Assessing legitimation in mixed research: A new framework

Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, R. Burke Johnson, Kathleen M.T. Collins

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

58 Citations (Scopus)


In this article, we have merged or intersected two typologies: Greene's (Res Sch 13(1):93-98, 2006) four-domain typology for developing a methodological or research paradigm in the social and behavioral sciences and Onwuegbuzie and Johnson's (Res Sch 13(1):48-63, 2006) nine-component typology for assessing mixed research legitimation. We argue that merging or interconnecting these typologies present a framework for assessing legitimation in mixed research. Specifically, we demonstrate how the nine types of legitimation map onto Greene's (Res Sch 13(1):93-98, 2006) four methodological domains and illustrate how legitimation in mixed research, rather than being viewed as a procedure that occurs at a specific step of the mixed research process, is better conceptualized as a continuous iterative, interactive, and dynamic process. Additionally, in presenting this framework, we hope to reduce misperceptions that some researchers have voiced about mixed research.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1253-1271
Number of pages19
JournalQuality and Quantity
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2011
Externally publishedYes


  • Assessing legitimation
  • Dynamic process
  • Mixed research
  • Research paradigm

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Statistics and Probability
  • General Social Sciences


Dive into the research topics of 'Assessing legitimation in mixed research: A new framework'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this