This paper focuses on a study that exemplifies two types of mixed methods research that have received limited attention in the empirically based mixed methods literature: (a) mixed methods studies that mix research with religion and (b) participatory mixed methods studies in which the line between researchers and the researched is intentionally at least somewhat blurred. The study used a combination of exploratory sequential and participatory mixed methods designs to study one Catholic diocese’s somewhat unique attempt to implement the synod-on-synodality initiative that was being enacted in Catholic churches worldwide. After reviewing related literature, describing the study’s context as well as its design and methods, and presenting selected findings, the paper contributes to the mixed methods literature by highlighting five challenges that arose during the study.

Policymakers tend to be suspicious of qualitative research. Distrust of qualitative work is especially acute when a researcher openly embraces critical perspectives and is oriented toward critiquing privilege and providing the sort of knowledge that helps set the stage for challenging the status quo and creating more just and equitable social contexts. The first part of this article uses an adaptation of autoethnographic methodology and the personal essay genre to suggest how all types of qualitative researchers, including those whose research is informed by critical perspectives, can influence state policy. In the second part of the article, the focus shifts to the local level. This part of the article describes a process designed to promote dialogue across differences and generate at least a modicum of consensus about policies that should be adopted and implemented within an organization.

This chapter first briefly describes three examples of educational researchers' attempts to fulfill the educational research promises Thorndike made in 1910. Then, the discussion turns to considering at least some of the reasons why, during the 20th century's final quarter, some members of the educational research community abandoned Thorndike's conception of educational inquiry and battled to legitimate quite different research paradigms. Third, the chapter describes what happened after the so-called paradigm wars ended. Finally, the focus shifts to what the legacy of the paradigm wars era is and could be today.

Although anthropological methods have been appropriated by qualitative and mixed-methods educational researchers, visual anthropology has had virtually no impact on educational research. Furthermore, video, in general, despite its widespread impact on 21st century culture, has played only a limited role in the doing of education-related studies and almost no role in reporting study results. This paper explores what would be gained and lost if researchers began using video in the doing and, especially, in the reporting of their research. The paper uses clips from four author-developed research videos to illustrate the advantages and disadvantages associated with educational researchers “going digital.”

Historically, bias has been viewed as a problem with qualitative research, in large part because the researcher is often a qualitative study's primary (or, in some cases, only) research "instrument." Even most constructivists who reject traditional notions of scientific objectivity want to produce reasonably accurate reconstructions of their research participants' interpretations of the social world. In fact, presenting accurate reconstructions is one thing constructivists mean when they talk about a study's trustworthiness. Various procedures have been developed to minimize bias and ensure trustworthiness. The Formative Influences Timeline (FIT) is one such procedure. This article provides a brief history of bias in qualitative research, describes the FIT and how to use it, and reviews nonprofit research studies that either employed-or could have employed-the FIT to produce data relatively uncontaminated by researchers' a priori assumptions. The article concludes by acknowledging limitations of the FIT.

Purpose This paper has a twofold purpose: (1) to demonstrate, largely with historical evidence, that, contrary to what some have argued, thinking about educational research articulated at the start of the twenty-first century was not really “new wine in new bottles” but, rather, a continuation of the so-called paradigm wars about, ultimately, unresolvable methodological and epistemological issues that occurred during the twentieth century; (2) to suggest a way members of the educational administration field might transcend, or at least circumvent, time-consuming and distracting battles about unresolvable methodological and epistemological issues in the future while keeping their focus on issues of practice. Design/methodology/approach This is a quasi-historical essay that uses influential literature during the historical periods focused on as evidence to support the essay's arguments. Findings The paper demonstrates that twentieth century philosophical disagreements about research methods and the role that educational research can play in policy and practice decision making were not resolved but, rather, were largely reenacted during the first decade of the twenty-first century, again without a resolution. The paper proposes a way that administrators, policymakers and researchers can manage this situation and still use research to make policy and practice decisions. Practical implications The paper suggests a new role for both school administrators and policymakers to play. If administrators/policymakers play this role successfully, all types of research can inform decision making about policy and practice, and researchers can concentrate on doing their research rather than engaging in unresolvable philosophical disputes. Originality/value Although a great deal has been written about the twentieth century's theory movement and paradigm wars and the twenty-first century's so-called science wars, the link between these phenomena has not been discussed in the literature. In addition, there have been few attempts to articulate an operational strategy for managing unresolvable philosophical disputes about research methods and the role that research can play in decision making. This paper tackles both matters.

The purpose of this study was to examine how leaders of nonprofit social enterprises manage the tension between social mission and financial goals to avoid mission drift. The study employed a case study/cross‐case analysis design and used the qualitative research methods of interviewing, document review, and participant observation. We found tremendous variation in the strategies created for the organizations included in the study ( n = 3). We labeled strategies as (a) structured ignorance, (b) problem reframing, and (c) defensible trade‐offs. Further research is needed to identify a comprehensive typology of strategies; however, there are immediate practical and social implications of this study. Specifically, the strategies identified here can be considered by nonprofit practitioners struggling with the mission/money tension. Additionally, these strategies challenge commonly held beliefs about the relationship among nonprofits, social service, and revenue generating activities.

This paper focuses on what happened when a doctoral student wanted to study an Indigenous group’s approach to leadership. Three accounts are presented: the student’s, her advisor’s, and an Indigenous culture leader’s. The accounts were developed and are being reported by using a modi ed version of the talking circle process employed in many Indigenous cultures. Despite modi cations, the approach retained many of the characteristics of traditional talking circles and demonstrated a talking circle’s potential for "transforming understanding through creative engagement."

Historically, society's third sector consisted of nonprofit and voluntary organizations. In recent years, however, social entrepreneurs and social enterprises have begun to share the third-sector stage. In 2011, for example, the Chronicle of Philanthropy included social entrepreneurs, along with philanthrocapitalism, B corporations, impact investing, and microfinance on its list of "Philanthropy's 10 Favorite Buzzwords of the Decade." First, the meanings of social entrepreneurship, social enterprise, and related terms are focused upon in this article. Then, the implications of the growing interest in social entrepreneurship and enterprise for nonprofit education programs are discussed.

Because of Elliot Eisner’s recent passing, it seems appropriate to note that he actually began his signature work on arts-based research by writing about program evaluation. This article revisits Eisner’s evaluation ideas and briefly considers why Eisner’s thinking about evaluation has had a relatively limited long-term impact on the evaluation field. The article also demonstrates that at least some of Eisner’s arts-based strategies can be effective evaluation tools when certain modifications are made and that Eisner’s thinking is important even for evaluators who are not inclined to use techniques and strategies associated with the arts.

The recent debates about what constitutes scientific research in Education, on the one hand, and the so-called “paradigm wars” that got played out in the final quarter of the 20th century, on the other, are more similar than different. At the center of both controversies was the relative worth of quantitative and qualitative research methods. Both controversies also distracted researchers’ from addressing the substantive problems that plague schools and other educational organizations. This paper attempts to move the field beyond the debates of the past and similar debates that seem likely to occur in the future. Inspired, in large part, by Joseph Schwab’s largely unheeded critique of the curriculum field in the late 1960s and early ‘70s, the paper attempts to re-conceptualize what inquiry in a field like Education should look like, as well as the role that quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research could play in a re-conceptualized approach to inquiry.

This chapter links a concern with social justice, in general, and leadership for social justice, in particular, with choices about research methodology. The first part of the chapter demonstrates how the methodological debate about qualitative and quantitative research that occurred in the United States during the final three decades of the twentieth century helped keep a concern for promoting social justice front and center in the field of education. Specific benefits of both the qualitative research that these debates legitimated and the thinking that was used to legitimate the use of qualitative methods are also discussed. In the second part of the chapter, the author argues that the juxtaposing of qualitative and quantitative methods during the final three decades of the twentieth century and the demonizing of quantitative methods that often accompanied this juxtaposition is, actually, quite problematic. This claim is supported by a three-part argument. First, the author notes that many of the critiques of quantitative methods were more critiques of their inappropriate use rather than of the methods themselves. Second, the author demonstrates that descriptive statistics, at least, are required to learn about the extent of social injustice and make a compelling case that some sort of action is required. Finally, the author argues that even studies that attempt to provide causal explanations (or reasonable facsimiles of causal explanations) could possibly be useful if we think of the results of these studies as potentially functional fictions rather than as ontological statements about the social world.