Anthony Onwuegbuzie

Prof. Anthony Onwuegbuzie

orcid
avatar
Co-authors
avatar
Following
avatar
Followers

Research Focus & Metrics

Explore full metrics on Scilit

Academic Career Length

32Years (1995-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 October 2004 in Educational Researcher
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RJR. Burke Johnson
R. Burke Johnson
AOAnthony Onwuegbuzie
Anthony Onwuegbuzie
The purposes of this article are to position mixed methods research (mixed research is a synonym) as the natural complement to traditional qualitative and quantitative research, to present pragmatism as offering an attractive philosophical partner for mixed methods research, and to provide a framework for designing and conducting mixed methods research. In doing this, we briefly review the paradigm “wars” and incompatibility thesis, we show some commonalities between quantitative and qualitative research, we explain the tenets of pragmatism, we explain the fundamental principle of mixed research and how to apply it, we provide specific sets of designs for the two major types of mixed methods research (mixed-model designs and mixed-method designs), and, finally, we explain mixed methods research as following (recursively) an eight-step process. A key feature of mixed methods research is its methodological pluralism or eclecticism, which frequently results in superior research (compared to monomethod research). Mixed methods research will be successful as more investigators study and help advance its concepts and as they regularly practice it.
1 September 2009 in International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
AOAnthony Onwuegbuzie
Anthony Onwuegbuzie
WDWendy B. Dickinson
Wendy B. Dickinson
NLNancy L. Leech
Nancy L. Leech
AZAnnmarie G. Zoran
Annmarie G. Zoran
Despite the abundance of published material on conducting focus groups, scant specific information exists on how to analyze focus group data in social science research. Thus, the authors provide a new qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing focus group data. First, they identify types of data that can be collected during focus groups. Second, they identify the qualitative data analysis techniques best suited for analyzing these data. Third, they introduce what they term as a micro-interlocutor analysis, wherein meticulous information about which participant responds to each question, the order in which each participant responds, response characteristics, the nonverbal communication used, and the like is collected, analyzed, and interpreted. They conceptualize how conversation analysis offers great potential for analyzing focus group data. They believe that their framework goes far beyond analyzing only the verbal communication of focus group participants, thereby increasing the rigor of focus group analyses in social science research.
27 March 2007 in Quality & Quantity
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
NLNancy L. Leech
Nancy L. Leech
AOAnthony Onwuegbuzie
Anthony Onwuegbuzie
1 December 2007 in School Psychology Quarterly
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
NLNancy L. Leech
Nancy L. Leech
AOAnthony Onwuegbuzie
Anthony Onwuegbuzie
1 December 2005 in International Journal of Social Research Methodology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
AOAnthony Onwuegbuzie
Anthony Onwuegbuzie
NLNancy L. Leech
Nancy L. Leech
The last 100 years have witnessed a fervent debate in the USA about quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. Unfortunately, this has led to a great divide between quantitative and qualitative researchers, who often view themselves as in competition with each other. Clearly, this polarization has promoted purists, namely, researchers who restrict themselves exclusively either to quantitative or to qualitative research methods. Mono‐method research is the biggest threat to the advancement of the social sciences. Indeed, as long as we stay polarized in research, how can we expect stakeholders who rely on our research findings to take our work seriously? Thus, the purpose of this paper is to explore how the debate between quantitative and qualitative is divisive and, hence, counterproductive for advancing the social and behavioural science field. This paper advocates that all graduate students learn to utilize and to appreciate both quantitative and qualitative research. In so doing, students will develop into what we term as pragmatic researchers.
1 February 2007 in Quality & Quantity
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
AOAnthony Onwuegbuzie
Anthony Onwuegbuzie
NLNancy L. Leech
Nancy L. Leech