Abstract
Mixed methods approaches to research are gaining popularity in the social sciences, including education research. These approaches can uniquely contribute to and enhance early childhood special education (ECSE) research. Mixed methods research is a valuable approach in ECSE as it can provide a comprehensive understanding of complex issues. For example, it allows researchers to gather quantitative data through direct observations and assessments to quantify intervention effectiveness. Simultaneously, qualitative data collected through interviews, focus groups, or open-ended questions helps researchers delve deeper into the experiences, perspectives, and context surrounding early childhood special education.
Researchers can triangulate data using mixed methods, enhancing the validity and reliability of findings. This approach enhances our understanding of the effectiveness of interventions, the experiences of children and their families, and the impact of policy changes. Ultimately, mixed methods research contributes to a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of how to best support children with disabilities and their families.
We created this special series as an intentional outlet to orient ECSE researchers to the emerging field of mixed methods social inquiry and highlight the mixed methods research being conducted in our field. The authors of the contributing articles describe empirical research that used mixed designs and discuss pertinent conceptual and methodological perspectives to promote high-quality mixed methods research in ECSE.
In the first article, Love and colleagues discuss the potential of mixed methods research (MMR) in early intervention/early childhood special education (EI/ECSE) scholarship. They emphasize the importance of integrating quantitative and qualitative research approaches for rigorous MMR but acknowledge the challenges in doing so due to variations in study purposes, designs, and philosophical assumptions. They offer guidance on three critical decision-making points for meaningful integration: integration dimension/type, timing, and relative emphasis of methods. Love and colleagues also highlight the need for strong qualitative designs and integration within MMR. Despite challenges, they encourage the use of MMR in EI/ECSE research, with hopes of addressing obstacles like page limits in journal articles and grant guidelines to accommodate this approach and shape the field’s impact.
Corr and colleagues discuss their research study focused on ethical dilemmas faced by early intervention (EI) professionals in the second article. The study involved surveys and interviews with EI professionals to understand their experiences with ethics in the field. The results reveal that EI professionals have varying definitions of ethical dilemmas, which affect their perceptions and problem-solving approaches. Three distinct classes of professionals were identified based on their experiences and preparedness in handling ethical dilemmas. Their results emphasize the need for ethical guidelines and resources to support EI professionals and suggest potential enhancements to the EI system, including creating state-specific codes of ethics and providing additional resources for navigating ethical dilemmas. EI professionals operate within intricate systems, necessitating a wide range of skills, and their study suggests the need for further research into their perspectives on code of ethics content, the effectiveness of ethics-focused professional development, and the acquisition and application of knowledge and skills in practice.
In the third article, Corr and colleagues examine editorial board members’ ability to evaluate MMR and their reported knowledge, skills, and values related to MMR. They discuss challenges in adopting MMR in ECSE and the need for diversifying research methods. Their findings reveal limited MMR training among editorial board members, leading to a lack of understanding of MMR’s unique characteristics. They emphasize the importance of improved MMR training, transparent review processes, and selecting knowledgeable reviewers to enhance the quality of MMR research in ECSE journals.
Steed and colleagues, in the fourth article, present a mixed methods study analyzing responses from 1,047 early childhood professionals about their use of culturally and linguistically responsive practices during initial evaluations for early intervention or early childhood special education. The findings show that some professionals used such practices, including interpreters and inquiries about language use and home routines. However, more advanced culturally and linguistically responsive practices, like adapting evaluation materials, were less commonly used. Participants noted a lack of bilingual and bicultural staff and training. Their findings highlights the need for ongoing efforts to ensure equitable access to early intervention and special education services for racially and linguistically marginalized young children.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, EI providers increased their use of caregiver coaching practices, which are essential for supporting young children with delays and disabilities. Telepractice emerged as a significant factor contributing to this change, providing more time for communication and coaching with families. Williams and colleagues employed qualitative interviews and a mixed methods approach to investigate factors contributing to EI providers’ increased use of caregiver coaching during the COVID-19 pandemic, building upon a larger study involving 91 participants who completed questionnaires about their coaching practices and routines before and during the pandemic, ultimately focusing on 13 participants who reported the greatest changes in their coaching practices. They found that role changes during the pandemic led to caregivers taking on a more central role in interventions, aligning with recommended principles. Caregiver expectations for services, influenced by the pandemic’s uncertainty, facilitated the use of pre-coaching practices to clarify roles and engagement. This shift toward family-centered approaches in EI service delivery highlights the potential benefits of telepractice and role release, emphasizing the importance of aligning practices with caregivers’ expectations.
Overall, the researchers and their work highlighted in this special series demonstrate that MMR in early childhood studies is crucial, as it combines the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative approaches, providing a more comprehensive and holistic understanding of the complex and dynamic issues facing our field. MMR allows researchers to gather numerical data and delve into the nuances of children’s experiences, contexts, and the factors influencing their development and learning. This allows for more informed decision-making and policy development in EI/ECSE by considering both quantitative evidence and the important—but often overlooked—voices and perspectives of children, caregivers, and educators.