Résumés
Résumé
L’utilisation de méthodes mixtes (MM), c’est-à-dire l’emploi conjoint des méthodes quantitatives et qualitatives dans la recherche en sciences humaines et sociales suscite, depuis les deux dernières décennies, de nombreux débats. Dans cet article nous décrirons, dans un premier temps, les caractéristiques générales des MM. Dans un deuxième temps, nous aborderons les principales controverses entre ceux qui font référence à une posture qui affirme l’existence de différences incompatibles entre les paradigmes, ceux qui prônent la compatibilité paradigmatique en faisant coïncider les MM et la triangulation, et finalement, ceux qui proposent d’autres bases épistémologiques. Les implications de ces postures pour la recherche qualitative seront brièvement avancées.
Mots-clés :
- Méthodes mixtes,
- pragmatisme,
- transformatif-émancipatoire,
- réalisme critique,
- dialectique
Parties annexes
Références
- Anadón, M. (2006). La recherche dite « qualitative » : de la dynamique de son évolution aux acquis indéniables et aux questionnements présents. Recherches qualitatives, 26(1), 5-31.
- Anadón, M. (2018). Quelques repères sociaux et épistémologiques de la recherche en éducation au Québec. Dans T. Karsenti, & L. Savoie-Zajc (Éds), La recherche en éducation : étapes et approches (4e éd., pp. 17-50). Montréal : Presses de l’Université de Montréal.
- Apple, M. W. (1986). Teachers and texts: A political economy of class and gender relations in education. New York, NY : Routledge & Kegan Paul.
- Bergman, M. M. (2011). The good, the bad, and the ugly in mixed methods research and design. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(4), 271-275.
- Bericat, E. (1998). La integración de los métodos cuantitativo y cualitativo en la investigación social: Significado y medida [L’intégration des méthodes quantitatives et qualitatives dans la recherche en sciences sociales : signification et mesure]. Barcelona : Ariel
- Biesta, G. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. Dans A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Éds), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2e éd., pp. 95-118). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
- Bouchard, T. J. Jr. (1976). Unobtrusive measures : An inventory of uses. Sociological Methods & Research, 4(3), 267-300.
- Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research : How is it done? Qualitative research,6(1), 97-113.
- Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(1), 8-22.
- Cannella, G. S., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2004). Dangerous discourses II : Comprehending and countering the redeployment of discourses (and resources) in the generation of liberatory inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry,10(2), 165-174.
- Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological bulletin,56(2), 81-105.
- Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (2015). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Ravenio Books.
- Cook, T. D., & Reichardt, C. S. (Éds). (1979). Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (Vol. 1). Beverly Hills, CA : Sage.
- Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design : Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2e éd.). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
- Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
- Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Choosing a mixed methods design. Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 2, 53-106.
- Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act : A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York, NY : McGraw-Hill.
- Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of mixed methods research,6(2), 80-88.
- Gage, N. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath : A “historical” sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational researcher, 18(7), 4-10.
- Gans, H. J. (1963). Urban villagers : Group life and class in the life of Italian-Americans. New York, NY : Free Press.
- Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theory and resistance in education. London : Heineman Educational Books.
- Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory : Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY : Aldine Publishing Company.
- Greene, J. C., & Hall, J. N. (2010). Dialectics and pragmatism : Being of consequence. Dans A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Éds), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2e éd., pp. 119-143). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
- Guba, E. G. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation (CSE Monograph 8). Los Angeles, CA : University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
- Guba, E. G. (1987). What have we learned about naturalistic evaluation? Evaluation Practice, 8(1), 23-43
- Howe, K (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17(8), 10-16.
- Howe, K. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(1), 42-61.
- Hunter, A., & Brewer, J. (2003). Multimethod research in sociology. Dans A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Éds), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 577-594). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
- Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design : From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3-20.
- Jahoda, M., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Zeisel, H. (2003). Marienthal : The sociography of an unemployed community. New Brunswick, NJ : Transaction Publishers. (Ouvrage original publié en 1931).
- Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods : Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602-611.
- Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (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.
- Lincoln, Y. S. (2010). “What a long, strange trip it’s been…” : Twenty-five years of qualitative and new paradigm research. Qualitative Inquiry,16(1), 3-9.
- Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London : Sage.
- Lynd, R. S., & Lynd, H. M. (1959). Middletown : A study in modern American culture. Orlando, FL : Harcourt Brace. (Ouvrage original publié en 1929).
- Maxwell, J. A., & Mittapalli, K. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. Dans A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Éds), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2e éd., pp. 145-167). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
- Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research : A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA : John Wiley & Sons.
- Mertens, D. M. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research : The transformative emancipatory perspective. Dans A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Éds), Handbook of mixed method social and behavioral research (pp. 135-164). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
- Mertens, D. M. (2007). Transformative paradigm : Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(3), 212-225.
- Mertens, D. M. (2010). Transformative mixed methods research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 469-474.
- Mertens, D. M. (2012). What comes first? The paradigm or the approach? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(4), 255-257.
- Modell, S. (2009). In defense of triangulation : A critical realist approach to mixed methods research in management accounting. Management Accounting Research, 20(3), 208-221.
- Morgan, D. L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods : Applications to health research. Qualitative health research,8(3), 362-376.
- Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained : Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of mixed methods research,1(1), 48-76.
- Morse, J. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. Dans A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Éds), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
- Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA : Sage
- Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry. Dans N. K. Denzin, & Lincoln, Y. S (Éds), Handbook of qualitative research (2e éd., pp. 189-213). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
- Shannon-Baker, P. (2016). Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research,10(4), 319-334.
- Smith, J. K. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research : An attempt to clarify the issue. Educational Researcher, 12(3), 6-13.
- Smith, J. K., & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the conversation : The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 4-12.
- Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology : Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches (Vol. 46). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
- Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Epilogue : Current developments and emerging trends in integrated research methodology. Dans A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Éds), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 803-826). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
- Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. Dans A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Éds), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
- Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2011). Mixed methods research : Contemporary issues in an emerging field. Dans N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Éds), Handbook of qualitative research (4e éd., pp. 285-300). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
- Thomas, R. M. (2003). Blending qualitative and quantitative research methods in theses and dissertations. Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin Press.
10.7202/1085396ar