Research Method
This assignment provides a synthesis of the research process that I will follow in my proposed thesis as the partial fulfillment of MA program. Besides, some articles, which I critically analyzed as annotated bibliographies, are pertinent to the mixed method research in the next portion of the assignment.
In this study, the method which I will be using is a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. The academic researchers increasingly use the combination of qualitative and quantitative method in their study (Bryman, 2006) with various names such as multi-methods (Brannen,1992), multi-strategy(Bryman, 2012), mixed methods(Creswell, 2003), or mixed methodology(Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). After all, Mixed Method Research (MMR) refers to the kind of research procedure where the researcher integrates both quantitative and qualitative research techniques (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie & Turner, 2007) into a single study to present pragmatism as a philosophical partner (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Its primary goal is to draw the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of a single research strategy (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Brewer & Hunter, 1989; Johnson & Turner, 2003) like qualitative or quantitative method. The combined way of doing research is an efficient and to have a leading strategy for starting out the research (Bryman, 2012) due to some challenges of others two mono-method studies. For example, qualitative investigation manipulates the issues directly with the emphasis on participants' perspectives avoiding the search for potential problems. In contrast, closed-ended questionnaire as the quantitative strategy might prevent the viewpoint of respondents that might precisely influence the findings of the study (Symonds & Gorard, n.d.). So, the usage of both techniques could improve generalization and uncover actual scenario of research problems (Wolf, 2010).
Driscoll, Yeboah, Salib, and Rupert (2007) identified two types of data collection process in mixed methods approach such as Concurrent Design and Sequential Design (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998).These procedures were used by many researchers (Paudel, 2011; Khan, N.A., 2001; and Tucker, C.M., 2010) extensively in their respective studies. Concurrent mixed methods follow two different types of data collection with a valid format. It merges one type of data with the other for doing contrast and comparison (Creswell & Clark, 2007). For instance, researchers simultaneously collect data through open and closed–ended questionnaires, and organize it with the coding of observed phenomena for making data set and lastly merged all findings in the discussion on the comparison basis. In sequential design, it involves the iterative process whereby the data collection in one phase contributes to the data collection of the next (Creswell & Clark, 2007). In both designs of Mixed Method Research (MMR), the researcher can use survey, semi-structured interviewing, focus group discussion, observation, case study, historical/archival methods simultaneously or sequentially as per need (Axinn & Pearce, n.d).
There are several strategies for analyzing data through which qualitative data can be quantified to create a single comprehensive set of data such as data transformation, correlation, comparison, and inferences (Greene, 2007). One strategy is to count the number of times of a qualitative code that comes in a text using the data analysis software like Atlas or NVivo (Driscoll, Yeboah, Salib, & Rupert 2007). Another strategy includes enumerating the frequency of themes within a sample, or the counting percentage of ideas (Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, 2003). In all these cases, the quantified data can be statistically compared to the qualitative data collection separately (Driscoll, Yeboah, Salib, & Rupert, 2007).
The main advantage of the MMR is to offer an immediate and useful middle position of research philosophy that mixes up all possible methodological selection (Paudel, 2011) for better answering of research questions with in-depth analysis (Sekhar & Jørgensen, 2003; Kabirand & Webb, 2005). However, it has also some limitations besides its strengths and advantages (Khan, N.A., 2001).It requires additional tasks to overcome the weaknesses of any mono-method of qualitative or quantitative study producing a complete knowledge relating to the theories and practices. Moreover, it is difficult to use for a single researcher to carry out both qualitative and quantitative method simultaneously, which may demand a research team (Khan, 2001). Furthermore, the researcher has to keep an extensive knowledge about the methods mixing up correctly that needs to have a more time and cost as well (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006).
The emergence of "Mixed Methods Research" is related to the development of "Pragmatism"(Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010; Maxcy, 2003; Bazeley, 2003; Greene & Caracelli, 1997; Cameron, n.d.). For the first 60 years, it was seen in the work of cultural anthropologists, feminist (Crothers & Platt, n.d), and sociologists (Gans, 1962; Hollingshead, 1949) but later it would not be thought up for many years. However, its new movement as a distinctive research paradigm emerged again recently in response to the syntheses of quantitative and qualitative approaches (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007). In the social science methodological literature, Campbell and Fiske (1959) used this method in their works as the formalized usage of multiple research methods. They tried to increase the validity and reliability of research process by using more than one strategy, which contributed to the introduction of “multiple operationalism” or “triangulation” (Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, & Sechrest, 1966). These ideas profoundly contributed to the emergence of “Mixed Methods Research” (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie & Turner, 2007). Another social researcher, Denzin (1978) also coined the meaning of combined method in the name of “triangulation” as it is the combination of methodologies in the study of the same phenomenon. Denzin also figured out four types of triangulations such as “data triangulation," “investigator triangulation," “theory triangulation," and “methodological triangulation."
In the development of MMR, Rossman and Wilson's (1985) argued that the combinations of different methods through triangulation process enable researchers to corroborate of each research paradigm in a single study. It ensures the availability of extensive data and information with multiple dimensions that emerge new idea of finding out research reliability. In the same year, Cook (1985) coined the term "critical multiplism" with mostly same thinking like the emphasis on the combination of different viewpoints for answering the research questions. In reviewing the classification of methodological triangulation, Morse (1991) addressed to the “simultaneous triangulation” as the concurrent use of qualitative and quantitative approach with a loose connection and limited similarities. However, the research outcomes must be harmonized and cross-checked with each other in spite of their dissimilarities for accurate research findings and authenticity. Conversely, in sequential triangulation, researchers find out a great affinity between these two approaches that one will necessarily follow another for the next plan of actions. Schrest and Sidana(1995) outlined some reasons favoring “methodological pluralism” in research studies such as it provides verification, eliminates possible error, facilitates the monitoring of data collection, and investigates data set determining its meaningful position. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) summarized the philosophical position of mixed method researchers considering its pragmatism and middle position in philosophy and methodology. In recent time, Collins, Onwuegbuzie, and Sutton (2006) identified some rationales in favor of using mixed method research in a single study. They revealed that the mixed approaches ensure instrumental reliability, participant enrichment, and appropriateness of data in a research oriented studies. Moreover, its integrity in treatment, significance enhancement, and potentiality of works facilitate the researcher with the richness of data, augmentation of interpretation and usefulness of findings. In the exploration of historical issues of mixed methodology, Johnson and Gray (2010) stated that most of the researchers are using this method significantly though it was facing some confusion in its emerging period.
In sum, the academia assures that the 20th century starts with mixed method research as a new intellectual dimension in response to the polarization of quantitative and qualitative approach. So, we are currently in a three methodological research paradigms, and the mixed methods research has become a part of the whole methodological approach in the early 1990s. Many researchers now stipulate this method in their research procedures with clear strategic dealings and methodological position (Brannen & Moss, 2012).
To complete a research study for fulfilling the requirement of Masters Program in EPI, I am enthusiastic and determined to follow the Mixed Method Research as my methodological position. And I will be using “convergent parallel mixed method research” strategy (Creswell, 2014) to discover and unfold the answering of my research questions. In connection with this strategy, the study will be based on both primary and secondary level data (Paudel, 2011) following descriptive (understanding component), explorative (understanding how component are fit together) and analytical research (comparison and contrast) design following research purpose and objectives.
In the primary level data collection, I will carry out the survey (Paudel, 2011, Kabir, M.E. & Webb. E.L., 2005; Matiku, P., Caleb, M. & Callistus, O., 2013) with the structured questionnaire as per quantitative method. Simultaneously, I will pursue case studies (Sekhar, N.U. & Jørgensen, I., 2003), focus group discussion (Paudel, 2011; Brown, H.C.P. & Lassoie, J.P., 2010), and semi-structured interview with key informants as to follow the techniques of qualitative data collection. In conducting the survey, I will use Stratified Random Sampling (Khan, 2001). For this purpose, all stakeholders will be stratified according to the nature of activities so that overall characteristic would be represented in the sample and the sample reflects the actual attributes of the whole phenomena. To select the sample from each stratum (based on criteria) Simple Random Sampling also might be used. In quantitative data analysis, I will be using statistical tools like univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analysis (Ma, Kittredge, & Catanzaro, 2011) through SPSS. Case study (Tucker, 2010; Mazur, & Stakhanov, 2008) and focus group discussion (Brown & Lassoie, 2010) will be discussed through thematic analysis using Nvivo software and documented through audio, video, images and texts. In the secondary level, I will be collecting all necessary data and information from published and online based books and journals using Google Scholar and ProQuest search engine.
Annotated Bibliography
Method #1 annotations (Data Collection)
Paudel, N.S. (2011) focused on “adaptability to climate change” and collection of “livelihoods” through community-based forest management in South East Asian Region. In pursuing the study, Paudel (2011) followed the mixed method research with both primary (household survey, interview, observations and FGD) and secondary data collection. The author found a linear relationship between geophysical fluctuations (due to climate change) and the collection of livelihoods that eventually influenced badly the socio-economic conditions of people (MoEF, 2008; IUFRO, 2005; FAO, 2008). The local people perceived that increasing trend of temperature outcome to the drought and declining intensity of rainfall. As a result, it changes the natural cycle of the water, forest and agricultural resources. The author also focused on the role of local government in developing physical structure like road, school, irrigation canal, road wall. The article may contribute to my study due to its conducting mixed methodology highlighting sample survey, non-participant observation, and interview with closed and open-ended questionnaires as well as pursuing some focus group discussion. Therefore, the analysis of this study is based on both statistical and in-depth analysis such as arithmetic mean, mood, and percentage. It also presents narrative texts, images of group discussions, workshop as well.
Khan, N.A. (2001) completed a research project on Social Forestry in two districts of Bangladesh such as “Betagi- Promora project” and “Chandra Agro-forestry Research and development project." The author used both quantitative and qualitative methods i.e. triangulation method following the principles of ‘methodological pluralism.' Therefore, the researcher used structured questionnaire as quantitative technique with stratified random sampling for household selection. Simultaneously, the researcher relied on personal observation and ethno historical analysis for qualitative information. In this article, the author supported of Scott’s (1972) findings as the functions, operations, and management of social forestry were dominated by patron-client relationship. It focuses on “super-ordination and subordination connectivity” as well as “racial and higher socioeconomic status” through which patron-client relationship becomes a significant role in determining beneficiary group for social forestry project. The local politics is another critical issue that gives political shelter for some people those are always getting priority in decision-making or becoming a member of a targeted group. These kinds of practice break down the mission and vision of social forestry policy. In supporting analysis, the researcher showed some perception of respondent through narratives and used inferential statistical tools. As I am researching community-based forest management, I do have importance of this research article and its methodology. I also get some lacking this study as the data collection was held in 1994 but the findings the author published in 2011 that reveals a gap between the time frame of data collection and publication.
Sekhar and Jørgensen (2003) found some valuable factors that contribute to making thoughts of community-based forestry in South Asia. It highlights forest degradation, local people’s involvement, and formulations of forest policy. In pursuing the study, the authors use the data gained from three intrinsic case studies launched in three different countries of South Asia i.e. India, Nepal and Sri Lanka to identify the main causal factors. The authors focused on the findings of Blaikie and Brookfield (1987) emphasizing local factors as the responsible for forest degradation. The authors pursued three case studies for doing in-depth analysis. The first case study was launched in Nepal, where they reviewed Shivapuri Watershed Management and Fuel wood Plantation Project. The second one is The Upper Watershed Management Project in Sri Lanka. And the last one is The National Social Forestry Project in India. Through their in-depth analysis of the three different case studies, they saw that poor participation of local people and lack of national forest policy, the major part of watershed areas are being degraded gradually. So in these circumstances, the implementation of social forestry program can be an effective way to give the sustainability of watershed areas. This paper would be helpful to my study because of its conducting case study as in-depth analysis. However, I pointed some of its limitations as to follow the only way to the case study that contextualizes only the perspectives of pertinent respondents and nothing else.
Kabir and Webb (2005) revealed the importance of social forestry for reforestation and afforestation in maintaining the sustainability of community and biosphere. The authors identified three different woodlot trees that local people chose for social forestry projects. For conducting the study, the researchers followed the quantitative method of research design, and in data collection, they randomly selected 40 woodlots as sampling units. They used structured questionnaires for survey on household. In data analysis, they used “linear regression model” to measure the dimension of trees. They addressed to the most favorable tree that people like to plant for community harvesting in future. Villagers are most likely to implement all objectives of the social forestry and want priority of traditional ecological knowledge in selecting woodlot tree for plantation. However, this article is useful to my research because of following the perfect quantitative method of data collection and analysis such as sample survey though it has a limitation of data collection technique. It recommends continuing research on people's participation and perception regarding social forestry activities.
Method #2 annotations (Data Analysis)
Tucker, C.M. (2010) focused on forest governance that integrates peoples from different backgrounds like social sciences and natural sciences or technical expert. Tucker (2010) also explored a good connectivity between forestry, organizational role and community intervention to discover the collaborative governance in forest ecosystems. Regarding quantitative data analysis, the researcher relied on statistical measurement and tools, GIS, and remote sensing system. In contrast, the author also used qualitative analytical tools like intrinsic case studies focusing on the patterns of local contexts, socio-ecological systems and jurisdictional factors that effect size of forests and forest ecosystem. The author also used satellite images as a powerful analyzing tool in revealing the changing patterns of forest. The qualitative analytical technique like case study that was used to measure socio-ecological system would be helpful for my research.
Mazur, R.E., & Stakhanov, O.V. (2008) focused on improvement of forest-edged landscape resources with the enhancement of social capital through community-based forest management. The authors figured out that communication and collaboration among all peoples of the community can reduce degradation and deforestation rate of a forest area. Moreover, this kind of co-management process could give the sustainability of peoples’ livelihood collection and thereby can maintain their minimum standard of lifestyle. And these could be implemented by the operation of community-based forest management policy. The authors reviewed the extensive relevant literature and also pursued case studies in their research areas. They analyzed the case studies focusing on the factors of availability of earning sources, reinforcement of traditional ecological knowledge, community involvement, and linkages with other organizations and outsiders. They followed qualitative basis to analyze data and information that might be helpful for my study as I will also be using the same.
Ma, Z., Kittredge, D.B., & Catanzaro, P. (2011) tried to analyze critically the traditional system of forest management focusing on transfer of knowledge. It also addressed to workshops and training that was initiated by professional to teach landowners about forest management and conservation. Depending on the survey findings, the researchers suggested the need for transferring knowledge and disseminating ecological information to all peoples of the community. This kind practice could be implemented through the participatory approach and peer interactions. In analyzing the data and information, the authors followed entirely quantitative system through statistical tools and scales such as mean, mood, and median. They also used histogram and bar diagram to figure out a graphical representation of their findings.
Reference List
Axinn, W.G., & Pearce, L.D. (n.d). Mixed method data collection strategies. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from www.psc.isr.umich.edu
Bazeley, P. (2003). Teaching mixed methods. Qualitative Research Journal, 3,117-126. Retrieved from https://rosma212.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/bazeley-p-2003-teaching-mixed-methods.pdf
Blaikie, P., & Brookfield, H. (1987). Land degradation and society. Progress in Human Geography, London and Newyork, Methuen. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/030913258801200425
Brannen, J. (1992). Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: An overview. Retrieved from www.researchgate.net/publication/243782100
Brannen, J., & Moss, G. (2012). Critical issues in designing mixed methods policy research. American Behavioral Scientist, 56 (6), 789-801, SAGE Publications,
doi : 10.1177/0002764211433796.
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multi-method research: A synthesis of styles. Research in Nursing and Health, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nur.4770140212/pdf
Brown, H.C.P., & Lassoie, J.P. (2010). Institutional choice and local legitimacy in community-based forest management: Lessons from Cameroon. Environmental Conservation, Foundation for Environmental Conservation, 37(3), 261-269. Retrieved from http://files.upei.ca/science/environmentalstudies/hcpb_2.pdf
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done?. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97-113, SAGE Publications. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1468794106058877
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/16577475/Alan_Bryman-Social_Research_Methods_4th_Edition-Oxford_University_Press_2012_?auto=download
Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0046016
Cameron, R. (2011). Mixed methods research: The five Ps framework. The Electronic Journal of Business Methods, 9(2), 96-108. Retrieved from www.ejbrm.com/issue/download.html?idArticle=269
Collins, K.M.T., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Sutton, I.L. (2006). A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed methods research in special education and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(1), 67-100. Retrieved from videolectures.net/…/MixedMethods.RAPModel.LDJournal.PublishedVersion.final.pdf
Cook, T.D. (1985). Post-positivist critical multiplism. In Shotland, L.,& M. M. Mark (Eds.), Social science and social policy, 12, 21-62. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd edition). SAGE Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, California.
Creswell, J.W, & Clark, V.P.L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Cited in Driscoll, D.L., Yeboah, A.A., Salib, P., & Rupert, D.J. (2007). Merging Qualitative and Quantitative Data in Mixed Methods Research: How To and Why Not. Ecology and Environmental Anthropology, 3(1). Retrieved from digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=icwdmeea
Creswell, John W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
Crothers, C. & Platt, J. (n.d.). The history and development of sociological social research methods. 1. Retrieved from www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c04/e6-99a-01.pdf
Denzin, N.K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Driscoll, D.L., Yeboah, A.A., Salib, P.,& Rupert, D.J. (2007). Merging qualitative and quantitative data in mixed methods research: How to and why not. Ecology and Environmental Anthropology, 3(1), 19-28. Retrieved from digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=icwdmeea
FAO. (2008). Food and Agriculture Organization Report- 2008, cited in Paudel, N.S. (2011). Community-Based Forestry and Livelihoods in the Context of Climate Change Adaptation, Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research
Gans, H.J.(1962). Urban villagers: Group life and class in the life of Italian-Americans. New York: Free Press, cited in Robertson, D.L.(1980). Participant Observation and Geographical Research. A Quarterly Journal of Research and Commentary, 9(1). Retrieved from pod.nku.edu/pdfs/doug/geoSurvey.pdf
Greene J.C, & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Advances in mixed method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms: New directions for evaluation.74, retrieved from http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0787998222.html
Greene, J.C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/ 10.1177/1558689807314013?journalCode=mmra
Hollingshead, A.B. (1949). Elmtown’s youth. Journal of Clinical Pschology. New York: John Wiley. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-4679 (195001)6:1%3C108::AID-JCLP2270060135%3E3.0.CO;2-P/pdf
IUFRO. (2005).Forests in the balance: Linking tradition and technology. world Congress 2005 Report, International Union of Forest Research Organizations. Retrieved from http://www.iufro.org/events/congresses/2005/
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. doi: 10.3102/0013189X033007014.
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. doi: 10.1177/1558689806298224.
Johnson, B., & Gray, R.(2010). A history of philosophical and theoretical issues for mixed methods research. Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193
Johnson, R.B., & Turner, L.A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Johnson,+R.B., +%26+Turner, +L.A.(2003).+Data+collection+strategies+in+mixed+methods+research&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwisrovhy83UAhWky4MKHXqYBxIQgQMILDAA
Kabir, M.E., & Webb. E.L. (2005). Productivity and suitability analysis of social forestry woodlot species in Dhaka Forest Division, Bangladesh. Forest Ecology and Management, 243-252. Retrieved from www.researchgate.net/profile/Md_Kabir11/publication/223761498
Khan, N.A. (2001). Social forestry versus social reality: Patronage and community-based forestry in Bangladesh. International Institute for Environment and Development, Gatekeeper Series no. 99. Retrieved from http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/6353IIED.pdf
Ma, Z., Kittredge, D.B., & Catanzaro, P. (2011). Challenging the traditional forestry extension model: Insights from the woods forum program in Massachusetts. Small-scale Forestry, 11,87-100, doi : 10.1007/s11842-011-9170-2
Matiku, P., Caleb, M., & Callistus, O. (2013). The Impact of participatory forest management on local community livelihoods in the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, Kenya. Conservation and Society, 11(2), 112-129. Retrieved from https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/…/ConservatSoc112112-6298912_172949.pdf
Maxcy, S. (2003). Pragmatic Threads in Mixed Methods Research in the Social Sciences: The Search for Multiple Modes of Inquiry and the End of the Philosophy of Formalism, in Hand Book of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research cited in Cameron R.(2011). Mixed Methods Research: The Five Ps Framework. The Electronic Journal of Business Methods, 9(2),96-108, retrieved from www.ejbrm.com/issue/download.html?idArticle=269
Mazur, R.E., & Stakhanov, O.V. (2008). Prospects for enhancing livelihoods, communities, and biodiversity in Africa through community-based forest management: a critical analysis. Local Environment, 13(5),405-421. doi: 10.1080/13549830701809700
McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based Inquiry, 6thedn. Pearson Boston, cited in Cameron R. (2011). Mixed Methods Research: The Five Ps Framework. The Electronic Journal of Business Methods, 9(2), 96-108.Retrieved from www.ejbrm.com/issue/download.html?idArticle=269
Morse, J. (1991). Approaches to qualitative – quantitative methodology triangulation. Nursing Research, 40, 120-123. Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2003072
MoEF(2008). Ministry of Environment and Forest Report-2008. Retrieved from http://www.moef.gov.bd/site/search?key=Ministry+of+Environment+and+Forest+Report%2C+2008
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research, 351-380. In Tashakkori and Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books? hl=en&lr =&id=F8BFOM8DCKoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA351&dq =Onwuegbuzie,+A.J., ++%26+Teddlie,+C.+(2003).+A+framework+for+analyzing+data+in+mixed+methods+research&ots=gUjTsEruQg&sig=rRR_KHS7RTNMSLCAg_tipvdkRFc#v=onepage&q=Onwuegbuzie%2C%20A.J.%2C%20%20%26%20Teddlie%2C%20C.%20(2003).%20A%20framework%20for%20analyzing%20data%20in%20mixed%20methods%20research&f=false
Paudel, N.S. (2011). Community-based forestry and livelihoods in the context of climate change adaptation. Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research. Retrieved from www.apn-gcr.org/resources/files/original/739eb6475f3e968e78217a6975131598.pdf
Rossman, G.B., & Wilson, B.L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9(5), 627-643, SAGE Journal. doi : 10.1177/0193841X8500900505.
Sechrest, L., & Sidana, S. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative methods: Is there an alternative?. Evaluation and Program Planning, 18(1), 77-87. Retrieved from http://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeeepplan/v_3a18_3ay_3a1995_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a77-87
Sekhar, N.U. & Jørgensen, I. (2003) Social forestry in South Asia: Myths and realities. Noragric, Centre for International Environment and development Studies, Agricultural University of Norway (NLH), Norway. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.493.883
Scott, J.C. (1972, March). Patron-client politics and political change in South-East Asia. The American Political Science Review, 66(1), 91-113. Retrieved from http://www.polsci.chula.ac.th/pitch/phdpolsea15/sc72.pdf
Symonds, J.E. & Gorard, S. (n.d.). The death of mixed methods: Research labels and their casualties. The British Educational Research Association. Retrieved from https://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/174130.pdf
Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.ca/Mixed-Methodology-Qualitative-Quantitative-Approaches/dp/0761900713
Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE Publications, cited in Cameron R.(2011). Mixed Methods Research: The Five Ps Framework, The Electronic Journal of Business Methods, 9(2), 96-108. Retrieved from www.ejbrm.com/issue/download.html?idArticle=269
Tucker, C.M. (2010). Learning on governance in forest ecosystems: Lessons from recent research. International Journal of the Commons, 4(2), 687-706. Retrieved from www.thecommonsjournal.org/articles/10.18352/ijc.224/galley/170/download
Webb, E.J., Campbell, D.T., Schwartz, R.D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Non-reactive research in the social sciences. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=48508
Wolf, F. (2010). Enlightened eclecticism or hazardous hotchpotch? Mixed methods and triangulation strategies in comparative public policy research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 144-167. doi : 10.1177/1558689810364987