MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391717022 · doi:10.59455/jomes.34

A Fully Integrated Systematic Review of Mixed Methods Design-Based Research

2023· article· en· W4391717022 on OpenAlex
Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Elena Forzani, Julie A. Corrigan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mixed Methods Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Learning and COVID-19
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScopusDesign-based researchComputer scienceQualitative researchMultimethodologyKnowledge managementManagement sciencePsychologyMathematics educationSociologyEngineeringMEDLINEPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Design-based research (DBR) is an educational research methodology that is commonly used in the fields of education, instructional technology, and learning sciences. When conducting DBR, researchers collaborate with practitioners (e.g., educators) and other stakeholders (e.g., parents, community members), often including the learners themselves, for the purpose of developing and evaluating innovative solutions to real-world problems within specific contexts, with a primary focus on improving practice and generating practical knowledge. DBR is particularly suited to mixed methods research. However, it is not clear the extent to which mixed methods research approaches are used in DBR studies, as opposed to monomethod research approaches that involve the sole use of qualitative research approaches or the sole use of quantitative research approaches. Therefore, in this study, what we refer to as a fully integrated systematic review of Scopus-indexed works from January 1, 1960 to May 31, 2022 was conducted to determine the prevalence of mixed methods DBR (MM-DBR) studies. This review yielded only 68 published works wherein the author explicitly declared their study as representing some form of a MMDBR study, with the majority of these MM-DBR studies being published within the last decade. Most notably, for all but 4 of these 68 studies, the level of integration occurred at the low end of the integration continuum, being characterized by mixed methods research designs wherein integration only occurred at the interpretation stage of the DBR process. More than two thirds of the authors (29.2%) neither explicitly specified nor described adequately their mixed methods research design. More than one half (i.e., 56.9%) of the MM-DBR studies were not grounded within the mixed methods research literature to any degree at all. Most notably, for all but four studies (i.e., 5.88%), the level of integration occurred at the low end of the integration continuum wherein integration only occurred at the interpretation stage of the MM-DBR process, representing only partial integration of the quantitative and qualitative research components/phases/cycles. As such, we call for more DBR researchers not only to consider using mixed methods research approaches but also to consider using full(er) integration approaches, as we move further into the fifth Industrial Revolution and beyond.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.186
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.206
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1860.206
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.528
GPT teacher head0.629
Teacher spread0.101 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it