Volume 9 Issue 1 (2020)

Tracking Learning and Teaching Chains and Their Variations in the Development of Mixed-Methods Methodology

pp. 58-73  |  Published Online: March 2020  |  DOI: 10.22521/edupij.2020.91.4

Harri Pitkäniemi


Recently, inspirational articles on research methodology have been written on the development of the mixed-methods approach. This area of study concerns methodological trends in the construction of research designs. One may ask, whether it is possible to construct a notional piece of investigation, potentially highlighting a research design that successfully seeks to identify a causal mechanism. The purpose of the current study is to consider how to construct a research design that would illustrate the application of methodological ideas in the context of educational research, such as school education and learning. This study produces three dimensions of causal mechanism: a horizontal dimension (chain length), a vertical dimension (possibilities of different variations), and tentatively a hypothetical causal network dimension (including context factors).

Keywords: Mixed methods, causal mechanism, research design, teaching, learning.


Anguera, M., Blanco-Villaseñor, A., Losada, J., Sánchez-Algarra, P., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2018). Revisiting the difference between mixed methods and multimethods: Is it all in the name? Quality & Quantity, 52(6), 2757-2770.

Bazeley, P. (2018). “Mixed methods in my bones”: Transcending the qualitative-quantitative divide. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 10(1), 334-341.

Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2013). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Bennett, A., & Checkel, J. T. (Eds.). (2014). Process tracing. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University.

Blatter, J., & Haverland, M. (2012). Designing case studies: Explanatory approaches in small-N research. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22.

Cappella, E., Aber, J. L., & Kim, H. Y. (2016). Teaching beyond achievement tests: Perspectives from developmental and education science. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 249-348) (5th ed.) Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Collier, D. (2011). Understanding process tracing. Political Science & Politics, 44(4), 823-830.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Erickson, F. (2012). Comments on causality in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(8), 686-688.

Fetters, M. D., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2017). The Journal of Mixed Methods Research starts a new decade: The mixed methods research integration trilogy and its dimensions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(3), 291-307.

Fetters, M. D., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2019). Rebuttal – conceptualizing integration during both the data collection and data interpretation phases: A response to David Morgan. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(1), 12-14.

Gerring, J. (2010). Causal mechanisms: Yes, but…. Comparative Political Studies, 43(11), 1499-1526.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-methods evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.

Halkier, B. (2011). Methodological practicalities in analytical generalization. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(9), 787-797.

Hammersley, M. (2018). Commentary – on the “Indistinguishability Thesis”: A response to Morgan. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 256-261.

Jacobson, M. J., Levin, J. A., & Kapur, M. (2019). Education as a complex system: Conceptual and methodological implications. Educational Researcher48(2), 112-119.

Johnson, B. R., Russo, F., & Schoonenboom, J. (2019). Causation in mixed methods research: The meeting of philosophy, science, and practice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(2), 143-162.

Johnson, R. B., & Schoonenboom, J. (2016). Adding qualitative and mixed methods research to health intervention studies: Interacting with differences. Qualitative Health Research, 26(5), 587-602.

Krause, M. S. (2018a). Associational versus correlational research study design and data analysis. Quality & Quantity, 52(6), 2691-2707.

Krause, M. S. (2018b). The scientific study of the qualities of individual human lives, rather than of their average quantities in aggregations of lives. Quality & Quantity, 52(3), 1315-1329.

Lee, W. C., Chen, V. D.-T., & Wang, L.-Y. (2017). A review of teacher efficacy beliefs research in the learner-centred pedagogy context: Themes, trends and issues. Asia Pacific Education Review, 18(4), 559-572.

Levin, B. (2015). The development of teachers’ beliefs. In H. Fives & M. G. Gill (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 48-65). New York, NY: Routledge.

Mahoney, J. (2012). The logic of process tracing tests in the social sciences. Sociological Methods & Research, 41(4), 570-597.

Maxwell, J. A. (2004a). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3-11.

Maxwell, J. A. (2004b). Using qualitative methods for causal explanation. Field Methods, 16(3), 243-264.

Maxwell, J. A. (2012a). A realist approach for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Maxwell, J. A. (2012b). The importance of qualitative research for causal explanation in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(8), 655-661.

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Maxwell, J. A. (2019). Distinguishing between quantitative and qualitative research: A response to Morgan. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(2), 132-137.

Maxwell, J. A., Chmiel, M., & Rogers, S. (2016). Designing integration in multimethod and mixed methods research. In S. Hesse-Bieber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry (pp. 688-706). E-book. New York, NY: Oxford University.

Maxwell, J. A., & Loomis, D. M. (2003). Mixed methods design: An alternative approach. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research (pp. 241-271). London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Maxwell, J. A., & Mittapalli, K. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 145-167) (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook for new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Morgan, D. L. (2018). Living within blurry boundaries: The value of distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 268-279.

Morgan, D. L. (2019). Commentary – after triangulation, what next? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(1), 6-14.

Morris, S. P., Edovald, T., Lloyd, C., & Kiss, Z. (2016). The importance of specifying and studying causal mechanisms in school-based randomised controlled trials: Lessons from two studies of cross-age peer tutoring. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(7-8), 422-439.

Opdal, P. A. (2018). Om pedagogiske intensjoner: En teoretisk og empirisk studie ved bruk av pedagogisk-filosofiske og kvalitative metoder (Doctoral dissertation). The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.

Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative-quantitative debate: The analytic and systemic approaches to educational research. Educational Researcher, 20(6), 10-18.

Sandelowski, M. (2014). Unmixing mixed methods. Research in Nursing & Health, 37(1), 3-8.

Sanscartier, M. D. (2018). The craft attitude: Navigating mess in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(1), 47-62.

Tikly, L. (2015). What works, for whom, and in what circumstances? Towards a critical realist understanding of learning in international and comparative education. International Journal of Educational Development, 40, 237-249.

Uprichard, E., & Dawney, L. (2019). Data diffraction: Challenging data integration in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(1), 19-32.

Weller, N., & Barnes, J. (2016). Pathway analysis and the search for causal mechanisms. Sociological Methods & Research, 45(3), 424-457.

Yin, R. K. (2013). Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation, 19(3), 321-332.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and method (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2016). Causality, generalizability, and the future of mixed methods research. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry (pp. 652-663). New York, NY: Oxford Press.



► Journal Metrics

  • 8% acceptance rate
  • 3.4 (2023) CiteScore (Scopus)
  • Q2 (2023) CiteScore Best Quartile
  • 0.42 (2023) Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

EDUPIJ Statistics from Scopus

CiteScore: 3.4, view Scopus page

SCImago Journal & Country Rank

► Educational Process: International Journal is member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). 

► New issue coming soon! (Volume 13 Issue 3, 2024)