JMMR-Communitiesofpractice[1]

7/23/2019 JMMR-Communitiesofpractice[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jmmr-communitiesofpractice1 1/32

Communities of practice: a research paradigm for

the Mixed Methods approach.

Martyn Denscombe

Department of Public Policy

De Montfort University

The Gateway

Leicester LE1 9B

En!lan"

Phone# $%% &'(11) *'+,+,-

Email# m"."mu/ac/u0

'



Abstract

The Mie" Metho"s approach has emer!e" as a 2thir" para"i!m3 for social

research/ 4t has "evelope" a platform of i"eas an" practices that are

cre"ible an" "istinctive5 an" which mar0 the approach out as a viable

alternative to 6uantitative an" 6ualitative para"i!ms/ owever5 there are

also a number of variations an" inconsistencies within the Mie" Metho"s

approach which shoul" not be i!nore"/ This paper ar!ues the nee" for a

vision of research para"i!m which accommo"ates such variations an"

inconsistencies/ 4t is ar!ue" that the use of 2communities of practice3 as

the basis for such a research para"i!m is i( consistent with the pra!matist

un"erpinnin!s of the Mie" Metho"s approach5 ii( accommo"ates a level of

"iversity an" iii( has !oo" potential for un"erstan"in! the metho"olo!ical

choices ma"e by those con"uctin! mie" metho"s research/

Keywords

7ommunities of practice5 mie" metho"s5 pra!matism5 research para"i!m

1



Introduction

Mie" metho"s research has "evelope" rapi"ly in recent years/

7hampione" by writers such as 8ohn 7reswell5 bbas Tasha00ori5 Bur0e

8ohnson5 nthony :nwue!bu;ie5 8ennifer Greene5 7harles Te""lie an"

Davi" Mor!an5 the 2Mie" Metho"s approach3 has emer!e" in the last

"eca"e as a research movement with a reco!nise" name an" "istinct

i"entity/ 4t has evolve" to the point where it is 2increasin!ly articulate"5

attache" to research practice5 an" reco!ni;e" as the thir" ma<or research

approach or research paradigm3 &8ohnson et al/5 *''+5 p/11*(/

s a research para"i!m5 the Mie" Metho"s approach incorporates a

"istinct set of i"eas an" practices that separate the approach from the

other main research para"i!ms/ These are outline" brie=y in this paper/

owever5 there are also aspects of mie" metho"s research on which

there is a relative lac0 of consistency or a!reement/ These5 too5 are

s0etche" out in this paper/ 4t shoul" be emphasi;e"5 thou!h5 that the

purpose for "oin! so is not to un"ermine the status of the Mie" Metho"s

approach as a para"i!m for research/ :ther research para"i!ms5 sub<ecte"

to "etaile" eamination5 will ehibit their own variations an"

inconsistencies an" there shoul" be no su!!estion that <ust because the

Mie" Metho"s approach "oes not achieve complete coherence an"

consistency that it is automatically "is6uali>e" from the status of a

research para"i!m/ The purpose5 instea"5 is to "raw attention to the way

in which the notion of 2research para"i!m3 mi!ht nee" to accommodate a

level of variation an" inconsistency in its i"eas an" practices ? treatin!

them not as some 0in" of aberration or short@term problem that nee"s to

*



be resolve"5 but as an on!oin! an" inherent feature of the para"i!m itself/

The purpose is to hi!hli!ht the nee" for a notion of para"i!m that can be

suAciently =eible5 permeable an" multi@layere" to re=ect the reality of

social research in the *1st century/ This is where 2communities of practice3

come into play/ 4t is ar!ue" that a notion of research para"i!m base" on

communities of practice coul" have particular bene>ts in relation to the

Mie" Metho"s approach throu!h the way it is consistent with the

pra!matist un"erpinnin!s of the approach5 throu!h its ability to

accommo"ate the eistence of variations an" inconsistencies within the

approach5 an" throu!h its potential for un"erstan"in! the "ecisions of

researchers relatin! to their use of the Mie" Metho"s approach/

Mixed Methods: the third paradigm for research

The ori!ins of mie" metho"s research can be trace" to its use amon!

>el"wor0 sociolo!ists an" cultural anthropolo!ists early in the *'th century

&7reswell5 19995 p/ %-, 8ohnson et al/5 *''+5 p/ 11C(/ owever5 those who

have sou!ht to put a chronolo!ical time@line to its evolution as a research

para"i!m have ten"e" to place it a!ainst a bac0"rop of the 2para"i!m

wars3/ lthou!h there has not been complete unanimity about the "ates5

the !eneral theme has been that an early perio" in which the positivist

para"i!m &lin0e" with 6uantitative metho"olo!ies( was "ominant &19-'s

to mi" 19+'s( chan!e" to an era in which the constructivist research

para"i!m &lin0e" with 6ualitative metho"olo!ies( became establishe" as a

viable alternative &mi"@19+'s to 199's(/ Mie" metho"s5 as a research

para"i!m5 is seen as emer!in! from the 199's onwar"s5 establishin! itself

C



alon!si"e the previous para"i!ms so that 2we currently are in a three

metho"olo!ical or research para"i!m worl"5 with 6uantitative5 6ualitative5

an" mie" metho"s research all thrivin! an" coeistin!3 &8ohnson et al/5

*''+5 p/ 11+(/

The intellectual roots of the para"i!m are !enerally trace" to the

early wor0 of 7ampbell is0e &19-9( on miin! metho"s &7ollins et al/5

*'') 7reswell5 *''C 7reswell Plano 7lar05 *''+ 7reswell et al/5 *''C

Greene et al/5 19,9 8ohnson et al/5 *''+(/ ollowin! 7ampbell is03s

pioneerin! wor05 Febb et al/ &19))(5 then Den;in &19+,( an" 8ic0 &19+9(

ten" to !et cite" in relation to "evelopments aroun" the notion of

trian!ulation/ 7oo0 eichar"t &19+9( !enerally receive

ac0nowle"!ement in connection with their consi"eration of the

compatibility of 6uantitative an" 6ualitative research5 an" Greene et al/

&19,9( heral" a 0ey point in the time@line with their seminal typolo!y of

mie" metho"s use/ Buil"in! on these foun"ations5 ‘mie" metho"s

research has evolve" to the point where it is a separate metho"olo!ical

orientation with its own worl"view5 vocabulary5 an" techni6ues3

&Tasha00ori Te""lie5 *''C5 p/(/ The "istinctive nature of the Mie"

Metho"s approach an" the core i"eas an" practices on which the

para"i!m stan"s have been capture" in the wor0s of those such as

7reswell &*''C(5 7reswell Plano 7lar0 &*''+( an" Tasha00ori Te""lie

&199,5 *''C(/ These writers5 alon! with others5 contrast the Mie"

Metho"s approach with research para"i!ms that have favoure" the use of

either 6uantitative or 6ualitative metho"olo!ies5 an" they have ar!ue"

%



that the "e>nin! characteristics of the Mie" Metho"s approach involve its

use of#

• 6uantitative &HUI( an" 6ualitative &HUL( metho"s within the

same research pro<ect

• a research "esi!n that clearly speci>es the se6uencin! an" priority

that is !iven to the HUI an" HUL elements of "ata collection an"

analysis

• an eplicit account of the manner in which the HUI an" HUL

aspects of the research relate to each other5 with hei!htene"

emphasis on the manner in which trian!ulation is use"

• pra!matism as the philosophical un"erpinnin! for the research/

Variations and inconsistencies within the paradigm

4n the contet of a new para"i!m it is har"ly surprisin! to >n" a !oo" "eal

of emphasis on the share" i"eas an" practices that eist amon! mie"

metho"s researchers an" the way that these "istin!uish the para"i!m as a

!enuine alternative to others/ 4n focusin! on areas of consensus within the

para"i!m5 however5 there is the "an!er of overloo0in! the compleities of

the situation/ s 8ohnson et al/ &*''+5 p/11+( ac0nowle"!e 2the "ivi"in!

lines are much fu;;ier than typically su!!este" in the literature3 an"

2positions are not nearly as Jlo!icalK an" as "istinct as is fre6uently

su!!este" in the literature3/ Ior shoul" we lose si!ht of the fact there are

2inconsistencies in the way &that( scholars "e>ne an" conceptuali;e mie"

-



metho"s3 &Tasha00ori 7reswell *''+a5 p/ C(/ uch variations an"

inconsistencies within the approach "eserve consi"eration &Greene5 *'',

olmes5 *'')( an"5 reco!ni;in! this point5 the followin! "iscussion

eplores some of the variations an" inconsistencies/ Fhile there is no

su!!estion of provi"in! an ehaustive list5 their si!ni>cance for the Mie"

Metho"s approach as a para"i!m shoul" become apparent/

the purposes of mixed methods research

eviews of publishe" mie" metho"s stu"ies reveal the "iversity of ways

in which social researchers use mie" metho"s &e/!/ Bryman5 *'')

Greene et al/5 19,9 occo et al/5 *''C(5 with 7ollins et al/5 &*'')5 p/+,@9(

i"entifyin! four broa" rationales an" )- speci>c purposes eistin! within

the etensive ran!e of mie" metho"s research which they reviewe"/

ynthesi;in! the various typolo!ies that arise from reviews of eistin!

mie" metho"s research5 i( some researchers use mie" metho"s to

improve the accuracy of their "ata5 while ii( others use mie" metho"s to

pro"uce a more complete picture by combinin! information from

complementary 0in"s of "ata or sources/ ometimes iii( mie" metho"s

are use" as a means of avoi"in! biases intrinsic to sin!le@metho"

approaches @ as a way of compensatin! speci>c stren!ths an" wea0nesses

associate" with particular metho"s/ Mie" metho"s have been iv( use" as

a way of "evelopin! the analysis an" buil"in! upon initial >n"in!s usin!

contrastin! 0in"s of "ata or metho"s/ n"5 mie" metho"s approaches

have often been v( use" as an ai" to samplin! with5 for eample5

)



6uestionnaires bein! use" to screen potential participants for inclusion in

an interview pro!ramme/

the relationship between ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’ components

De>nitions an" "iscussions of research "esi!n within the Mie" Metho"s

approach !enerally refer to the "istinction between 6uantitative &HUI(

an" 6ualitative &HUL( metho"s/ The "istinction5 however5 brin!s with it

two stran"s of "iver!ence amon! those involve" with the Mie" Metho"s

approach/ irst5 there is some "ierence of opinion about the

2commensurability3 of 6uantitative an" 6ualitative metho"olo!ies/ Fithin

the Mie" Metho"s approach there are "ierin! views on how 6uantitative

an" 6ualitative elements of research shoul" be use" within a speci>c

pro<ect an" whether they can be inte!rate"5 combine" on use" in tan"em/

or some writers the philosophical premises of 6uantitative an" 6ualitative

metho"olo!ies are consi"ere" to be incompatible5 which lea"s them

a"vocate their use 2in parallel35 each playin! to its respective stren!ths

&e/!/ Brewer unter5 19,9 Morse5 *''C(/ :ther writers have sou!ht to

>n" common !roun" between the two alternatives an" have ma"e eorts

to hi!hli!ht the similarities between 6uantitative an" 6ualitative

approaches as a basis for combinin! their use &e/!/ Datta5 199% ar"y

Bryman5 *''% :nwue!bu;ie Leech5 *''- Prin!5 *''' eichar"t

allis5 199%(/ econ"5 6uestions have been raise" about the viability of

usin! a simple 6uantitative@6ualitative "ichotomy/ The point has been

ma"e on many occasions that the "istinction between the notions of

6uantitative an" 6ualitative is not waterti!ht an" that any simple

+



HUINHUL "istinction har"ly "oes <ustice to the variety of

epistemolo!ical an" ontolo!ical assumptions that un"erpin the terms &e/!/

Bryman5 19,, 7oo0 eichar"t5 19+9 7oon5 *''- Gorar" Taylor5

*''% ammersley5 199* Lasswell5 19)1(/

the interpretation of pragmatism

Pra!matism is !enerally re!ar"e" as the philosophical partner for the

Mie" Metho"s approach/ 4t provi"es a set of assumptions about

0nowle"!e an" en6uiry that un"erpins the Mie" Metho"s approach an"

which "istin!uishes the approach from purely 6uantitative approaches that

are base" on a philosophy of &post(positivism an" purely 6ualitative

approaches that are base" on a philosophy of interpretivism or

constructivism &8ohnson :nwue!bu;ie5 *''% Macy5 *''C allis

ossman5 *''C(/ owever5 it is possible to "iscern four facets of the way in

which pra!matism un"erlies the practice of mie" metho"s research/

These aspects of pra!matism are not necessarily mutually eclusive

options/ 4n practice there mi!ht well be a "e!ree of overlap between them/

owever5 the i"enti>cation of four aspects of pra!matism as use" within

the Mie" Metho"s approach "oes serve to warn that the approach "oes

not actually operate on the basis of a unitary5 a!ree" vision of

pra!matism/

:n some occasions i( pra!matism provi"es a fusion of approaches/

ee0in! to challen!e what are re!ar"e" as sterile an" unpro"uctive

"ualisms5 some mie" metho"s researchers favour a search for common

!roun" ? some compatibility @ between the 2ol"3 philosophies of research

,



&e/!/ Datta5 199% Macy5 *''C Tasha00ori Te""lie5 199,5 *''C(/ :n

other occasions5 ii( pra!matism provi"es a basis for usin! mie" metho"s

approaches as a ‘third alternative’ @ another option open to social

researchers if they "eci"e that neither 6uantitative nor 6ualitative

research alone will provi"e a"e6uate >n"in!s for the particular piece of

research they have in min" &Tasha00ori 7reswell5 *''+b 8ohnson et al/5

*''+ (/ 7ontrastin! with this5 there are times when iii( pra!matism is

treate" as a new orthodoxy built on the belief that not only is it allowable

to mi metho"s from "ierent para"i!ms of research but it is also

desirable to "o so because !oo" social research will almost inevitably

re6uire the use of both 6uantitative and 6ualitative research in or"er to

provi"e an a"e6uate answer &e/!/ Greene et al/5 *''15 *''- occo et al/5

*''C(/ n" then there are occasions when iv( pra!matism is treate" in the

common sense way as meanin! 2expedient 3/ There is a common@sense use

of the wor" pra!matic which implies a certain lac0 of principles un"erlyin!

a course of action/ There is the "an!er5 then5 that the Mie" Metho"s

approach !ets associate" with this un"erstan"in! of the wor" an" thus

becomes re!ar"e" as an approach in which 2anythin! !oes3/ 4t shoul" be

stresse" that this is not the philosophical meanin! of pra!matism an" it is

not a meanin! that shoul" be associate" with the Mie" Metho"s

approach/

the boundaries of the paradigm

The Mie" Metho"s approach "oes not eercise eclusive ri!hts over the

use of mie" metho"s in research or the use of pra!matism as the

9



philosophical foun"ations for research5 an" there is a "an!er of over@

statin! the etent to which the Mie" Metho"s approach has involve" a

whole new way of seein! thin!s that combines 6uantitative an" 6ualitative

metho"olo!ies/ Before the emer!ence of the Mie" Metho"s para"i!m

there were eamples of researchers combinin! their metho"s/ The

awthorne eperiments provi"e a classic eample "atin! from the 19*'s

an" C's &Mayo5 19CC oethlisbur!er Dic0son5 19C9(/ Even the 7hica!o

chool stu"ies of the same era5 conventionally associate" with 6ualitative

case stu"y research5 were not averse to the use of 6uantitative "ata as a

complement to the 6ualitative material &ammersley5 19,9 arvey5

19,+(/ 4n"ee"5 there is evi"ence to su!!est that for a lon! time the use of

mie" metho"s has been !oin! on in the bac0!roun" without bein!

celebrate" or heral"e" as part of a new para"i!m/

There is also evi"ence to su!!est that many contemporary instances

of combinin! metho"s ta0e place without eplicitly or formally

ac0nowle"!in! that the practice relates to the Mie" Metho"s approach or

its practical an" philosophical premises &Bryman5 *'') Greene et al/5

19,9 Gorar" Taylor5 *''%(/ Usin! a content analysis of >n"in!s from

*C* <ournal articles that combine" 6uantitative an" 6ualitative metho"s5

Bryman &*'')( foun" that about *+O "i" not state why they ha" chosen a

mie" metho"s approach/ n"5 on the basis of interviews with *'

researchers who ha" chosen to combine 6uantitative an" 6ualitative

metho"s in their research5 Bryman &*''+5 p/1+( conclu"e" that 2Typically

&( mie" metho"s researchers seem not to "well on epistemolo!ical an"

ontolo!ical issues an" ehibit a clear pra!matism in their wor03 &Bryman5

1'



*''+5 p/1+(/ Iote here5 thou!h5 that Bryman3s use of the term

pra!matism relates to epe"iency @ not to a use of the 2philosophy3 of

pra!matism as envisa!e" in the Mie" Metho"s para"i!m/

t the level of theory5 too5 the case for combinin! 6uantitative an"

6ualitative research is not uni6ue to the Mie" Metho"s para"i!m/ 4t has

been eplore" by a number of eminent writers on metho"olo!y &e/!/

Bryman5 19,,5 *''% ammersley5 19,95199* Lay"er5 199C5 199,

ilverman5 19,-5 *'''( who5 althou!h they have ma"e valuable

contributions in their own ri!ht to a broa"er notion of a mie" metho"s

strate!y in social research5 have not ten"e" to feature in the narrative of

its intellectual ori!ins provi"e" by 0ey writers lin0e" with the Mie"

Metho"s approach/

Ior is the Mie" Metho"s para"i!m alone in its use of pra!matism

as its 2philosophical3 un"erpinnin!/ Pra!matism provi"es a recurrent theme

un"erlyin! forms of research that can be trace" bac0 throu!hout the last

century throu!h the wor0s of symbolic interactionists such as Dewey5

Mea"5 Blumer an" Goman &7herryholmes5 199* Macy5 *''C( an" there

are aspects of pra!matism involve" in !roun"e" theory5

ethnometho"olo!y5 conversational analysis an" "iscourse analysis of

people such as Glaser an" trauss5 Gar>n0el5 7icourel an" oucault

&Gui!non5 1991 orty5 19,*5 1991(/

Research paradigms as communities of practice

Drawin! attention to the eistence of variations an" inconsistencies "oes

not automatically invali"ate the claims of the Mie" Metho"s approach to

11



be a research para"i!m/ fter all5 there are schisms within the 6uantitative

an" 6ualitative approaches to research that have persiste" for a

consi"erable time without bein! resolve"/ 4t su!!ests5 instea"5 that the

Mie" Metho"s approach mi!ht bene>t from the use of a foun"ation that

better allows it to incorporate the variations an" inconsistencies evi"ent

within the approach/ Mor!an3s &*''+( account of the evolution of the

Mie" Metho"s approach is useful in this contet/ e remin"s us that the

term 2research para"i!m3 has more than one meanin!/ 4n"ee"5 Masterman

&19+'( i"enti>e" as many as ** uses of the term containe" within the

ori!inal version of 2The tructure of cienti>c evolutions35 an" Quhn

&19+'( himself ac0nowle"!es that there are four main meanin!s of the

term 2research para"i!m3/ The interestin! point that Mor!an ma0es is that

social researchers have focuse" almost eclusively on <ust one of those

versions the version of para"i!ms as 2epistemolo!ical stances3/ Mor!an

ma0es the case that the focus of attention on this version of research

para"i!m both cause"5 an" re=ecte"5 a shift in nature of metho"olo!ical

"ebate from the level of practiceNoutcomes to that of 2metaphysics3/

Para"i!ms5 in this sense5 concern hi!her level belief systems an" the way

these lin0 with research 6uestions/ They concern 6uestions about the

nature of reality an" fun"amental issues about the 0nowability of this

reality @ about ontolo!y an" epistemolo!y/ Mor!an3s ar!ument is that this

shift in the !roun"s of "ebate re=ecte" a !rowin! assertiveness on the

part of 6ualitative researchers concernin! the le!itimacy of their 0in" of

research/ By shiftin! the "ebate to a metaphysical level5 6ualitative

researchers became able to compete with 6uantitative researchers on a

1*



more@or@less even footin! with respect to their 0nowle"!e claims an" thus

mana!e" to challen!e the "ominance of the 6uantitative research that

ha" characteri;e" the 19)'s an" 19+'s/ Durin! the 19,'s an" 199's5 says

Mor!an5 2the movement of Hualitative esearch from a relatively mar!inal

position to essential e6uality with Huantitative esearch amounts to a

clear shift in the historical pattern3 &p/ --(/ This represents a para"i!m

chan!e which was "riven by the 2"e"icate" eorts of a"vocates3 but5

crucially5 one that was enable" by shiftin! the metho"olo!ical "ebate from

the level of research practice to the level of theoretical principles/

s Mor!an points out5 thou!h5 Quhn actually epresse" a preference

for a version of research para"i!ms much more clearly roote" in research

practice an" research communities than in the realms of "ebate

surroun"in! ontolo!y an" epistemolo!y/ e saw such para"i!ms as bein!

characteri;e" by four thin!s &Quhn5 19+'5 p/1+)@,C(/ irst5 they centre on a

speci>c problem5 or set of problems which are re!ar"e" as particularly

si!ni>cant in relation to the a"vancement of 0nowle"!e/ econ"5 they are

about share" practice/ uch para"i!ms involve a share" un"erstan"in!

about which research techni6ues are appropriate for investi!atin! that

issue/ Thir"5 these para"i!ms involve a sense of share" identity / Base" to

some etent on the specialist area of research5 this share" i"entity is

reinforce" throu!h the processes of information echan!e they use

&specialist publications an" conferences( an" throu!h the interpersonal

networ0s that practitioners establish in relation to their area of research/

n" fourth5 these para"i!ms operate throu!h !roups of practitioners

operating in research communities. These research communities5 Quhn ar!ues5

1C



can eist at a number of levels/ t the hi!hest level5 such a community

coul" incorporate all those en!a!e" in scienti>c research/ t a lower level

there are communities operatin! at the level of sub<ect "isciplines5 an"

within these there are communities lin0e" to particular areas an" sub@

"isciplines/ 7ommunities5 in other wor"s5 can eist at "ierent levels an"

will vary in si;e/ They can be 6uite small5 particularly in the case of

2cuttin! e"!e3 research5 an" membership of one community "oes not

automatically eclu"e membership of another/ Quhn points to

2communities of perhaps one hun"re" members5 occasionally si!ni>cantly

fewer/ Usually in"ivi"ual scientists5 particularly the ablest5 will belon! to

several such !roups either simultaneously or in succession3 &Quhn5 19+'5

p/1+,(/

The notion of research para"i!ms base" on such smaller

communities is mar0e"ly "ierent from the notion of para"i!ms lin0e" to

over@archin! !ran" epistemolo!ical para"i!ms/ The communities are

multilevel5 overlappin! an" potentially =ui"/ Riewe" in this way5 research

para"i!ms resonate closely with the concept of 2communities of practice3/

This concept5 althou!h it was "erive" from social learnin! theory an"

"evelope" lar!ely in connection with the mana!ement of 0nowle"!e in

formal or!ani;ations5 maps neatly onto the practices of researchers within

aca"emic institutions an" research or!ani;ations/

The term 2communities of practice3 is !enerally attribute" to Lave

Fen!er &1991(5 an" the later wor0 of Fen!er &see Fen!er5 199,a5 199,b

Fen!er ny"er5 *'''(/ t the heart of the notion of communities of

practice lies a 0ey problematic# the acquisition of knowledge/ 4t is

1%



aiomatic for the ori!inators of the term that learnin! has a social an"

communal facet to it that eists 6uite "istinct from learnin! at an

in"ivi"ual an" personal level/ Learnin!5 from this perspective5 is a

collective activity/ The 0nowle"!e that is ac6uire" is 0nowle"!e pro"uce"

within the !roup ? it is share" 0nowle"!e/ n" the process of ac6uirin!

0nowle"!e is social ? it is learnt throu!h participation within the !roup an"

throu!h the a"option of share" practices/

The social learnin! theory that un"erpins the notion of communities

of practice emphasi;es the role of informal !roupin!s initiate" in response

to the nee" to "eal with a share" problem/ 7ompare" with formal !roups

create" within or!ani;ations whose structure5 tas0s an" i"entity are

establishe" throu!h functional lines an" status hierarchies5 communities of

practice hin!e on the fact that they can5 an" "o5 transcen" boun"aries of

"epartments5 or!ani;ations5 locations an" seniority/ 4t is crucial to the

whole i"ea of communities of practice that they come into eistence

throu!h the nee" to collaborate with those who face similar problems or

issues for which new 0nowle"!e is re6uire"/ This 6uest involves contact

with people who may be in other "epartments5 in other or!ani;ations an"

other places/ 4n"ee"5 it is 6uite feasible for there to be virtual communities

base" entirely on communication technolo!ies that eliminate the nee" for

face@to@face contact/ Fhat brin!s them to!ether as a community5 thou!h5

is that they share a common purpose &8ohnson@Len;3 1999( an" the

common purpose re=ects a nee" to 0now what each other 0nows &Brown5

1999(/ o5 as Mitchell et al/5 &*''15 p/ -( emphasi;e5 it is the purpose of

the communication rather than its form that is the important thin!#

1-



2Members &may( interact in "ierent ways an" focus on "ierent !oals/

Ievertheless5 at the core of each of these communities5 members remain

boun" by what they "o to!ether an" by what they have learnt throu!h

their mutual en!a!ement in a ran!e of activities3/

This emphasis on situate" learnin! has cause" some commentators

to worry about the way communities of practice mi!ht elevate practice@

base" 0nowle"!e above more theoretical an" abstract forms of

0nowle"!e/ ammersley &*''-(5 for eample5 voices such a concern in

relation to e"ucational research/ e ar!ues that if communities of practice

are treate" normatively as the preferre" basis for the !eneration of

0nowle"!e there are implicit "an!ers for more abstract5 propositional

forms of 0nowle"!e of the 0in" associate" with aca"emic theory an"

university research wor0/ 4f communities of practice are treate" as the

appropriate way in which 0nowle"!e shoul" be "evelope"5 the critical

stance of the "etache" observer can lose out to the practitioners3

concerns with solutions to here@an"@now problems/ 4n eect5 2scienti>c3

research coul" be si"eline" as 2an arti>cial enterprise &( necessarily

pro"ucin! alienate" ? propositional an" "econtetuali;e" ? 0nowle"!e

which cannot but be irrelevant to e"ucational practice3 &ammersley5

*''-5 p/1)(/ ammersley3s concern relates principally to the contet of

e"ucational research in the U an" the UQ at a time when there are

political interests at sta0e which favour practice@base" research/ Un"er

these circumstances5 the ar!ument is that communities of practice mi!ht

have the eect of wrestin! control of the research a!en"a away from

professional5 aca"emic researchers an" of emphasi;in! the value of

1)



practical 0nowle"!e at the epense of more esoteric5 lon!@term5

theoretical 0nowle"!e/ o"0inson &*''%( echoes such concerns5 althou!h

in his case it is because communities of practice are seen as formin! part

of a 2new ortho"oy3 in e"ucational research in which there is the

2"ominance of positivistic or empiricist views of research an" the primacy

of ob<ectivist metho"s3 &o"0inson5 *''%5 p/ *C(/ 4n either case5 however5

the ne!ative connotations associate" with communities of practice relate

to circumstances where a( communities of practice are a"vocate" as the

preferre" basis for pro"ucin! research 0nowle"!e an" b( there is a fairly

clear "istinction between practitioners &teachers( an" researchers

&aca"emics(/ Fith respect to the Mie" Metho"s approach5 thou!h5 neither

circumstance really applies/ 4n the "iscussion of mie" metho"s research5

communities of practice have been treate" primarily as a description of

how research communities operate rather than bein! a"vocate" as a path

that ou!ht to be followe"/ n"5 with respect to the Mie" Metho"s

approach5 there is no clear "istinction between practitioners an"

researchers/ The practice is the research the research is the practice/

Fhat is bein! "iscusse"5 in this article5 are communities of researchers

who wor0 within aca"emic an" research institutions for whom the

"istinction between practitioner 0nowle"!e an" research 0nowle"!e is

har" to sustain/ r!uably5 the two thin!s are inseparable/

Communities of practice and the Mixed Methods approach

7ommunities of practice meet the four criteria for a practice@base"

research para"i!m as envisa!e" by Quhn/ Throu!h their share" learnin!

1+



an" mutual collaboration lin0e" to a 0ey research problem they "evelop

"istinctive practices an" lan!ua!es that foster a !roup i"entity/

7ommunities of practice also oer somethin! of particular value to the

Mie" Metho"s approach/ Fhen applie" to the Mie" Metho"s approach

the eistence of variations an" inconsistencies within the para"i!m no

lon!er poses a critical problem/ This is because communities of practice

provi"e the basis for a research para"i!m that is suAciently =eible5

permeable an" multi@layere" to accommo"ate the variety of ways in which

mie" metho"s are use" an" the variety of motives researchers mi!ht

have for a"optin! a Mie" Metho"s approach/

4nitially5 this is because the research para"i!m comprises a

conglomerate of multiple research communities rather than a monolithic

entity/ Fithin the Mie" Metho"s approach this is evi"ent in the various

sub@communities that eist alon! the lines of "ierent sub<ect areas

&e"ucation5 health5 business etc/(5 "ierent orientations &theory5 practice5

policy evaluation5 emancipation(5 "ierent research tra"itions &post@

positivist5 constructivist5 historical5 comparative etc/( an"5 as Greene

&*'',( in"icates5 "ierent research "omains/ Lin0e" with this5 the

communities of practice can exist at dierent levels/ Echoin! the point

ma"e by Quhn &19+'(5 a para"i!m can eist at some very broa"5 over@

archin! level but5 beneath this5 communities of practice can eist at a

number of lower levels/ These lower@level research communities will have

particular interests an" research 6uestions that "rive them an" !ive them

a sense of communal i"entity5 but their members can still feel an aAnity

1,



with the hi!her@level an" lar!er research community/ Despite their speci>c

interests5 they can share a broa"er purpose/

econ"5 membership of the communities of practice is open to

change/ The chances are that there will be some movement between

communities an" that researchers mi!ht well belon! to more than one

community at a time/ n" this movement nee" not be restricte" within a

particular para"i!m/ The communities of practice approach to research

para"i!ms can also accommo"ate the possibility of permeable boun"aries

to the para"i!m/ ather than researchers bein! con>ne" to one tra"ition

an" constraine" by the 0nowle"!e an" s0ills associate" with that tra"ition5

this un"erstan"in! of a research para"i!m comfortably "eals with the

possibility that researchers mi!ht transfer alle!iances or 2have a foot in

both camps3/ s Mor!an observes# 2for Quhn5 there is nothin! about the

nature of para"i!ms &in the sense of share" beliefs amon! the members of

a speciality area( that inherently prevents the followers of one such

para"i!m from un"erstan"in! the claims of another3 &Mor!an *''+5 p/

)*(/

Thir"5 the communities of practice version of research para"i!ms has

!oo" potential for understanding the methodological choices made by

those conducting mixed methods research. ather than treat such

"ecisions as purely in"ivi"ual or entirely rational ? base" solely on some

ob<ective calculation of the bene>ts of a"optin! a Mie" Metho"s approach

relative to other available alternatives ? it can accommo"ate the 2social3

factors that impact on metho"olo!ical "ecisions/ n" there is empirical

evi"ence that such social factors are si!ni>cant in the contet of mie"

19



metho"s research/ s Bryman &*''+5 p/19@*'( foun"5 2the reasons for the

"iAculty of inte!ratin! 6uantitative an" 6ualitative research is only partly

to "o with factors intrinsic to these two research strate!ies it is also very

in=uence" by the pre"ispositions an" preferences of researchers an" of

"isciplines an" fun"in! a!encies3/

Fith their emphasis on the social nature of 0nowle"!e ac6uisition5

communities of practice sit comfortably with i"ea that researchers3

metho"olo!ical "ecisions are in=uence" by pre"ispositions an"

preferences/ The communities of practice mo"el is well@place" to "eal

with the fact that "ecisions about the use of a Mie" Metho"s approach

will be shape" by a sociali;ation process involvin! the in=uence of peers/ 4t

can "eal with the fact that researchers are li0ely to ac6uire some 2min"@

set3 about which 0in"s of "ata an" analysis are to be consi"ere"

2preferable3 an" 2better3 than others throu!h the way membership of

"ierent communities lea"s to the internali;ation of particular values an"

the inculcation of speci>c s0ill@sets/

E6ually5 communities of practice can accommo"ate the way that

"ecisions can be shape" by peer pressure/ Throu!h peer review of

aca"emic articles an" fun"in! proposals5 researchers eperience

constraints which can have a "irect impact on their "ecision concernin!

the use of a Mie" Metho"s approach5 an" researchers who have re!ar" to

careers an" research fun"in! will >n" it har"5 probably impossible5 to

i!nore such a in=uence to conform to !roup norms/

There are circumstances5 however5 where metho"olo!ical choices

are in=uence" by factors eternal to the community of practice ? an"

*'



these shoul" not be i!nore"/ 7hoices are ma"e within a social contet

where power can be eercise" to in=uence "ecisions concernin! the

a"option of a Mie" Metho"s approach/ Meyer &*''-( oers an eample of

this in connection with health research in the UQ/ he "escribes how

health researchers have been oAcially encoura!e" to mi their metho"s @

but in practice >n" that they can only "o so within a post@positivist

para"i!m of research/ The "ominance of 2evi"ence@base" practice3 an"

2systematic reviews3 in the health sphere5 she ar!ues5 have serve" to

ensure that ran"omise" controlle" trials continue to be treate" as the !ol"

stan"ar" for research whether the research relates to me"ical

interventions an" the eectiveness of "ru!s or whether it concerns health

promotion of other social facets of healthcare/ Gi""in!s &*'')( ma0es a

similar point with respect to nursin! research/ he ar!ues that the

inclusion of 6ualitative research has occurre" only to the etent that it

meets a post@positivist research a!en"a in which the aim of combinin! the

use of 6uantitative an" 6ualitative metho"s is to !et more 2accurate3

results5 not to eplore compleities an" contra"ictions in their own ri!ht/

n" in the >el" of e"ucation there is the same 0in" of constraint on the

choice of metho"olo!y/ s ome0h &*''-5 p/,( has "emonstrate"

2e"ucational researchers are facin! increasin! "eman"s for 2har" "ata3

!enerate" by pseu"o@positivist metho"s that purport to establish cause

an" eect between e"ucational practice an" improve" test scores3/ Fhat

these eamples in"icate is that communities of practice "o not operate in

a power vacuum/ 7ommunities of practice themselves can "ier in terms

of their power5 their in=uence an" their cre"ibility5 an" it nee"s to be

*1



ac0nowle"!e" that the Mie" Metho"s para"i!m mi!ht not yet carry the

"e!ree of reco!nition or acceptability outsi"e the realms of social research

that woul" ma0e it e6ual on its own terms with5 for instance5 the me"ical

mo"el of research/ lso5 communities of practice operate within a political

contet which means that5 althou!h they may consist of cuttin!@e"!e

researchers5 their vision of what nee"s to be investi!ate" an" how it

shoul" be researche" mi!ht be sti=e" if these are perceive" to threaten

the interests of more powerful research communities or "o not ali!n with

the interests of powerful policy@ma0ers/

Conclusion

The Mie" Metho"s approach can be seen as oerin! a thir" para"i!m for

social research throu!h the way it combines 6uantitative an" 6ualitative

metho"olo!ies on the basis of pra!matism an" a practice@"riven nee" to

mi metho"s/ s such5 it is frame" by a whole variety of practical issues

an" "eman"s &rather than bein! !ui"e" by some over@archin! philosophy(

an"5 almost inevitably5 this means that the manner in which the elements

of 6uantitative an" 6ualitative metho"olo!ies !et combine" is liable to be

fra!mente" an" inconsistent/ n" this is eactly what can be witnesse"

with researchers usin! mie" metho"s research for a variety of purposes

an" combinin! the 6uantitative an" 6ualitative elements in "ierin! ways/

This paper has outline" some of the variations an" inconsistencies these

entail/

uch variations an" inconsistencies5 it has been ar!ue"5 shoul" not

be re!ar"e" as alien to the concept of para"i!m nor in some sense a

**



uni6ue 2wea0ness3 of the Mie" Metho"s para"i!m/ The eistence of

variations an" inconsistencies within the Mie" Metho"s approach5

however5 "oes alert us to the nee" to reconceptualise the notion of

para"i!m in a way that accor"s with the practice@"riven nature of the

approach an" the increase" li0elihoo" this brin!s for variation an"

inconsistency within the para"i!m/ 4n this contet it has been ar!ue" that

the notion of 2communities of practice3 mi!ht be particularly useful/

The bene>ts of "e>nin! research para"i!ms in terms of communities

of practice5 it nee"s to be stresse"5 have been suggested rather than

"emonstrate"/ s Quhn &19+'5 p/1+)( ac0nowle"!e" in relation to his own

wor05 the empirical investi!ation of researcher communities an"

networ0in! is a separate tas0 that is far from trivial5 not least in terms of

its technical "eman"s/ owever5 bearin! this caveat in min" communities

of practice woul" seem to be bene>cial in four ways/ irst5 they can

accommo"ate the varieties an" inconsistencies within the Mie" Metho"s

approach throu!h the =eibility they aor" in terms of !roupin!s of

researchers an" the way they allow the notion of para"i!m to operate at

"ierent levels/ econ"5 they can help to eplain why the Mie" Metho"s

approach mi!ht seem more attractive to some researchers than others by

ta0in! into account the !roup in=uences on metho"olo!ical choices/ The

choice of research metho"olo!y is seen as a re=ection of factors such as

career interests5 fun"in! opportunities5 trainin! an" personal s0ills rather

than a purely 2rational3 choice base" on the respective merits of the

available alternatives/ Thir"5 communities of practice are in line with

Quhn3s thin0in! on the nature of research para"i!ms as they operate in

*C



the natural sciences an" they sit comfortably with Mor!an3s &*''+(

"iscussion of the bene>ts of shiftin! attention away from "ebates about

para"i!ms at the metaphysical level &epistemolo!yNontolo!y( towar"s

"ebates at the level of practice an" research culture/ ourth5 communities

of practice are consistent with pra!matism an" they place special

emphasis on the problem@"riven nature of en6uiry an" learnin!/ 4n the way

they operate5 they "o not tie metho"olo!ical choices to metaphysical

principles &epistemolo!yNontolo!y( but allow5 instea"5 metho"s to be

chosen in terms of their practical value for "ealin! with a speci>c research

problem/

*%



References

Brewer, J. & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles. Newbury Park,

A! "age.

Brown5 8// &1999(/ What is a Community of ractice! http#NNwww/co@i@

l/comNcoilN0nowle"!e@!ar"enNcopN"e>nitions/shtml &accesse" 1' u!

*''+(/

Bryman5 / &19,,(/ "uantity and "uality in #ocial $esearch/ Lon"on# Unwin

yman/

Bryman5 / &*''%(/ 2Trian!ulation3/ 4n M/ Lewis@Bec05 / Bryman5 T/ / Liao

&E"s/(5 %ncyclopedia of #ocial #cience $esearch &ethods/ Thousan"

:a0s5 7/# a!e/

Bryman, A. (#$$%). ntegrating 'uantitatie an 'ua*itatie re+ear-! -ow i+ it one

Qualitative Research, 6 (1), 9/011.

Bryman, A. (#$$/). Barrier+ to ntegrating 2uantitatie an 2ua*itatie 3e+ear-. Journal of

Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 80##.

7ampbell5 D/ T/ is0e5 D/ F/ &19-9(/ 7onver!ent an" "iscriminant

vali"ation by the multitrait@multimetho" matri/ sychological

'ulletin5 () &*(5 ,1@1'-/

-erry-o*me+, . H. (199#). Note+ on pragmati+m an +ienti4i rea*i+m. Educational

Researcher, 14, 101/.

o**in+, 5. 6. 7., nwuegbuie, A. J. & "utton, . :. (#$$%). A moe* inorporating t-e

rationa*e an purpo+e 4or onuting mi;e0met-o+ re+ear- in +peia* euation an

beyon. earnin! "isa#ilities: a $ontem%orary Journal, 4(1), %/01$$.

*-

http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/definitions.shtml






ook, 7. <. & 3ei-art, . ". (=+.) (19/9). Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in

Evaluation. Beer*y Hi**+, A.! "age.

7oon5 /P/ &*''-(/ 4nte!ratin! 6ualitative an" 6uantitative "ata# what

"oes the user nee"S *orum+ "ualitative #ocial $esearch ,*"#-5 )&*(5

May *''-/

http#NNwww/6ualitative@research/netNf6s@teteN*@'-N'-@*@%'@e/htmlit/

re+we**, J. >. (1999). 6i;e0met-o re+ear-! introution an app*iation. n ?. J. iek

(=.), &and#oo' of Educational (olicy (pp. @0@/#). New ork! Aaemi Pre++.

7reswell5 8/F/ &*''C(/ $esearch esign+ "ualitative/ "uantitative and

&ixed &ethods 0pproaches ,second edition-/ Thousan" :a0s5 7/#

a!e/

re+we**, J.>., 7a+-akkori, A., Jen+en, 5.<. & "-ap*ey, 5.:. (#$$). 7ea-ing mi;e

met-o+ re+ear-! pratie+, i*emma+, an -a**enge+. n A. Tasha00ori 7/

Te""lie &E"s/(5 1andbook of &ixed &ethods in #ocial and 'ehavioral

$esearch/ Thousan" :a0s5 7/# a!e/

re+we**, J. >. & P*ano *ark, C. (#$$/). "esi!nin! and $onductin! Mixed Methods

Research. 7-ou+an ak+, A.! "age.

<atta, :. (199@). Paraigm war+! A ba+i+ 4or peae4u* o0e;i+tene an beyon. n . ".

3ei-art & ". D. 3a**i+ (=.), )he Qualitative*Quantitative "e#ate: +e (ers%ectives

(pp. 0/$ -. "an Drani+o! Jo++ey0Ba++.

<enin, N. 5. (19/8). 7-e *ogi o4 natura*i+ti in'uiry. n <enin, N. 5. (=.) Sociolo!ical

Methods: A source#oo' . New ork! 6?raw0Hi**.

?iing+, :. ". (#$$%). 6i;e0met-o+ 3e+ear-! Po+itii+m re++e in rag Journal of

Research in +ursin!, 11(), 190#$.

*)

http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-05/05-2-40-e.htm#lit

http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-05/05-2-40-e.htm#lit



Gorar"5 / with Taylor5 7/ &*''%(/ Combining &ethods in %ducational and

#ocial $esearch/ Mai"enhea"# :pen University Press/

Greene/ 8/ 7/5 7aracelli5 R/8/ Graham5 F// &19,9(/ Towar" a conceptual

framewor0 for mie"@metho" evaluation "esi!ns/ %ducational

%valuation and olicy 0nalysis5 225 *--@*+%/

Greene/ 8/ 7/5 Ben<amin5 L/ Goo"year5 L/ &*''1(/ The merits of miin!

metho"s in evaluation/ %valuation5 3&1(5 *-@%%/

Greene5 8/ 7/5 Qrei"er5 /5 Mayer5 E/ &*''-(/ 7ombinin! 6ualitative an"

6uantitative metho"s in social in6uiry/ 4n B/ ome0h 7/ Lewin

&E"s/(5 esearch metho"s in the social sciences &pp/ *+%@*,1(/

Lon"on# a!e/

Hammer+*ey, 6. (1989). )he "ilemma of Qualitative Method: &er#ert .lumer and the

$hica!o )radition. :onon! 3out*ege.

Hammer+*ey, 6. (199#). /hat0s /ron! ith Ethno!ra%hy

:onon! 3out*ege.

Hammer+*ey, 6. (#$$). >-at an t-e *iterature on ommunitie+ o4 pratie te** u+ about

euationa* re+ear- 3e4*etion+ on +ome reent propo+a*+. 2nternational Journal of

Research and Method in Education, 3(1), 0#1.

Hary, 6. A. & Bryman, A. (=+.) (#$$@). &and#oo' of "ata Analysis. :onon! "age.

Harey, :. (198/). Myths of the $hica!o School . A*er+-ot! ?ower.

Hokin+on, P. (#$$@). 3e+ear- a+ a 4orm o4 work! e;perti+e, ommunity an met-oo*ogia*

obEetiity. .ritish Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 90#%.

olmes5 7/ &*'')(/ Mie"&up( metho"s5 metho"olo!y an" interpretive

framewor0s/ Paper !iven at the &ixed &ethods conference5

7ambri"!e 1'@1* 8uly *'')/

*+



?iing+, :. ". (#$$%). 6i;e0met-o+ 3e+ear-! Po+itii+m re++e in rag Journal of

Research in +ursin! 11()! 190#$.

?reene, J.. & arae**i, C.J. (#$$) 6aking paraigmati +en+e o4 mi;e met-o+ pratie.

n. A. Tasha00ori5 7/ Te""lie5 7/ &E"s/( 1andbook of &ixed &ethods

in #ocial and 'ehavioral $esearch/ Thousan" :a0s5 7/# a!e/

?reene, J. . (#$$8). + mi;e met-o+ +oia* in'uiry a i+tintie met-oo*ogy Journal of

Mixed Methods Research #(1)! /0##.

Gui!non5 7/ B/ &1991(/ Pra!matism or hermeneuticsS Epistemolo!y after

foun"ationalism/ 4n D/ / iley5 8/ / Boham / husterman &E"s(5

4he 5ntepretive 4urn+ hilosophy/ #cience/ Culture &pp/ ,1@1'1(/ 4thica#

7ornell University Press/

Jik, 7. <. (19/9). 6i;ing 'ua*itatie an 'uantitatie met-o+! 7riangu*ation in ation.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, %$#0%11.

Jo-n+on, 3. B. & nwuegbuie, A. J. (#$$@). 6i;e met-o+ re+ear-! a re+ear- paraigm

w-o+e time -a+ ome. Educational Researcher, 55(/), 1@0#%.

Jo-n+on, 3. B., nwuegbuie, A. J. & 7urner, :. A. (#$$/). 7owar a e4inition o4 mi;e

met-o+ re+ear-. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(#), 11#01.

8ohnson@Len;5 P/ 8ohnson@Len;5 T/ &1999(/ wa0in! Technolo!y/ t

http#NNwww/co@i@l/comNcoilN0nowle"!e@!ar"enNcopN"e>nitions/shtml/

&ccesse" C'/11/'+(/

Quhn5 T/ / &19+'(/ 4he #tructure of #cienti6c $evolutions ,second edition-/

7hica!o# University of 7hica!o Press &>rst publishe" in 19)*(/

:a++we**, H. <. (19%1). 7-e 'ua*itatie an 'uantitatie in po*itia* an *ega* ana*y+i+. n <.

:erner (=), Quantity and Quality: )he &ayden $ollouium on Scientific Method and

$once%t . New ork! 7-e Dree Pre++ o4 ?*enoe.

*,





Lave5 8/ Fen!er5 E/ &1991(/ #ituated 7earning 8 7egitimate eripheral

articipation/ 7ambri"!e# 7ambri"!e University Press/

:ayer, <. (199). +e Strate!ies in Social Research. ambrige! Po*ity Pre++.

:ayer, <. (1998). Sociolo!ical (ractice: lin'in! theory and social research. :onon! "age.

6a+terman, 6. (19/$). 7-e nature o4 a paraigm. n . :akato+ & A. 6u+grae (=+),

$riticism and the 7roth of 8noled!e. ambrige! ambrige Fnier+ity Pre++.

6a;y, ". J. (#$$). Pragmati t-rea+ in mi;e met-o+ re+ear- in t-e +oia* +iene+! t-e

+ear- 4or mu*tip*e moe+ o4 in'uiry an t-e en o4 t-e p-i*o+op-y o4 4orma*i+m. n A.

7a+-akkori & . 7e*ie (=+) &and#oo' of Mixed Methods in Social and .ehavioral

Research. 7-ou+an ak+, A.! "age.

6ayo, =. (19). )he &uman (ro#lems of an 2ndustrial $ivili9ation. New ork! 6ami**an.

(repub*i+-e by :onon! 3out*ege #$$).

6eyer, J. (#$$). Hea*t- re+ear-. n B. "omek- & . :ewin (=+) Research Methods in the

Social Sciences (pp. 809). :onon! "age.

Mitchell5 8/5 Foo"5 / oun!5 / &*''1(/ Communities of practice+

$eshaping professional practice and improving organisational

productivity in the vocational education and training sector /

Melbourne# ustralian Iational Trainin! uthority/

6organ, <. :. (#$$/). Paraigm+ *o+t an pragmati+m regaine! 6et-oo*ogia* imp*iation+

o4 ombining 'ua*itatie an 'uantitatie met-o+. Journal of Mixed Methods

Research, 1(1), @80/%.

6or+e, J. (#$$). Prinip*e+ o4 mi;e met-o+ an mu*timet-o re+ear- e+ign. n A.

7a+-akkori & . 7e*ie (=+.) &and#oo' of Mixed Methods in Social and .ehavioral

Research. 7-ou+an ak+, A! "age.

*9



nwuegbuie, A. J. & :ee-, N. :. (#$$). n beoming a pragmati re+ear-er! 7-e

importane o4 ombining 'uantitatie an 'ua*itatie re+ear- met-oo*ogie+.

2nternational Journal of Social Research Methodolo!y 8()! /08/.

Pring, 3. (#$$$). (hiloso%hy of Educational Research. :onon! ontinuum.

3a**i+, ". D. & 3o++man, ?. B. (#$$). 6i;e met-o+ in ea*uation onte;t+! a pragmati

4ramework. n A. 7a+-akkori & . 7e*ie (=+), &and#oo' of Mixed Methods in

Social and .ehavioral Research. 7-ou+an ak+, A.! "age.

3ei-art, . ". an 3a**i+, ". D. (199@). 7-e 'ua*itatie0'uantitatie ebate! New

per+petie+. +e "irections for (ro!ram Evaluation, 61! 1098.

3oo, 7. "., B*i++, :. A., ?a**ag-er, ". & Pere0Prao, A. (#$$). 7aking t-e ne;t +tep! mi;e

met-o+ re+ear- in organiationa* +y+tem+. 2nformation )echnolo!y, earnin! and

(erformance Journal, 31(1), 190#9.

oethlisber!er5 / 8/ Dic0son5 F/ 8/ &19C9(/ &anagement and the Worker /

7ambri"!e5 M/# arvar" University Press &re@publishe" *''C by

outle"!e (/

3orty, 3. (198#). $onseuences of (ra!matism. 6inneapo*i+! Fnier+ity o4 6inne+ota Pre++.

3orty, 3. (1991). #;ectivity, Relativism and )ruth< (hiloso%hical %a%ers, =olume 1.

ambrige! ambrige Fnier+ity Pre++.

"i*erman, <. (198). Qualitative Methodolo!y and Sociolo!y: "escri#in! the Social /orld .

A*er+-ot! ?ower.

"i*erman, <. (#$$$). "oin! Qualitative Research: A (ractical &and#oo' . :onon! "age.

"omek-, B. (#$$). =uationa* re+ear-. n B. "omek- an . :ewin (=+) Research

Methods in the Social Sciences (pp. /08). :onon! "age.

7a+-akkori, A. & re+we**, J. >. (#$$/a). 7-e new era o4 mi;e met-o+. Journal of Mixed

Methods Research, 1(1), 0/.

C'



7a+-akkori, A. & re+we**, J. >. (#$$/b). =;p*oring t-e nature o4 re+ear- 'ue+tion+ in mi;e

met-o+ re+ear-. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(), #$/011.

Tasha00ori5 / Te""lie5 7/ &199,(/ &ixed &ethodology+ Combining

"ualitative and "uantitative 0pproaches/ Thousan" :a0s5 7/# a!e/

Tasha00ori5 / Te""lie5 7/ &E"s/( &*''C(/ 1andbook of &ixed &ethods in

#ocial and 'ehavioral $esearch/ Thousan" :a0s5 7/# a!e/

Febb5 E/ 8/5 7ampbell5 D/ T/5 chwart;5 / D/ echrest5 L/ &19))(/

9nobtrusive &easures+ :on;reactive $esearch in the #ocial #ciences/

7hica!o# an" McIally/

Fen!er5 E/ &199,a(/ 7ommunities of practice# Learnin! as a social system/

#ystems 4hinker/ < &-(5 1@,/ http#NNwww/co@i@l/comNcoilN0nowle"!e@

!ar"enNcopNlss/shtml/ &ccesse" C'/11/'+(/

Fen!er5 E/ &199,b(/ Communities of ractice+ 7earning/ &eaning/ and

5dentity. 7ambri"!e# 7ambri"!e University Press/

Fen!er5 E/ ny"er5 F/M/ &*'''(/ 7ommunities of practice# The

or!ani;ational frontier/ 1arvard 'usiness $eview5 3=&1(5 1C9@1%-/

http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml




JMMR-Communitiesofpractice[1]

Documents

Transcript of JMMR-Communitiesofpractice[1]