Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Journal of Mixed Methods Research-2012-Sharp-34-54
Journal of Mixed Methods Research-2012-Sharp-34-54
Abstract
The flexibility of mixed methods research strategies makes such approaches especially suitable
for multisite case studies. Yet the utilization of mixed methods to select sites for these studies
is rarely reported. The authors describe their pragmatic mixed methods approach to select a
sample for their multisite mixed methods case study of a statewide education policy initiative
in the United States. The authors designed a four-stage sequential mixed methods site selection
strategy to select eight sites in order to capture the broader context of the research, as well
as any contextual nuances that shape policy implementation. The authors anticipate that their
experience would provide guidance to other mixed methods researchers seeking to maximize
the rigor of their multisite case study sampling designs.
Keywords
site selection, mixed methods sampling, mixed methods study, case study, purposive sampling
Social scientists use mixed methods research in a variety of contexts, including educational
research and policy analyses. Ultimately, the mixing decisions in these studies entail deciding on
how and at what stages the mixing will occur (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). Much of the
pertinent literature focuses on selecting qualitative and quantitative data collection strategies to
explore the study’s research questions. More robust studies often involve mixing methods
throughout the research process (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998, 2003a), including during the
sample or site selection stage of research.
Collins, Onwuegbuzie, and Jiao (2007) described sample selection as one of the most
important stages of mixed methods studies. Mixed methods sampling techniques may be useful
when it is challenging to obtain a representative sample using only one method. Such sampling
techniques are often appropriate for mixed methods studies that incorporate both goals of
generalizability of research findings and in-depth understanding of the research context (Kemper,
Stringfield, & Teddlie, 2003; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007). Specifically, if a study cannot use
1
Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA
2
University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA
Corresponding Author:
Julia L. Sharp, Department of Applied Economics and Statistics, 237 Barre Hall, Clemson University, Clemson, SC
29634-0313, USA
Email: jsharp@clemson.edu
random assignment or selection, then multistage, mixed methods sampling designs may be used
to select participants or sites that are more likely representative of the population studied and that
are best suited to answer the research questions.
Addressing sampling issues early in the research design helps ensure that the mixed
methodology employed is maximized to the fullest extent possible (Lieber, 2009). Yet few mixed
methods studies provide enough details about sample or site selection so researchers can learn
from the strategy employed (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Collins et al.’s (2007) extensive
literature review uncovered only four articles that specifically address sample selection. There is
a similar lack of published information about how to best select sites for multisite case studies
(Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007).
Our study aims to fill this gap in the literature. In our article, we describe the mixed methods
multisite study of a statewide education policy initiative and the sampling strategy that we
developed and used to select sites. We anticipate that our experience can provide guidance to
other mixed methods researchers seeking to maximize the rigor of their own multisite case study
sampling designs.
school’s Class of 2009 received very little to no exposure to the reforms, whereas the Class of
2011 is receiving exposure during high school and the Class of 2014 is receiving exposure from
middle through high school. Using a mixed methods research design will help us achieve a
broader understanding of the policy’s impacts on students, teachers, schools, and POS creation.
Our study most closely approximates the pragmatic parallel mixed methods research design
in which both qualitative and quantitative data are collected and analyzed to address research
questions. The mixing occurs either concurrently or after some time passes (Mertens, 2010). The
qualitative and quantitative approaches address various dimensions of the main research
questions (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Quantitative data include student outcome data (e.g.,
grades and attendance) from the three student cohorts and responses from student questionnaires.
Qualitative data include the results from content analyses of school course catalogs and career-
related materials and perspectives culled from interviews and focus groups conducted with
school administrators, counselors, and teachers from sample high schools, relevant career center
staff, and administrators at partner two-year colleges. Both qualitative and quantitative data
come from student Individual Graduation Plans (IGPs) from the state database, questionnaires of
guidance personnel and high school principals, and Class of 2009 and Class of 2011 student
transition and post-graduation information.
broader basis for generalization (Simons, 1996). For our study, we faced the challenges of
selecting sites that were representative of the study area (South Carolina) while also selecting
sites that could tell us the most about the complexities of policy implementation. To meet these
challenges, our research design and site selection process relied on the epistemological approach
of pragmatism (Biesta, 2010; Greene & Hall, 2010). This mixed methods research approach is
primarily guided by a study’s research questions, is based on the needs of and contingencies
present in a particular study, and ultimately reflects a value of both subjective and objective
knowledge (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003a). This pragmatic
research philosophy results in more robust and interesting findings and thus is of greater value to
policymakers and practitioners (Sammons, 2010), although we recognize that pragmatism is not
the only, or even most appropriate, philosophical foundation for all mixed methods research
(Biesta, 2010; Greene & Hall, 2010).
Several principles of pragmatism influenced our logic of inquiry, research design, and the
methods used for our site selection process (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004):
These principles of pragmatism subsequently influenced our logic of inquiry on four different
levels described below.
First, as a study of policy implementation, our research seeks “actionable knowledge of direct
practical value in the context being studied” (Greene & Hall, 2010, p. 138). The nature of our
study made it important for us to consider how the data would help us learn about the impact of
the legislation and school-based policies related to POS. As expressed by Rorty (1999), a more
comprehensive assessment of policy implementation can be obtained using a pragmatic approach,
not necessarily for the goal of providing a more “accurate account” but rather to improve the
usefulness of the research. Thus, we had to be mindful of the consequences of our study, its
utility for informing future policy initiatives (Feilzer, 2010), and its value for a variety of
stakeholders, including practitioners and policy makers (Sammons, 2010).
In a similar vein, we felt it was important to capture the broader context of the research as well
as the subtle contextual nuances that shaped policy implementation and how these varied across
the study sites. This contextual search is a second quality of pragmatism that influenced our
research. This notion is reinforced by research that demonstrates that some schools are more
effective in achieving outcomes (such as implementing a complex policy like EEDA) than others
(Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003b). Thus, we recognized the need to account for school effects and
other contextual variables when explaining outcomes.
Third, a pragmatic approach to sample selection shaped our conceptions of generalizability
and how the findings can be applied when reporting study results. Careful selection of sites is
no trivial matter and this choice is often governed by whether the researcher wants to generalize
results to a larger population (in which case random sampling is often used) or desires to learn
more about a specific setting or phenomenon (in which case purposive sampling strategies are
often used; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007). As Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) claimed, mixed
Concerning sampling strategies, Goetz and LeCompte (1984) called for criterion-based
sampling to “establish the criteria, bases, or standards necessary for units to be included” in the
research study (p. 77). This idea of criterion-based sampling is similar to purposeful or purposive
sampling designs that are often used to select a sample to attain representativeness or comparability
in a study (Patton, 1980; Teddlie & Yu, 2007). However, both strategies offer more generalized
guidelines than those used in our study. That is, we did not select what Patton (1980) described
as the most extreme or deviant, typical cases, critical cases, or politically sensitive cases. Other
site selection criteria include choosing sites that have high experience levels of the phenomenon
under study and choosing sites that increase the chance for negotiating access (Pettigrew, 1990).
Some of these factors played an indirect role in, but did not drive, our selection process.
No universal rule exists regarding the number of sites to select for multisite case studies
(Axinn & Pearce, 2006). Yin (2009) observed that the number of cases depends on both literal
replication (the amount of certainty desired concerning the research findings) and theoretical
replication (the extent to which external, contextual factors shape research findings and how
many cases are needed to reflect this variety). Such decisions are directly related to the idea that
case study research is not meant to be generalizable in the positivist, statistical sense of the word.
Thus, the traditional concept of random sampling typically does not apply to multisite case
studies (Yin, 2009). Rather, a purposive sampling strategy generally is used to select the best
sites possible, given the research goals and questions.
Our mixed methods sampling strategy represents a unique integration of quantitative and
qualitative methods at the sampling (i.e., site selection) phase of our mixed methods study
(O’Cathain, Murphy, & Nicholl, 2007). Within the context of our overarching parallel mixed
methods study, we developed a four-stage nested mixed methods sampling strategy following the
principles of a pragmatic sequential mixed methods approach. With this strategy, one type of data
informs the collection of another type of data in a subsequent stage (Mertens, 2010). The
remainder of this article describes our mixed methods site selection strategy in more detail.
Using Mixed Methods to Select Sites for Our Multisite Case Study
As is the case in most multisite case studies, we faced the challenges of deciding how to select
study sites (i.e., high schools) and identifying relevant criteria for selecting those sites. Budgetary
and time restraints limited the number of sites that could be studied, thus making it even more
important to choose sites in a way that would allow us to learn as much as possible about state
policy implementation and POS under differing school conditions.
Collins et al. (2007) listed major sampling schemes frequently employed in mixed methods
research. A random selection of high schools may have led us to select schools all with similar
policy implementation levels or with similar other characteristics that would best be varied in
order to address the research questions. Instead, we used a multistage, mixed methods sampling
design to select a sample that characterizes the population of interest so we could better analyze
the impact of the policy on students and schools.
Similar to Wells, Hirschberg, Lipton, and Oakes’s (1995) study of school detracking efforts
and Teddlie and Stringfield’s (1993) research on school effects, we were interested in selecting a
sample of schools that exhibited variety on primary variables of interest. In particular, we wanted
to assure variation on critical variables shown in past research to influence the implementation
of school reforms together with other variables that were perceived from the outset to have
potential influence on outcomes. Following Axinn and Pearce (2006), we sought to identify “all
factors believed to produce initial characteristics or conditions in a nonrandom way. These
measures can then be used in sophisticated statistical models to simulate random assignment of
initial conditions” (p. 161). We used a dual approach to identify key variables—hypothesizing
some early on and allowing others to emerge through data collection.
In our site selection plan, we aimed for variation across sites in actual level of policy
implementation. Based on policy guidelines provided to schools,1 the study team identified the
most salient initiatives for high schools and grouped them into the following six key facets
around which to measure policy implementation: (a) identification of and assistance for students
who are at high risk for dropping out of school; (b) integration of rigorous academic and career-
focused curricula, organized into career clusters and majors; (c) increased counselor roles in
education and career planning; (d) implementation of evidence-based high school reform; (e)
facilitation of local business–education partnerships and resource dissemination; and (f)
articulation between kindergarten through 12th grade and higher education.
Coupled with a desire for obtaining variety in levels of policy implementation, we aimed to
include schools from a diversity of contexts that are important for understanding educational reform
efforts such as EEDA. Thus, our sample included high schools that varied across several policy-
relevant factors including industry-related variables, availability of community and economic
resources, and level of implementation of the statewide policy. Defining these variables before data
collection allowed us to discuss in advance how to operationalize the contextual variables relevant
for our study. Focusing on these contextual variables during our site selection process enabled us to
connect them to student and school outcomes, a consideration that has become increasingly
important in school effectiveness research (Teddlie, Stringfield, & Reynolds, 2000; Wimpelberg,
Teddlie, & Stringfield, 1989) and other kinds of educational studies (Sammons, 2010).
describe in more detail below. Figure 2 provides an illustration of the sampling strategy used for
site selection.
Stage 1:
Representing
Regional and Industrial Diversity
Chi-square analysis
to select 4 WIAs
(59 schools)
Stage 2:
Selecting School Clusters Based on
Level of Available Economic Resources
Hierarchical cluster analysis on
selected economic measures
(31 schools)
Stage 3:
Ranking High Schools on
EEDA Implementation Level
Quantitative and qualitative data collection
to rank schools on PSLOI.
16 high and low ranked schools were
invited to participate in the study
with 10 agreeing to participate
Stage 4:
Validation of
Policy Implementation Level and
Variation on Key School Characteristics
Implementation validation site visits
to select the final sample
of 8 schools
Figure 2. Sampling strategies and resulting number of schools selected at each stage of the sampling
design
Note: Near the end of Stage 3, one cluster of schools declined to participate in the study. A substitute cluster of 12
schools was selected using the Stage 2 process. Stage 3 procedures were then applied to this new group to reach a
revised grouping of 10 schools at the end of Stage 3.
Industry employment data, averaged within each WIA, were used in a quantitative Chi-square
analysis to explore the association between WIAs and industry employment. We used this
analysis to explore the statistical justification to select WIAs based on concentrations of workers
in major state industries. Results indicated a significant association (using a significance level of
.05) between the WIAs and industry employment, c2(33, N = 1,116,799) = 108200.70, p < .01.
Three WIAs were identified in which employment for one of the top five South Carolina
20
Count of Schools
15
10
0
WIA 2: Rural WIA 4: Urban WIA 1: Rural WIA 3: Urban
WIA
industries (trade, transportation, and utilities; government; manufacturing; leisure and hospitality;
and professional and business services) was significantly greater than expected, and one WIA
was identified where employment in two of the top five industries was significantly greater than
expected. We selected these four WIAs so that we could make comparisons among, and within,
WIAs. Fifty-nine high schools that met our school criteria were located in these four WIAs.
Although 59 high schools would have been a more manageable sample than the original
sampling frame of more than 150 traditional 4-year high schools in South Carolina, it still would
have been difficult for us to collect timely and appropriate data from such a large sample during
the study period. The schools in the four WIAs also varied across other study-relevant factors,
including local economic conditions, thus making it difficult to discern in our final analysis
whether the impact of the legislation was due to policy or economic conditions. For this reason,
a second quantitative sampling stage was used to select schools of varying local economic
conditions across the WIAs and with similar economic conditions within the WIAs.
with higher concentrations of lower income students tend to have higher dropout rates
(Rumberger, 1995).
We used the following local economic measures to cluster schools within the WIAs: per
capita income by postal codes of all students enrolled in each school, a school poverty index
based on the percentage of students eligible for Medicaid or qualified for free and/or reduced
price lunch by school, the percentage of families in poverty with children below the age of 18
years by postal code, and the percentage civilian unemployment by postal code. Most of the 59
schools in our set of potential sites did not draw from specific postal codes, that is, the postal
delivery zones did not align with attendance zones. Therefore, for each potential site, we acquired
a data set of postal codes of all students enrolled for the most recent school year, then applied a
weight to each postal code for each school according to the proportion of students from each
postal code. These weights were then applied to the 2000 Census postal code data so that the data
were representative of the student populations at the schools (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000).
A hierarchical cluster analysis was performed within each WIA using SAS v. 9.2 (SAS
Institute Inc., 2008). In this analysis, each observation begins in its own cluster and the two
closest clusters (based on the squared distance between the averages) are grouped together. This
merging is continued until only one cluster remains. Figure 3 illustrates the clustering of the 59
schools on the four local economic measures. We clustered schools in each WIA into one of two
clusters: either high or low-to-moderate (mid/low) poverty. Clusters selected from two WIAs
(one with more urban areas and one with little or no urban areas) included high-poverty schools
and clusters selected from the other two WIAs (one with more urban areas and one with little or
no urban areas) included low-to-moderate poverty schools. Demographics for the four selected
school clusters are shown in Table 2. Thirty-three eligible high schools were contained in these
four clusters. Two schools were removed from the sampling frame due to excessive missing data
for the third stage,3 leaving 31 schools from which to select our final sample.
60 WIA 1: Rural WIA 2: Rural WIA 3: Urban WIA 4: Urban WIA 3: Urban
Mid/Low High Mid/Low High High
Poverty Cluster Poverty Cluster Poverty Cluster Poverty Cluster Poverty Cluster
50
40
PSLOI
30
20
10
0
1FV
4FD
5FD
13FD
17S
19FD
21SD
23FD
24FD
25D
26D
27D
28D
29D
32SND
33SND
2F
3F
14FV
30FD
31FD
39SN
6
7F
8
9
10
11F
12F
15
16
18
20
22F
34
35
36
37
38
40
41
42
43
Schoolsa
Figure 4. Preliminary selection level of implementation (PSLOI) scores for the 43 high schools
considered for inclusion in the sample
Note: The 16 original schools invited to participate are shown with solid black bars; WIA4 schools declined to
participate as did several other schools (labeled with “D” in school names). Substitute schools invited to participate
are shown with striped bars (and labeled with “S” in school names). Eight schools selected for study have stars above
their bars. In all, 43 (31 across original 4 clusters plus 12 in new “replacement” WIA3 high poverty cluster) were given
PSLOI scores and considered for inclusion in the study.
a. Schools are numbered in order of PSLOI by WIA cluster. Letters following the numbers in school names correspond
to the following codes: F = one of the first 16 schools chosen;V = visited but not selected; D = declined to participate,
did not conform to criteria, or never responded to invitation; S = substitute school; N = school from new WIA3 high
poverty cluster invited to participate.
points whereas others seemed unreliable (e.g., a survey question was unclear and responses
varied widely). We chose 41 of the possible 63 data points to include in our scoring. A final
coding scheme was devised for all the data used.5 Schools that had more advanced implementation
of the state policy across the six identified facets received higher PSLOI scores, and schools that
had less advanced implementation across the six facets received lower PSLOI scores.
Schools were then rank ordered within clusters on the PSLOI scores, with the goal of
identifying one school with a high level and one school with a low level of implementation from
each cluster. Figure 4 illustrates the range in PSLOI scores across the schools within WIAs. If
two or more schools had similar PSLOI scores, we considered other factors such as school size,
urbanicity of the school (as defined by the National Center for Education Statistics, 2002), and
minority enrollment to ensure that a diverse array of schools was chosen. Sixteen high schools
(two with high PSLOI and two with low PSLOI scores in each of the four clusters) were invited
to receive preliminary site data validation visits and to possibly participate in the study.
Of the initial 16 schools (schools marked by solid black lines in Figure 4, with “F” in the
school name to signify “first round” picks) contacted, nine agreed to receive visits, whereas the
remaining schools either did not respond to repeated contacts or declined to participate (Figure
4, “D” in the school name to signify “declined”). One of these nine schools, School 4FD (Figure
4) was removed from the sampling frame when the structure of the high school was modified so
that it no longer met our definition for inclusion in the study. In the WIA with the fewest schools
accepting our invitation to participate in the study (WIA3), we invited two substitute high schools
with PSLOI scores similar to those schools not participating to receive validation visits (Figure
4, “S” in the school name to signify “substitutes”). One of the two substitute schools agreed to
participate and was included in Stage 4.
Toward the end of Stage 3, schools in one WIA cluster declined to participate in our study
(WIA4 in Figure 3) due to their time, budgetary, and research circumstances. To compensate for
losing WIA4, the high-poverty cluster from the remaining urban group from the Stage 2 sampling
frame was added as a substitute cluster. We contacted three schools from the substitute cluster
(WIA3, urban, high-poverty). One of these three schools agreed to participate and was also
included in Stage 4. Thus, at the end of Stage 3, we had identified 10 schools to receive site visits
in Stage 4.
Discussion
Case studies are characterized by their multilevel, multidimensional characteristics. Such
research studies naturally evolve over time, as do the contexts and sites themselves. Schools are
complex and hierarchical in nature, with multiple interrelated levels, including students,
classrooms, schools, and districts. A number of factors about our study and the settings we
explored led us to a mixed methods approach not only for data collection and analysis to address
our research questions but also to select our study sites so that we could investigate these
questions. Multiple vantage points and data sources are necessary to better understand the
complexity of these educational settings. Such complexities inevitably invite reflection on how
we framed our research, designed the overall study, and developed our site selection strategy.
We assume that mixed methods have been used to select participants or cases for other mixed
methods research studies, but few authors have described the specifics of their sampling
strategies. Specifically, we used quantitative analyses to select four WIA regions (Stage 1) and to
cluster schools from these regions by selected local economic measures to select high and low-
to-moderate poverty schools (Stage 2). During the third and fourth stages of sampling, we not
only used qualitative and quantitative data but also qualitative and quantitative methods to obtain
scores to better rank and compare schools for site selection. This mixed methods sampling design
was crucial to help us address the research questions for our study, a reflection of our pragmatic
philosophical stance to the study design.
Our study was influenced by several factors common to policy implementation studies. For
example, the primary goal of Stages 3 and 4 was to assess whether schools were meeting EEDA
mandates as of the date we selected our sites. Since we aim to examine the implementation and
impact of a mandated state policy on school and student outcomes, we realized that there would
be both official reports of the implementation process, so that the school will appear to be
following mandates, and firsthand data about the actual implementation process at schools. Such
data may show that the policy is not being fully implemented or is not implemented as required.
Policy implementation research must also account for the various individuals who need to
implement the policy and the fact that implementation is filtered down through the hierarchy. At
the school level, the policy must be interpreted by administrators, implemented by counselors
and teachers, and requires student participation.
The mixing of quantitative and qualitative data sources during the sequential site selection
process allowed us to corroborate the various sources of information and to accommodate
multiple viewpoints on initial levels of policy implementation. Comparing questionnaire results
with school archival data and following up with school staff were essential for checking the
quality of various data sources used for site selection. This corroboration increased our confidence
in the combined data to address our research questions, an important consideration in mixed
methods research (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007).
Pragmatism provided the essential framework for our research design and for site selection
methodology. Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, and Turner (2007) observed that mixed methods research
“should be used when the nexus of contingencies in a situation, in relation to one’s research
question(s), suggests that mixed methods research is likely to provide superior research findings
and outcomes” (p. 129). The mixed methods sampling design was crucial to help us address the
research questions for our study, a reflection of our pragmatic philosophical stance to the study
design. In the context of our complex multisite case study, we were particularly influenced by the
notions that (a) there are multiple routes to knowledge, (b) as policy researchers we should make
“warranted assertions” rather than ultimate claims of truth, and (c) theories are important for
predicting and explaining change, rather than being viewed as “true” or “false” (Johnson &
Onwuegbuzie, 2004). That is, the complex and multilevel nature of our longitudinal case study
required a philosophical stance that recognizes that research is situated and purposeful (Scott &
Briggs, 2009).
As described earlier, four pragmatic principles influenced our logic of inquiry (methodology)
and our data collection techniques (method)—utility, contextual relevance, generalization, and
the use of interdisciplinary research teams. These principles were enacted throughout our four-
stage site selection process. Because this process was ultimately guided by our desire to learn
more about a complex policy initiative, it was important for us to consider how the data would
help us learn about the impact of the legislation and school-based policies related to POS. Thus,
by using a pragmatic framework, we recognized the need to obtain a more comprehensive picture
of policy implementation (e.g., by quantifying the varying implementation levels in Stage 3) and
to learn more about differences between sites in policy implementation. In studies of policy
implementation, the researcher will not always be aware of all the contextual factors that
influence policy implementation. By conducting interviews and focus groups with school staff
during Stage 4, we were able to consider aspects of implementation that were not apparent from
the review of official policy guidelines and data. We were also able to appraise contextual
influences that challenged and/or altered policy implementation at school sites.
From a pragmatic perspective, the economic context is particularly relevant and was thus
explicitly considered during the first and second sequential stages of sampling. By accounting
for these differences in our sample selection process, we can engage in more thoughtful
generalizability of research findings across regions with varying economic circumstances. As
Collins and O’Cathain (2009) explained, “the researcher’s choice of sampling design impacts the
legitimation of the researcher’s inferences and the appropriate generalization of results” (p. 5).
In terms of generalizations of results, when random samples are not possible, researchers
should select sites that vary across policy implementation levels and should control for major
contextual variables. By combining quantitative and qualitative components in the sampling
scheme, we achieved a balance of schools across the state on initial level of policy implementation,
industry mix, local economic conditions, and incidentally on location (urbanicity) and school
size. Our mixed methods sampling scheme will allow us to draw comparisons and contrasts
across several dimensions that are important for addressing our research questions, including the
level of policy implementation and the availability of various community resources. This mixing
of sampling procedures will help us increase internal validity and trustworthiness and the
generalizability/transferability of results (Kemper et al., 2003). Our site selection strategy
increases our ability to Maximize at least initial variance on issues of greatest policy interest,
Minimize differences on student background characteristics, and Control for many extraneous
variables (MaxMinCon).
EEDA focuses on developing students’ knowledge and abilities for high-skill, high-wage jobs
and preparing them for the modern workforce. Since the policy is statewide, its effectiveness
depends on ensuring benefits to students in all communities, regardless of levels of resources.
This requires a better understanding of the influence of community-level poverty on educational
outcomes. This is especially the case in South Carolina, where educational inequities could
potentially influence EEDA implementation (Kuczera, 2011). Thus, in the spirit of previous
pragmatic approaches to school effectiveness and school improvement research (Tashakkori &
Teddlie, 2003b), our site selection strategy accounted for varying levels of poverty (during Stage
2) so we could ultimately learn about the influence of community resources on study outcomes.
Our site selection process provides a strong foundation for our subsequent mixed methods
data collection and analytical procedures that capitalize on the benefits of these approaches. The
practical utility of pragmatism allowed us to incorporate both quantitative and qualitative
methods into our sampling strategy with the goal of ensuring that our research is practical,
contextual, responsive, and consequential (Datta, 1997). As our study progresses, and at the
conclusion of our study, the sharing of the practical consequences of our methodological and
methods decisions should prove beneficial to the mixed methods community (Scott & Briggs,
2009). We anticipate that the site selection process described in this article will enable other
researchers to think more purposefully about their selection of sites for mixed methods studies,
whether these sites are schools or other organizations. Specifically, if random assignment or
selection cannot be achieved or are inappropriate, multistage, mixed methods sampling designs
such as ours may be used to select participants and/or sites. The rigor associated with such
strategies can help researchers ultimately gain more valuable information about policy
implementation across a range of settings.
Authors’ Note
Julia Sharp and Catherine Mobley are the primary authors. Sam Drew and Cathy Hammond are co–principal
investigators on the project. The research study team consists of all listed authors.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Marty Duckenfield and Peg Chrestman for their careful review of the article. We
would also like to thank the JMMR editors and four anonymous reviewers whose comments and suggestions
have significantly strengthened this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article:
The work reported herein is being completed through the National Dropout Prevention Center, Clemson
University, and is supported under the National Research Center for Career and Technical Education,
University of Louisville, PR/Award (No. VO51A070003) as administered by the Office of Vocational and
Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education. However, the contents do not necessarily represent the
positions or policies of the Office of Vocational and Adult Education or the U.S. Department of Education
and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
Notes
1. South Carolina Technical College System series, How EEDA works for South Carolina, including: An
educator’s guide to develop and implement the EEDA curriculum framework and Individual Graduation
Plan (2006a) and An educator’s orientation guide to the Education and Economic Development Act
(2006b); and South Carolina Department of Education, South Carolina Education and Economic
Development Act guidelines (2006b).
2. The following schools were excluded from our sampling frame: schools that are kindergarten through
12th grade, 6th grade to 12th grade schools, schools with grade levels other than 9th grade to 12th
grade, vocational/career centers, magnet schools, charter or lab schools, and alternative schools.
3. Eighteen out of 33 schools had missing data, but we were able to contact all but two to obtain the data.
The two schools that were excluded were unresponsive to our requests for data and neither school had
submitted data on enrollment and types of at-risk programs nor had they completed a questionnaire that
would give guidance counselor and career specialist information and more details on the at-risk efforts
and whole school reform. One of the two schools with excessive missing data had also failed to submit
a state-mandated guidance report that would give details on implementation and participation in policy
activities. Also, this school’s course catalog could not be located online.
4. SDE provided standardized EEDA materials to all schools on a statewide website and through regional
training sessions. EEDA guidelines stipulate that schools must use the standardized form for IGP
development. Additionally, all schools were required to use the 16 federally defined career clusters for
reporting to the state but were allowed to modify the clusters (the names and what types of subjects
were included under each) for school use and to choose their own majors for each cluster. Most schools
moved to the standard IGP format in their course registration materials in the first year of EEDA, but
not all were using this format at the time we were selecting schools and reviewing catalogs online.
5. Most survey data were already scaled appropriately for our purposes (e.g., yes = 1, no = 0; or a range
0-5) with higher values indicating higher implementation; for data where a higher score would indicate
lower implementation, the scale was reversed. Some raw data was in a form that would result in one
question carrying more weight than another. For example, for the percentage of 9th graders with
a complete IGP, the range was 2 to 100 with a median of 96. Giving this data point a value of 96
compared with another data point with values from 0 to 5 would give too much weight to the first data
point. In such cases, responses were categorized into three groups with scores ranging between 0 and
2. See Smink et al. (2010) for more details about this scoring process.
References
Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Sarshar, M., & Newton, R. (2002). Quantitative and qualitative research in the
built environment: Application of “mixed” research approach. Work Study, 51(1), 17-31.
Axinn, W. G., & Pearce, L. D. (2006). Mixed method data collection strategies. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Balfanz, R., & Legters, N. (2004). Locating the dropout crisis. Which high schools produce the nation’s
dropouts? Where are they located? Who attends them? Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Center for Social Organization of Schools.
Biesta, G. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In A.
Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research
(pp. 95-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bryk, A., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2009). Organizing schools for
improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Burgess, R. G., Pole, C. J., Evans, K., & Priestly, C. (1994). Four studies from one or one study from four?
Multisite case study research. In A. Bryman & R. R. Burgess (Eds.), Analyzing qualitative data (pp.
129-145). London, England: Routledge.
Christ, T. W. (2007). A recursive approach to mixed methods research in a longitudinal study of postsecondary
education disability support services. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 226-241.
Collins, K. M. T., & O’Cathain, A. (2009). Ten points about mixed methods research to be considered by the
novice researcher. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3(1), 2-7.
Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. G. (2007). A mixed-methods investigation of mixed-
methods sampling designs in social and health science research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research,
1(3), 267-294.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Datnow, A., Borman, G. D., Stringfield, S., Overman, L. T., & Castellano, M. (2003). Comprehensive
school reform in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts: Implementation and outcomes from a
four-year study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 143-170.
Datta, L. (1997). A pragmatic basis for mixed-method designs. In J. C. Greene & V. J. Caracelli (Eds.),
Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms
(New Directions for Evaluation, No. 74, pp. 34-36). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Feilzer, M. F. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of
pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 41(1), 6-16.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.
Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Greene J. C., & Hall, J. N. (2010). Dialectics and pragmatism: Being of consequence. In A. Tashakkori &
C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 119-143).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard.
Educational Researcher, 17(8), 10-16.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time
has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
Kemper, E., Stringfield, S., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Mixed methods sampling strategies. In A. Tashakkori
& C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 273-296).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Kerlinger, F. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kuczera, M. (2011). Learning for jobs: OECD reviews of vocational and technical training: United States:
South Carolina. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Lieber, E. (2009). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Insights into design and analysis issues.
Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 3, 218-227.
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with
quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). School locale codes, 1987-2000. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2007). Integration and publications as indicators of “yield” from
mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 147-163.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Sampling designs in qualitative research: Making the sampling
process more public. The Qualitative Report, 12, 238-254.
Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science,
1, 267-292.
Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and social hope. London, England: Penguin Books.
Rumberger, R. W. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students and schools.
American Educational Research Journal, 32, 583-625.
Rumberger, R. W. (2001). Who drops out of school and why. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California–
Santa Barbara. Retrieved from http://education.ucsb.edu/rumberger/internet%20pages/Papers/
Rumberger--NRC%20dropout%20paper%20version%2012%20with%20figures.doc
Sammons, P. (2010). The contribution of mixed methods to recent research on educational effectiveness. In
A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research
(pp. 697-723). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
SAS Institute Inc. (2008). SAS 9.2 software, help and documentation. Cary, NC: Author.
Scott, P. J., & Briggs, J. S. (2009). A pragmatist argument for mixed methodology in medical informatics.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 223-241.
Simons, H. (1996). The paradox of case study research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26, 225-240.
Smink, J., Drew, S., Hammond, C., Withington, C., Mobley, C., Sharp, J., et al. (2010). A longitudinal
study of the South Carolina Personal Pathways to Success initiative. Louisville, KY: National Research
Center for Career and Technical Education.
South Carolina Department of Education. (2005). 2005 EAA report card Excel files: High schools [Data File].
Retrieved August 22, 2008, from http://www.ed.sc.gov/topics/researchandstats/schoolreportcard/2005/
data
South Carolina Department of Education. (2006a). 2006 EAA report card Excel files: Poverty indices
[Data File]. Retrieved August 22, 2008, from http://www.ed.sc.gov/topics/researchandstats/school
reportcard/2006/data/
South Carolina Department of Education (2006b). South Carolina Education and Economic Development
Act guidelines. Columbia, SC: Author.
South Carolina Department of Education. (2007). 2007 State of South Carolina Education Accountability
Act report cards - data files: Poverty index [Data File]. Retrieved August 22, 2008, from http://www.
ed.sc.gov/topics/researchandstats/schoolreportcard/2007/data/
South Carolina Department of Education. (2010). South Carolina High Schools [Data File]. Retrieved
February 19, 2010 from http://ed.sc.gov/schools/allschools.cfm
South Carolina Employment Security Commission. (2008). Spotlights: WIA profiles. Retrieved from http://
www.sces.org/lmi/spotlights/WIA
South Carolina Technical College System. (2006a). How EEDA works for South Carolina. An educator’s
guide to develop and implement the EEDA curriculum framework and individual graduation plan.
Columbia, SC: Author.
South Carolina Technical College System. (2006b). How EEDA works for South Carolina. An educator’s
orientation guide to the Education and Economic Development Act. Columbia, SC: Author.
Stallings, J. A., & Kaskowitz, D. (1974). Follow through classroom observation evaluation, 1972-73: A
study of implementation. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute, Stanford University.
Stringfield, S., Millsap, M.A., & Herman, R. (1997). Special strategies for educating disadvantaged children:
Findings and implications of a longitudinal study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (1998). Mixed methodology: Applying qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003a). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003b). The past and future of mixed methods research: From data
triangulation to mixed model designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods
in social and behavioral research (pp. 671-701). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2000). The international handbook on school effectiveness research. London,
England: Falmer.
Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1993). Schools make a difference. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Teddlie, C., Stringfield, S., & Reynolds, D. (2000). Context issues within school effectiveness research.
In C. Teddlie & D. Reynolds (Eds.), The international handbook on school effectiveness research (pp.
160-186). London: Falmer.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and
qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). 2000 Census of Population and Housing: Summary tape file 3, Tables
P43, P82 [Data files]. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov
Walford, G. (2001). Site selection within comparative case study and ethnographic research. Compare, 31,
151-163.
Wells, A. S., Hirschberg, D., Lipton, M., & Oakes, J. (1995). Bounding the case within its context: A
constructivist approach to studying detracking reform. Educational Researcher, 24(5), 18-24.
White House.gov. (2010). Issues: Education. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education
Wimpelberg, R., Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1989). Sensitivity to context: The past and future of effective
schools research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25, 82-105.
Wolf, S., Borko, H., Elliott, R., & McIver, M. C. (2000). “That dog won’t hunt!” Exemplary school change
efforts within the Kentucky reform. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 349-393.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zartman, I. W. (2005). Comparative case studies. International Negotiation, 10, 3-15.