The Two Primary Types Of Mixed Methods Designs In Cha 289577

The Two Primary Types Of Mixed Methods Designsin Chapter 10 Of The Tex

The Two Primary Types of Mixed Methods Designs In Chapter 10 of the text, the author discusses the two primary types of mixed methods designs (pp. ). After reading the text, paying particular attention to Figure 10.1 on page 220 and Figure 10.2 on page 221, examine this methodology as it pertains to research in criminal justice. Consider the key components, as well as major strengths and weaknesses, of the two primary types of mixed methods design. In your paper Identify the major components of mixed methods research design. Analyze the major strengths and weaknesses of mixed methods research design.

Examine the use of such data by criminal justice agencies. The paper Must be three to five double-spaced pages in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. Must include a separate title page with the following: Title of paper, Student’s name, Course name and number, Instructor’s name, Date submitted. Must use at least three peer-reviewed sources in addition to the course text. The Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor.

Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for a particular assignment. Must document all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

Paper For Above instruction

The field of criminal justice research increasingly relies on mixed methods research design due to its ability to provide comprehensive insights by integrating qualitative and quantitative data. Chapter 10 of the referenced text delineates two primary types of mixed methods designs: the convergent (or concurrent) design and the explanatory sequential design, each with distinctive components, strengths, and weaknesses. Understanding these designs is critical for criminal justice agencies aiming to utilize data effectively for policy formulation, crime prevention, and community engagement.

The convergent mixed methods design, as depicted in Figure 10.1 of the text, involves collecting both qualitative and quantitative data simultaneously during a study. This approach allows researchers and practitioners to compare and relate findings from both data types directly, providing a holistic perspective on the research problem. In this design, the major components include the concurrent collection of data, integration of findings during interpretation, and the joint analysis of qualitative and quantitative results (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). For criminal justice agencies, this design facilitates timely insights. For instance, they might collect arrest data (quantitative) alongside interviews with affected communities (qualitative) to assess the impact of a new policing strategy.

One of the major strengths of the convergent design is its efficiency in data collection and analysis, allowing for a comprehensive understanding within a relatively short timeframe. It also promotes corroboration of findings across data types, enhancing validity. However, this design's weaknesses include the challenge of integrating data effectively and the potential for conflicting results that complicate interpretation (Fetters & Curry, 2013). Additionally, simultaneous data collection can strain resources and require sophisticated coordination.

The explanatory sequential design, illustrated in Figure 10.2 on page 221, involves collecting quantitative data first, analyzing it, and then following up with qualitative data collection aimed at explaining or elaborating on initial findings. Its major components are the initial quantitative phase, the interpretation of these results, and subsequent qualitative data collection focused on the areas needing further understanding (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). In criminal justice, this approach is advantageous for understanding complex phenomena, such as recidivism. For example, a department may analyze statistical data on reoffending rates and then conduct interviews with offenders to explore underlying factors.

The strengths of the explanatory sequential design include its ability to build on quantitative findings with rich, contextual qualitative data, leading to more comprehensive conclusions. It allows researchers to clarify or expand upon initial results selectively. Nonetheless, this design has drawbacks, such as the longer duration needed for sequential data collection, potential issues in follow-up participant recruitment, and challenges in integrating data during analysis (Fetters et al., 2013). In criminal justice, it requires careful planning and resource allocation, but the depth of understanding gained can justify these demands.

In practice, criminal justice agencies utilize mixed methods data to improve policy effectiveness, enhance community relations, and inform operational practices. For example, agencies may use quantitative crime trend data combined with qualitative community perceptions to tailor policing strategies (Bachman & Schutt, 2019). The robust insights enabled by mixed methods can lead to more targeted interventions, better resource allocation, and stronger community trust.

Overall, both primary mixed methods designs offer valuable tools for criminal justice research. The convergent design excels in providing rapid, corroborated insights, while the explanatory sequential design offers depth and contextual understanding. Nonetheless, each has limitations that require careful consideration and skilled implementation. By leveraging these methodologies, criminal justice agencies can better analyze complex social phenomena, develop evidence-based policies, and serve communities more effectively.

References

• Bachman, R., & Schutt, R. K. (2019). The Practice of Probation and Parole (3rd ed.). Thomson/Wadsworth.
• Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
• Fetters, M. D., & Curry, L. A. (2013). A Closer Look at the Convergent Design. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(3), 223–240.
• Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving Integration in Mixed Methods Designs-Practical Guidance. The Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 73–95.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Plano Clark, V. L., & Ivankova, N. V. (2016). Mixed Methods Research: A Guide to the Field. Sage Publications.
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. (2007). A Review of Mixed Methods Social Inquiry: Philosophical Foundations and Practical Guidelines. The Qualitative Report, 12(3), 448–462.
• Leavy, P. (2017). Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Guilford Publications.
• Levin, B., & McDevitt, J. (2019). Community Policing and the Challenge of Diversity. Police Practice & Research, 20(4), 415-429.