1. Mixed Methods Ibrahim Zuleffendi Nooreen Farzana Mustapha Nur Hairi Nahar Nursakinah Bohari Nadzirah Mohamad Yusof Nurul Hidayati Saidi Ahmad Zhafir Zulkifli Ahmad Azree Md Yusof Nurul Safiyah Ismail

2. OUTLINES • Design Typology Utilisation • Planned versus Emergent Designs • Dimension of Complexity • Secondary Designs • Case Studies

17. . Conducted Separately . Integrated at interpretation stage

18. . Concurrently . Data collected simultaneously and integrated immediately

19. . Equal Weight . Equally important to address research question

23. . Conducted Separately . Integrated at interpretation stage

24. . Concurrently . Data collected simultaneously and integrated immediately

25. . Dominant Status . QUAL > quan

29. . Conducted Separately . Integrated at interpretation stage

30. . Conducted Separately . Integrated at interpretation stage . Sequential . One method follow the other

31. . Equal Weight . Equally important to address research question

34. . Dominant Status . QUAN > qual

37. Integrated throughout entire process (design, data collection, analysis and interpretation) Same instruments - mixed method at research objectives, data analysis and inference stages

42. Quantitative and qualitative phases occurs sequentially in 2 stages

47. Rigid Frameworks • Typologies are predefined frameworks, and they may not always fit the unique needs of every research project → may limit creativity and flexibility, forcing researchers to modify or work outside the typology. • Complexity in Application • Mixed methods typologies can be complex and require researchers to navigate multiple dimensions (e.g., timing, priority, integration) → lead to confusion or improper implementation, especially for novice researchers.

48. 3. Integration Challenges • Typologies often assume seamless integration of qualitative and quantitative methods, but practical challenges in merging data can arise. • Difficulty in synthesizing data from different methods can lead to superficial or incomplete integration. 4. Overlap and Ambiguity Between Typologies • The boundaries between typologies are sometimes unclear, leading to ambiguity in classification → challenges in determine the best typology for their study.

49. 5. Evolving Research Contexts • Existing typologies may not adapt well to dynamic or innovative research contexts, such as emerging technologies or interdisciplinary studies → can result in outdated or irrelevant typologies that do not address contemporary research needs. 6. Lack of Consensus Among Scholars • Inconsistent terminology and frameworks can confuse researchers and reviewers. • Might classify the same study differently due to differences in typology structures.

50. 7. Training and Expertise Gaps • Researchers may lack adequate training or experience in applying complex mixed methods typologies. • This can lead to poorly designed studies or misinterpretation of typology features. 8. Publication and Peer Review Challenges • Rigid adherence to typologies might lead to difficulties in publication or peer review when reviewers expect studies to follow traditional designs. • Using a hybrid typology that doesn't align with popular frameworks might lead to rejection or the need for extensive justification.