Different methods, different results: examining the implications of methodological divergence and implicit processes for achievement goal research

Tools

da Costa, L. and Remedios, R. ORCID: 0000-0002-7717-6421, 2014. Different methods, different results: examining the implications of methodological divergence and implicit processes for achievement goal research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8 (2), pp. 162-179. ISSN 1558-6898

Preview

Text
1313990_Remedios3.pdf - Post-print
Download (409kB) | Preview

Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689813495977

Abstract

Achievement goal theory is one of the most popular theories of achievement motivation. Techniques researchers have used to assess goals include standardized questionnaires and interviews. One curious finding is that participants whose self-report questionnaire responses strongly indicate they operate with a performance goal do not make performance goal responses in subsequent interviews. In this article, we consider the nature of this divergence using a mixed methods approach and discuss how a third technique, the Implicit Association Test, might help address divergent goal responses. More broadly, we suggest that implicit measures may offer an additional and/or alternative technique for assessing the prevalence of psychological constructs thought to be underpinned by processes involving social cognition. In recent years, mixed methods research (MMR) has provided researchers with opportunities to explore how synergistic combinations of methods may offer the nuanced understandings necessary for meaningful study of complex phenomena (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2010). MMR studies are governed by the challenging of paradigmatic and methodological dualisms in favor of continua. Using methodological eclecticism and triangulation, carefully integrated research designs draw from both the qualitative and quantitative traditions, emphasize the best aspects of each method, and minimize the impact of its limitations. Ultimately, using MMR can provide greater confidence in research findings. However, while obtaining convergent results from different investigative methods seems to imply robust measurement of an underlying concept, the ontological implications of divergent results are often less clear. Through thorough reexamination of methods and conclusions via

Item Type:

Journal article

Publication Title:

Journal of Mixed Methods Research

Creators:

da Costa, L. and Remedios, R.

Publisher:

SAGE Publications

Date:

April 2014

Volume:

Number: