Education and Human Sciences, College of (CEHS)


First Advisor

Wayne A. Babchuk

Date of this Version



A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements For the Degree of Master of Arts, Major: Educational Psychology, Under the Supervision of Professor Wayne A. Babchuk. Lincoln, Nebraska: May, 2019.

Copyright (c) 2019 Analay Perez


Quality in mixed methods research (MMR) has been an ongoing topic of discussion over the past two decades. One of the obstacles of assessing quality in a MMR study is developing credible inferences from the integration of quantitative and qualitative approaches (Plano Clark & Ivankova, 2016). Some researchers have designed a variety of strategies for assessing quality of a mixed methods study as a whole (Teddlie, & Tashakkori, 2003; Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006; Tashakkori, & Teddlie, 2003), but there is no general consensus among researchers on which methods to use. The aim of this intrinsic, exploratory case study was to investigate how researchers assess quality of a MMR study, particularly using the legitimation typology, and ultimately, operationalize the legitimation typology to increase its applicability in MMR. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with the co-developer of the legitimation typology, researchers who had applied the legitimation typology to their empirical study, and mixed methods scholars who have written about or share knowledge on the legitimation typology. Data analysis revealed eight themes: (1) role of validity in MMR, (2) importance of integration, (3) value added to discordant data, (4) versatility of the legitimation typology, (5) role of colleagues/mentors in MMR, (6) researchers’ application/interpretations of legitimation types, (7) clarifications to the legitimation typology, and (8) researcher recommendations. Based on these findings, several recommendations to the current 2017 legitimation typology are proposed.

Advisor: Wayne A. Babchuk