O diálogo de abordagens para uma melhor compreensão investigativa

Autores/as

  • Alexandre Cappellozza Universidad Metodista de São Paulo

Palabras clave:

comunicación, la comprensión como método, método mixto, metodología

Resumen


La existencia de múltiples paradigmas de investigación, determinados por técnicas cuantitativas y cualitativas de análisis, hace con que muchos investigadores asuman sus preferencias metodológicas de   forma dicotómica. En cuanto, al hecho de haber diferencias en esas técnicas no impide la existencia de un diálogo armonioso entre los enfoques. Así, el método mixto, de que trata este ensayo, surge como una posibilidad que une diferentes perspectivas de análisis.  En el texto, se presentan conceptos introductorios, aplicaciones  y obstáculos del método. Se concluye que la adopción de una postura dicotómica, asociada a preferencias metodológicas, no se constituye como única opción. El método mixto representa una salida posible para el problema, bien como una herramienta de comprensión para el estudio de fenómenos comunicacionales.

|Resumen
= 78 veces | PDF
= 57 veces|

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Alexandre Cappellozza, Universidad Metodista de São Paulo

Director de Administración de Empresas de la Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) Profesor del Programa de Posgrado en Comunicación Social de la Universidad Metodista de São Paulo.

Citas

ANNANSINGH, Fenio; KERRY, Howell. 2016. Using phenomenological constructivism to discuss a mixed method approach in information systems research. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Sonning Common (Reino Unido), v. 14, n. 1, p. 39-49.

BAZELEY, Pat. 2003. Teaching mixed methods. Qualitative Research Journal, v. 3, p. 117-126.

BAZELEY, Pat. 2015. Mixed methods in management research: implications for the field. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, v.13, n. 1, p. 27-35.

BERGMAN, Caroline; DELLVE, Lotta; SKAGERT, Katrin. 2016. Exploring communication processes in workplace meetings: a mixed methods study in a Swedish healthcare organization. Work, v. 54, n. 3, p. 533-541.

BRANNEN, Julia. 1992. Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: an overview. En: Mixing methods: qualitative and quantitative research. Aldershot: Ashgate, p. 3–37.

CARINS, Julia E.; RUNDLE-THIELE, Sharyn R.; FIDOCK, Justin J. T. 2016. Seeing through a glass onion: broadening and deepening formative research in social marketing through a mixed methods approach. Journal of Marketing Management, v. 32, n. 11-12, p. 1083-102.

CRESWELL, John W.; CLARK, Vicki L. P. 2011. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. London: Sage Publications..

DE LISLE, Jerome. 2011. The benefits and challenges of mixing methods and methodologies: lessons learnt from implementing qualitatively led mixed methods research designs in Trinidad and Tobago, Caribbean Curriculum, v. 18, p. 87-120.

DESCOMBE, Martyn. 2010. The good research guide: for small-scale social research projects. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill International.

HALCOMB, Elizabeth J.; ANDREW, Sharon. 2009. Practical considerations for higher degree research students undertaking mixed methods projects. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, v. 3, n. 2, p. 153-162.

HERZ Marc; BRUNK, Katja. 2017. Conceptual Advances in Consumers’ Semantic and Episodic Brand Memories: A Mixed Methods Exploration. Psychology & Marketing, 34(1), 70-91.

HESSE-BIBER, Sharlene. 2015. The problems and prospects in the teaching of mixed methods research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, v. 18, n. 5, p. 463-77.

JOHNSON, Burke; ONWUEGBUZIE, Anthony J. 2004. Mixed methods research: a research paradigma whose time has come. Educational Researcher, v. 33, n. 7, p. 14-26.

JOHNSON, Burke; ONWUEGBUZIE, Anthony J.; TURNER, Lisa A. 2007. Toward definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, v. 1, n. 2, p. 112-133.

LEE, Jean S. K. 1992. Quantitative versus qualitative research methods: two approaches to organisation studies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, v. 9, n. 1, p. 87-94.

MOLINA-AZORÍN, José F.; LÓPEZ-GAMERO, María D. 2016. Mixed methods studies in environmental management research: prevalence, purposes and designs. Business Strategy & the Environment, v. 25, n. 2, p. 134-48.

O’CATHAIN, Alicia; MURPHY, Elizabeth; NICHOLL, Jon. 2008. The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, v. 13, n. 2, p. 92-98.

PARK, Jeongeun; PARK, Minhye. 2016. Qualitative versus quantitative research methods: discovery or justification? Journal of Marketing Thought, v. 3, n. 1, p. 1-7.

POVEE, Kate; ROBERTS, Lynne D. 2015. Attitudes toward mixed methods research in psychology: the best of both worlds? International Journal of Social Research Methodology, v. 18, n. 1, p. 41-57.

SAUNDERS, Mark N. K.; LEWIS, Philip; THORNHILL, Adrian. 2012. Research methods for business students. 6 ed. Harlow: Pearson.

SHOCKLEY, Kristen M.; UREKSOY, Heather; RODOPMAN, Ozgun Burcu; POTEAT, Laura F.; DULLAGHAN, Timothy Ryan. 2016. Development of a new scale to measure subjective career success: a mixed-methods study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, v. 37, n. 1, p. 128-53.

STOCKMAN, Caroline. 2015. Achieving a doctorate through mixed methods research. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, v. 13, n. 2, p. 74-84.

STOEL, Dale M.; BALLOU, Brian; HEITGER, Dan L. 2017. The impact of quantitative versus qualitative risk reporting on risk professionals’ strategic and operational risk judgments. Accounting Horizons, v. 31, n. 4, p. 53-69.

TEDDLIE, Charles; TASHAKKORI, Abbas. 2009. Foundations of mixed methods research: integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

TEDDLIE, Charles; JOHNSON, Burke. 2009. Methodological thought since the 20th century. En: Foundations of mixed methods research: integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, p. 40-61.

VENKATESH, Viswanath; BROWN, Susan A.; SULLIVAN, Yulia W. 2016. Guidelines for conducting mixed-methods research: an extension and illustration. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, v. 17, n. 7, p. 435-95.

ZACHARIADIS, Markos; SCOTT, Susan; BARRETT, Michael. 2013. Methodological implications of critical realism for mixed-methods research. MIS Quarterly, v. 37, p. 855- 79.

ZAMBALDI, Felipe; COSTA, Francisco José; PONCHIO, Mateus Canniatti. 2014. Mensuração em Marketing: Estado atual, recomendações e desafios. Revista Brasileira de Marketing, 13(2).

Descargas

Publicado

2019-05-11

Cómo citar

Cappellozza, A. (2019). O diálogo de abordagens para uma melhor compreensão investigativa. Folios, Revista De La Facultad De Comunicaciones, (40), 39–50. Recuperado a partir de https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/folios/article/view/338475

Número

Sección

Artículos