303.022/.023;37.012 DOI: 10.2298/ZIPI0901045S
Њ Х Х
Ч Њ Њ Њ
Ш
,
. , ,
, , ,
. ,
-- .
» « ђ ,
-, .
, ,
,
.
,
.
,
.
К : - , , .
К » «
,
.
,
, .
-, ,
-,
-, ,
(Brewer & Hunter, 1989; Creswell, 2003; Green et al., 1989; Johnson & Christensen, 2004; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003).
- 1
-, , , .
.
» « ђ
(Creswell, 2003; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Tashakkori & Ted-dlie, 2003).
-,
(Guba, 1990; Denzin & Lincoln, 1994).
,
(Borland, 2001; Sale et al., 2002).
, ,
-,
-. ђ
, ,
» « .2
-( , , , ).
,
. ,
- ,
(Stojnov, 2005: 269).
ђ . , , ђ
-.
ђ ђ .
1 „mixed-methods research“
.
2
. , .
, » «
-
-, .
. ,
.
.
-,
-. ,
-. , ,
,
,
.
-,
.
»
‘ ’ , ‘
-’ « (Stojnov, 2005: 273).
,
,
-, , , ,
.
( ),
,
-,
,
(
),
(Guba,
1990; Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Schwandt, 2000). » «
-,
.
-, .
» «
, ђ .
-ђ ,
-, , ,
-. ,
( , ),
-. ,
(Ristić, 1995).
, ,
, . ,
-,
(Stojnov, 2005: 278), :
-, ;
-;
-, ;
.
,
, ,
. ,
, ђ
(Guba, 1990). ђ
» ђ «.
,
-,
-, » «,
.
, -
ђ
. ,
» «
-(Caracelli & Green, 1993).
.
.
,
. ђ
,
-,
. ,
ђ ,
(Creswell, 2003; Howe, 1992; Johnson & Christensen, 2004).
-
-,
, :
;
; ђ
;
. , -
,
(Reichardt & Rallis, 1993).
ђ ,
,
,
-,
ђ
(Bre-wer & Hunter, 1989; Creswell, 2003; Johnson & Christensen, 2004;
Tas-hakkori & Teddlie, 2003).
-, ,
» «
(Miles & Huberman, 1984).
-, (Howe,
1988).
» «
. , , » «;
» « ђ
. ђ
, -
-.
ђ
(Dewey, 1948). ,
, (
x), (
x) .
. ,
.
(James, 1907; Peirce, 1878),
,
, .
, ђ
ђ , ,
.
,
,
ђ - :
– ђ
» ђ « ђ
-; ( ,
, ,
), ,
,
;
, ;
;
-;
-, ђ ;
(Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004: 18).
-
– , –
–
. -
-,
ђ
-. ,
.
-,
-. ,
-. ,
,
(Johnson & Tarner, 2003).
-- . , ђ
,
ђ
-. ђ ,
, ђ
-,
.
,
-.
,
-. ,
,
ђ .
-- , ђ
, , ,
-,
-, , .
,
ђ
,
ђ . Ј
,
.
-: ( : Mertens, 2003).
-, .
,
ђ ;
(
: Rorty, 2000), .
-
-
,
» «.
,
:
-ђ
-.
-ђ ђ
-,
. ђ ,
.
,
(Denzin 1970)3; (2)
-, (Morgan, 1998).
ђ
-, ( ).
ђ ,
ђ .
,
-.
ђ ,
,
( ),
( )
( ). ,
,
. Ј
-, , ,
-,
.
, : ,
,
. ,
-ђ ,
-.
-,
. ,
, ,
.
, .
3
,
.
. » «
, .
.
(grounded theory),
-.
-, »
« .
,
.
- ,
(Green et al., 1989).
57 - ,
. ,
,
-. ,
(Sale et al., 2002).
,
(Morgan, 1998).
-,
-.
-,
-,
» «. ,
-. ,
-.
,
(Sale et al., 2002).
?
-,
.
, :
.
.
; ,
-,
(Laughlin et al., 2001).
-
. ,
» « 4:
» «
» «.
» « ,
ђ » « » «
.
-. ђ
-. ,
-.
-,
.
:
ђ » «
-.
,
,
(Yin, 1989).
-
, ђ
,
. -
-, ,
(Laughlin et al., 2001).
,
-. ,
.
,
.
(
) ( )?
: (1)
; (2) ; (3) ?
ђ ,
.
-,
-. – 5
– ,
. ђ
-,
-. ђ
.
ђ : ,
( ,
, , џ
.); , ђ
;
: – ( ђ
ђ
, ђ ђ
);
–
; , :
-, . ђ
. –
–
ђ
-, .
, ђ
,
.
-
,
.
- ,
.
-. ,
-. ,
,
-. -
,
» «.
(
,
),
-.
Н . »
o «, 149001 (2006-2010),
К
Borland, K. (2001): Qualitative and quantitative research: A complementary balance, New Directions for Institutional Research, 112, 5-13.
Brewer, J. & A. Hunter (1989): Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Campbell, D. & D. Fiske (1959): Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix, sychological Bulletin, Vol. 56, No. 2, 81-105.
Caracelli, V. & J.Green, (1993): Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation de-signs, Educational Evaluation and olicy Analysis, 15, 195-207.
Creswell, J. (2003): Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
De Wall, C. (2001): On eirce. Belmont, C.A.: Wadsworth. Denzin, N. (1970): The research act. Chicago: Aldine.
Denzin, N. & Y. Lincoln (1994): Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research; in N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds.): Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage
ublications.
Dewey, J. (1948): Reconstruction in philosophy. Boston, MA: Beacon ress.
Green, J., V. Caracelli & W. Graham (1989): Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274. Guba, E. (1990): The alternative paradigm dialog; in E. Guba (ed.): The paradigm dialog
(17-27). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Howe, K. (1988): Against the qualitative-quantitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard, Educational Researcher, 17, 10-16.
Howe, K. (1992): Getting over the qualitative-quantitative debate, American Journal of Edu-cation, 100, 236-257.
James, W. (1907): Pragmatism. New York: Dover.
Johnson, R. & L. Turner (2003): Data collection strategies in mixed methods research; in A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (eds.): Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnson, R. B. & A. J. Onwegbuzie (2004): Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come, Educational Reseracher, Vol. 33, No. 7, 14-26.
Johnson, R. & L. Christensen (2004): Educational research:Qualitative, quantitative and mi-xed approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Laughlin, J., G. Laughlin & J. Muffo (2001): Using qualitative and quantitative methods for complementary purposes: a case study, New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 112, 15-41.
Lincoln, Y. & E. Guba (2000): Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences; in N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds.): Handbook of qualitative research (163-188). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Mertens, D. (2003): Mixed methods and the politics of human research: the transformative-emancipatory perspectives; in A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (eds.): Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miles, M. B. & A. M. Huberman (1984): Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: to-ward a shared craft, Educational Researcher, 13, 20-30.
Morgan, D. (1998): Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: applications to health research, Qualitative Health Research, 3, 362-376.
Peirce, C. (1878): How to make our ideas clear, Popular Science Monthly, 12, 286-302. Reichardt, S. & S. Rallis (1993): Qualitative and quantitative inquiries are not incompatible:
Sale, J., L. Lohfeld & K. Brazil (2002): Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: impli-cations for mixed-methods research, Quality & Quantity, 36, 43-53.
Schwandt, T. (2000): Three epistemologicalstances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretativism, hermeneutics and social constructionism; in N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds.): Handbook of qualitative research (189-213). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Tashakkori, A. & C. Teddlie (eds.) (2003): Handbook of mixed methods in social and beha-vioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (1989): Case study research: design and methods. Applied Social Research Met-hods, Series No. 5. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
14.03.2009; 06.04.2009.
Slavica Ševkušić
COMBINING QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN STUDYING EDUCATION
Abstract
In the humanities, in the last two decades, there has been an evident increase of re-search combining quantitative and qualitative methods, techniques, approaches, concepts or language. This paper discusses the arguments for and against these re-search drafts, which most often appear in literature under the title mixed methods research. While some authors consider this type of research as the announcement of the third paradigm in studying social phenomena and the approach that shifts the war between the two paradigms into the past, other authors claim that the paradigms un-derlying the two basic research orientations are incompatible because they study essentially different phenomena, and therefore the methods from two research tradi-tions cannot be combined in any way. The third viewpoint, which we advocate as well, argues that qualitative and quantitative methods cannot be applied together in one draft for the purposes of triangulation or cross-validation, but that they can be combined for complementary objectives. This paper describes the example of mixed methods draft of complementary objectives in pedagogy, which refers to evaluation of mathematics curriculum. The example shows that combining qualitative and quan-titative methods is not only possible, but that it creates the conditions for arriving at data which would not be possible to obtain using only one or the other approach.
Key words: mixed-methods research, qualitative research methods, pragmatism.
Ы Ы
ю
-,
-, , , .
,
-
-,
-; , ,
,
,
-. ,
, ,
-, ,
,
. -
,
. ,
,
,
, .
К ю ы : - ,
