Exploring the role of the mixed methods practitioner within educational research teams: A cross-case comparison of the research planning process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article, involving the comparison of two multi-year mixed methods research studies aimed at enhancing the post-secondary, large-class teaching and learning environments, has as its purpose to illustrate the role of a mixed methods practitioner (MMP) by examining the processes undertaken by the educational research teams. The impetus for this work is the lack of practical application of the legitimation theory espoused in the literature and the need for guiding practices for MMPs working within research teams. A two-stage process of reflecting upon the planning decisions guided the cross-case analysis method involving writing individual accounts for each study followed by a comparison of the studies in terms of key features (e.g., purpose, design) and sources of legitimation (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006). These findings are discussed in light of implications for conducting mixed methods research in teams specifically focused on the MMP roles as a boundary spanner and issue mediator.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.216 | 0.240 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".