study aims to understand the topic gradually starting from 2007 to 2011 and in doing so, this paper reviews fifty public administration doctoral mixed methods dissertations through 2011 to 2007..According to the finding, the percentage of dissertations that apply mixed methods approach is 3.3% of the total number of the dissertations in public administration which is 2,844 dissertations; 86% of those dissertations implement sequential mixed methods, while only 14% use simultaneous mixed methods type. Some researchers articulated the type of mixed methods clearly and the purpose which reflect their deep understanding of the methodology. However, the percentage of them is not high: 60% for the purpose and 62% for the clarity. The concept of mixed method began being used after 2005, yet, the study is limited to public administration doctoral dissertations that have been published during 2007- 2011 to chase the progress of using this type of research method intensively and comprehensively. Consequently, more studies are needed to investigate the same questions of this study on a sample of dissertations under the same criteria but in different contexts such as a period of time (after 2011) or different cultures and then compare the results. Also, this study could open a window for more comparison of research methods between public and business administration. The field of public administration is related to other social sciences uch as politics, economics, public law and public finance. It is also close to business administration, but it differs greatly according to objectives and means. Because of these narrow views of public administration, some people believe that public administration is a tool to apply public policy, which is also related to the economic system. Perhaps more importantly public administration has been an active and ongoing area of inquiry and controversy since its birth and faces many challenges about its legitimacy as a fully developed discipline of study. These conflicts and debates have risen over the relevancy of the diverse epistemic and methodological traditions to provide an unanswered question: which type of methods serves the study of the field effectively? Some scholars believe there is no best way to conduct public administration research. This belief is illustrated by examining the intellectual history and identity of the field of public administration through its diverse research traditions and current accomplishments (Ruccuci, 2010). Others, however, strongly suggest using mixed methods approach, which has emerged as a third paradigm for social research. Some scholars see mixed methods as “… a platform of ideas and practices that are credible and distinctive and that mark the approach out as a viable alternative to quantitative and qualitative paradigms” (Denscombe, 2008, p.270). Other researchers go on to see this approach of social inquiry as an important compromise to “…the contemporary debate about what constitutes valid, rigorous, and ?scientific' research” (Greene,2005, p.207). ?stlund, Kidd, Wengstr?m and Rowa-Dewar (2011) think the integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches cause much debate and there is an essential need for a rigorous framework for designing and interpreting mixed methods research. They state that there is a lack of pragmatic guidance in the research literature as how to combine qualitative and quantitative approaches and how to integrate qualitative and quantitative findings. Here, this paper aims to explore the usage of mixed methods within public administration doctoral dissertations and to chase the progress of using this type of research method intensively and comprehensively. The paper investigates and answers these questions: How do public administration doctoral students combine qualitative and quantitative methods to conduct their dissertations? Which type of integration methods (simultaneous or sequential) are commonly used in public administration doctoral dissertations that employ mixed methods? Do they articulate the purpose of using that particular type of mixed methods? Is it easy to explicitly or implicitly acquire the type of mixed methods or not (clarity)? There are few studies that examine the usage of mixed methods through bunch of research in one discipline. However, two studies were found that reflect that concept which are ?stlund et al. (2011) and Truscott, Swars, Smith, Thornton-Reid and Zhao(2010). The ?stlund?s et al. (2011) study investigates the analytical approaches used in mixed methods in healthcare research. It aims to demonstrate the use of triangulation as a methodological metaphor for drawing conclusions from qualitative and quantitative findings. The study examines 168 studies, which mostly originated in the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Canada. The study concludes that parallel data analysis was the most widely used approach. While a number of studies used sequential data analysis, fewer studies employed concurrent data analysis. Ostlund?s et al. study also reveals that the purpose of using a mixed methods design is rarely articulated. Additionally, Truscot et al (2010) examines the occurrence of mixed methods research published in 11prominent English-language international and U.S. national educational research journals from 1995 to 2005. 2,381 studies were reviewed by research teams in four educational disciplines: literacy, mathematics, social studies, and science. However, 332 (14%) of the articles examined were identified as using mixed methods. Results suggest little variation across disciplines and years in the number of studies using mixed methods. More importantly, they state that even though mixed methods are a reasonable approach to apply in educational research, it does not seem to be an increasingly popular research method. Although there has been a recent increase of methodological articles, studies, book chapters, and books devoted to mixed methods research to date, there is no chronicled examination for the usage of mixed methods in doctoral dissertations. Thus embedded in this paper is the importance of taking the lead in this area. Moreover, selecting public administration doctoral dissertations to be examined extend the knowledge about how doctoral students deal with data to combine qualitative and quantitative methods and enhance their results. Since public administration is a social science discipline, this study may be considered a beneficial contribution not only in the field of public administration but also the entire social science. In order to conduct the purpose of this investigation, the researcher uses systematic principles in searching for American public administration doctoral dissertations which employed a mixed methods approach and were published in the English language between January 2007 and November 2011. According to the results which are extracted from the library via ProQuest, there are ninety five dissertations that used mixed methods. The researcher, however, selects randomly from each year ten dissertations to end up with fifty dissertations (n=50) (see the Appendix). The researcher aims to apply random assignment by selecting odd numbers (1,3,5,7,..etc.) of dissertations to be examined from each year. However, the study covers most of the dissertations in 2007 since there are eleven dissertations. Each dissertation is reviewed to figure out how mixed methods approach was applied within it. Data are coded and calculated to provide percentages demonstrated within tables and graphs. Here, the primary concern regarding the limitation is that the sample reflects only dissertations that the library via ProQuest provides. Additionally, the limitation of time forced the researcher to rely on fifty dissertations instead of the whole population, which is ninety five. This study is limited to only public administration doctoral dissertations to enhance the researcher?s knowledge about how other doctoral students use mixed methods in their dissertations. Also, the study is limited to public administration doctoral dissertations that have been published during 2007- 2011. It has to be said that the researcher was planning to study a sample from 2005 to 2020 but it is found that almost no dissertations meet the criteria before 2007. Also, it was hard to cover all the dissertations among 15 years in addition to the fact that having the sample within five years will be more intensive and comprehensive. Finally, this study aims only to investigate three elements which are: types of mixed methods (sequential or simultaneous), purpose and clarity. In this study , while the purpose refers to why the researcher use that particular type of mixed methods, clarity means whether there is a statement reflecting the type of mixed method or how easy to detect the type of mixed methods from the content.

      Full Text: PDF

      主站蜘蛛池模板: 91av小视频| 久久亚洲私人国产精品| 精品视频无码一区二区三区| 国产精品成人99久久久久| 上海大一18cm男生宿舍飞机| 极品色天使在线婷婷天堂亚洲| 做受视频60秒试看 | 亚洲第一福利网| 中文字幕无码日韩专区免费| 欧美网站在线观看| 又粗又硬又大又爽免费视频播放| 人人澡人人澡人人澡| 天天操天天射天天操| 久久99热国产这有精品| 欧美俄罗斯乱妇| 国产又爽又黄又无遮挡的激情视频 | 久久久久亚洲av成人网人人软件| 欧美日韩亚洲一区二区三区 | 亚洲av午夜国产精品无码中文字| 风间由美性色一区二区三区 | 亚洲免费人成在线视频观看| 男女同床爽爽视频免费| 国产乱子伦精品视频| 亚洲人成网站看在线播放| 大学生久久香蕉国产线看观看 | 久久久精品波多野结衣| 欧美交换性一区二区三区| 免费国产真实迷j在线观看| 菠萝菠萝蜜在线免费视频| 国产特级毛片aaaaaa高潮流水| 99re6精品| 小小的日本三电影免费观看| 久久久久亚洲精品男人的天堂| 欧洲精品码一区二区三区| 亚洲精品国产精品国自产观看| 精品国产欧美sv在线观看| 国产人澡人澡澡澡人碰视频 | 亚洲精品永久www忘忧草| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频 | 中文字幕亚洲欧美在线不卡| 日韩精品无码人成视频手机|