A Vignette-Based Transformative Multiphase Mixed Methods Interventional Study Featuring Venn Diagram Joint Displays: Financial Education With Hong Kong Early Adolescent Ethnic Minority Students

Abstract

Despite great interest in the transformative mixed methods, an example of using vignettes in a multiphase mixed methods interventional study has been lacking. This study investigates the social justice problem of poverty in the context of financial education with Hong Kong early adolescent ethnic minority students. The discussion contributes to the field of mixed methods research by demonstrating the use of a vignette-based methodology as a tool for integration, representation, and utilization of participant voices in a multiphase design. The use of joint displays in the form of Venn diagrams illustrates how interdisciplinary research findings that may reveal multiple aspects of noncohering phenomena can be interpreted through simultaneous visualization of integration and diffraction.

Keywords

transformative mixed methods vignette-based methodology integration diffraction financial education

Wicked problems are problems that are difficult to solve (Mertens, 2015; Mertens et al., 2016). Many such problems (e.g., poverty) are deeply rooted in the sociocultural contexts of marginalized or underrepresented communities. While the transformative paradigm has been advocated as a powerful tool for achieving social justice, there are several challenges to this approach, which we discuss in this article.

Challenge of the Representation of Minority Voices

The first challenge is ensuring that underrepresented minority voices are heard. This is a particular problem in research with young participants and studies carried out by community outsiders. It is necessary to establish relationships and gain trust before participants will share their experiences freely and deeply. Researchers need to acknowledge the various versions of reality, be culturally responsive, and recognize and reduce power differences (Mertens & Wilson, 2012; Sweetman et al., 2010). Furthermore, beyond eliciting community voices, those voices need to be represented in a suitable form for inclusion in an interventional study.

Challenge of the Utilization of Findings Across a Multiphase Design

The second challenge is to ensure that findings from earlier stages inform the later stages of research (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Mertens et al., 2016). A transformative study is typically cyclical and while there is no fixed design, Mertens (2019) discusses a generic approach involving six stages: (1) relationship building, (2) contextual analysis, (3) piloting, (4) implementation, (5) evaluation, and (6) utilization of findings. For coherence, findings from the initial contextual analysis should be used in the design of the implementation, and the end results should be evaluated against that baseline.

Value of Vignette-Based Methodology

We discuss in this study the use of the vignette-based methodology to address the above challenges of representation and utilization. Vignettes are “short stories about hypothetical characters in specified circumstances” (Finch, 1987, p. 105). Whether imagined or based on actual experiences, vignettes should be realistic, relevant, and reproducible in real life. They are “designed to approximate, isolate, manipulate, and measure key aspects of the decision-making processes that individuals use in real world situations” (Evans et al., 2015, p. 164) and can be used as feedback tools, development tools, or data collection tools (Ammann, 2018). Vignettes are useful for investigations of sensitive topics, as having participants respond to a story in the third person is less intrusive (Hughes & Huby, 2004; Wilks, 2004). With children, vignettes compensate for their lack of experience through proxy experiences of the story characters (Barter & Renold, 2000; O’Dell et al., 2012). In cultural research, vignettes allow the voices of lesser-known minority groups to be represented in the written stories (Torres, 2009). Vignettes have been used in quantitative (e.g., Aguinis & Bradley, 2014; Silva et al., 2019), qualitative (e.g., Jenkins et al., 2010; O’Dell et al., 2012), and mixed methods research (e.g., Al Sadi & Basit, 2017). However, studies are lacking on how a vignette-based methodology can contribute to transformative mixed methods research.

Challenge of Integration and Diffraction in Interdisciplinary Research

The next challenge is integration, which aims to produce a whole greater than the sum of its parts (Fetters & Freshwater, 2015). The wicked problems investigated by transformative research are characterized by the involvement of multiple interacting systems and a lack of clarity (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Findings may converge, complement, or diverge (Morgan, 2019). The interdisciplinary nature of such messy and complex problems may produce “cuts” that reveal multiple aspects of multiple phenomena that do not cohere and hence cannot be integrated (Uprichard & Dawney, 2019). This data diffraction should not be ignored but instead be examined alongside integration to draw out richer insights.

Financial Education as Interdisciplinary Research

In this study, we explore the integration and diffraction challenge in the setting of financial education, which is an interdisciplinary research field. Traditional financial education assumes that individuals are fundamentally rational and will make decisions in their own self-interests. Therefore, empowering individuals with better knowledge and skills will result in better decisions. We call this traditional view the autonomous finance approach—that is, assuming individuals are in control of their choices. However, one critique of this view is that people with high financial literacy often make bad decisions (Willis, 2011). Behavioral finance explains that this is caused by the bounded rationality (Kahneman, 2003) that individuals operate with due to limited cognitive ability. Mental and emotional biases affect behaviors in predictably irrational ways (Ariely, 2008). Behavioral finance assumes that such biases are universal. However, cultural finance discusses systematic differences between different people groups bounded together by common values, norms, or beliefs (Breuer & Quinten, 2009; Reuter, 2011). These ABC perspectives (autonomous, behavioral, and cultural finance) arise from the different disciplines of finance, psychology, and sociology, and represent interdisciplinary finance research (Schuchardt et al., 2007).

Finance research has been dominated by quantitative methods, with qualitative and mixed methods being viewed as less accurate, powerful, or credible (Jefferson et al., 2014; Starr, 2014). However, with the emerging awareness of cultural finance (Aggarwal & Goodell, 2014; Karolyi, 2016; Nadler & Breuer, 2019), the ineffectiveness of financial education reported in systematic review studies (Fernandes et al., 2014; Kaiser & Menkhoff, 2017; Miller et al., 2015; O’Prey & Shephard, 2014) might be explained as due to inadequate understanding of the cultural milieu of the people to whom the programs were taught. It is necessary to design financial education with the participants and not just for them (Tisdell, 2014; Tisdell et al., 2013). Transformative mixed methods can bring about this change. Qualitative data enable in-depth investigation into the financial beliefs and behaviors of underrepresented groups about whom less is currently known (Danes et al., 2016). Quantitative data provide objective evidence for program evaluation. Merging the two types of data increases the credibility and completeness of the findings by offsetting the limitations of using either alone, enables the use of one type to confirm the findings or explain the unexpected results of the other, and aids the exploration of different questions and the development of new instruments or interventions (Bryman, 2006; Doyle et al., 2016).

Financial Education in Hong Kong

In Hong Kong SAR of the People’s Republic of China, the ethnic minorities (defined as those of non-Chinese ethnicity) have been identified as a segment of society in need of improved financial well-being (Investor and Financial Education Council, 2019). About 23.4% of ethnic minorities below 18 years of age live in poverty, compared with 17.2% of the similar-aged general population (Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department, 2018). Intergenerational poverty has been worsening (Cheung & Chou, 2018; Kapai, 2015). Many challenges, such as racial discrimination and language or sociocultural barriers, constrain access to financial services or job opportunities (Equal Opportunities Commission, 2016). The challenges are also deeply personal. For example, the government’s recurrent cash aid interventions only reduced poverty among ethnic minorities by 1.8%, compared with a 5.2% reduction in the overall population (Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department, 2018). Cultural factors, such as values of honor and shame over the perceived failure of men to provide for their households by accepting such aid, have been suggested as an explanation for this discrepancy (Crabtree, 2011).

Method

Background and Research Questions

The study’s transformative goal was to improve the financial literacy of ethnic minority students through financial education, as a step toward ending intergenerational poverty. Four months before this intervention, the students had been taught financial education lessons designed by their schoolteachers. As is typical of traditional financial education programs, they had learned to make a written budget using an accounting template. There was no follow-up to evaluate the lessons or students’ gains in financial literacy. With this as the point of departure, this study had three research questions:

Research Question 1: How effective were the school lessons in improving the students’ financial literacy?

Research Question 2: How could understanding the students’ financial literacy inform the design of new lessons?

Research Question 3: How effective were the new lessons in improving the students’ financial literacy?

Sample

The participants were Grade 7 students from a Hong Kong secondary school. Government policies provide some schools with funding to make them more accessible to non-Chinese-speaking students by offering Chinese as a second language. As a result, almost all the students at the school were ethnic minorities. One hundred students were initially recruited (n = 24 intervention, 76 control). At the close of the study, there were 81 students (n = 21 intervention, 60 control) remaining, with an attrition of 19 students. Table 1 shows the final sample’s demographics. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of gender, ethnicity, or age. Another seven students from the same grade (not in Table 1) helped pilot the instruments and intervention.

Table 1.

Student Demographics for Final Sample at Phase 3.

	Group
Variables	Intervention	Control	Total
n	21	60	81
Gender, n (%)
Male	9 (42.9)	26 (43.3)	35
Female	12 (57.1)	34 (56.7)	46
Ethnicity, n (%)
Pakistani	10 (47.6)	26 (43.3)	36
Nepalese	2 (9.5)	15 (25.0)	17
Indian	7 (33.3)	8 (13.3)	15
Filipino	2 (9.5)	10 (16.7)	12
Cambodian	0 (0.0)	1 (1.7)	1
Age (years)
M	12.7	12.5	12.6
SD	0.85	0.60	0.67

Note. There were no statistically significant differences in gender, ethnicity, or age between the intervention and control groups.

Multiphase Design

Following the summary of mixed methods notations and design prototypes in Creswell and Plano Clark (2011), Figure 1 shows a procedural diagram for this study, which we describe as a multiphase design using an adapted transformational framework for a quasi-experimental study. We modified Mertens’s (2019) generic six stages of transformative design to produce three phases. Phase 1: Baseline comprised relationship building and contextual analysis. This included a literature review, school visits to meet the principal, vice principal, and schoolteachers, and the use of research instruments with the students with a mixed methods survey questionnaire and a qualitative interview protocol. The findings informed the design of new lessons, which were piloted and implemented in Phase 2: Intervention. Phase 3: Follow-up involved evaluation using a mixed methods survey questionnaire. All three phases were carried out by the first author, who has several years’ experience as a financial educator and researcher. The design and instruments for each phase are described in the subsections below, with the discussion of the intervention in the “Findings” section. At the conclusion of this article, we discuss how the findings are being used in an ongoing larger scale study.

Figure 1.

Adapted transformative mixed methods design for a multiphase, quasi-experimental study of financial education with Hong Kong early adolescent ethnic minority students.

Phase 1: Baseline

As neither author was a member of any of the students’ ethnic minority groups, nor were we their schoolteachers, we would be considered outsiders. A first stage of trust building would have been ideal, but, as with most school-based research, there was limited contact time, as this program was not part of the curriculum. Access had to be planned around the school calendar, and only one class period per visit was permitted. It took 3 months for the first author, who was working as a lone field researcher, to complete the Phase 1 data collection.

Relationships were built when interviewing the students. Although there was a prepared protocol, the interview flowed naturally as led by the students. The researcher bracketed his personal opinions and refrained from making unnecessary comments to enable the students to feel comfortable expressing themselves. We consider that the interviews were successful for building relationships, as shown by the willingness of the students to share personal and confidential information.

Following the nomenclature and notation system of Creswell and Plano Clark (2011), Phase 1 used an explanatory sequential design, [Quantitative + Qualitative] → Qualitative. A presurvey questionnaire [Quantitative + Qualitative] with all the students (n = 100) collected the following information: (1) quantitative data of the students’ saving behavior, spending behavior, and frequency of money talk with family members using questions from the PISA financial literacy assessment background questionnaire (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2014a) and (2) qualitative data from open-ended responses to a question about the students’ considerations when making money decisions, as an indication of their financial planning strategies. The presurvey questionnaire was done as a class and took about 20 minutes. This was followed by individual interviews [Qualitative] with a subset of students (n = 24). Each interview lasted about 30 minutes and was audio-recorded and transcribed. A semistructured interview protocol covered topics concerning the students’ financial beliefs and behaviors, such as what money meant to them, how they got money, whether and how they planned a budget, and how they saved, spent, and borrowed/lent money. The interviews were also used to probe for clarification of the survey questionnaire responses.

The interviewed subset that formed the intervention group was from one class and comprised those that opted to join the new lessons. Participation was low due to cultural sensitivities about discussing money matters and a lack of interest in learning about money, according to some students. Students from two other classes formed the control group (n = 76). As the school had warned that student attrition was high due to dropouts, switching schools, or migration due to parents’ work, we decided to start with a larger control group, even though it was disproportionate to the intervention group. We could not combine classes to make a larger intervention group as the school requested that the students be kept separate.

Phase 2: Intervention

Phase 1 was followed by 6 months of data analysis and lesson design. The delay in commencing Phase 2 was also due to the school tests and holidays. The first intervention (Phase 2a) used portrait vignettes (Spalding & Phillips, 2007; Table 2). In line with the transformative approach, these vignettes were primarily based on the students’ experiences. Quantitative and qualitative data from the presurveys and interviews were merged to infer recommendations for the lesson topics and examples. Reviews of the school lessons and research literature also provided secondary sources for the vignette writing. The new lessons were taught to the intervention group (n = 24) during the class teacher period, while the control group attended to administrative matters and had no intervention. The researcher did not further contact the control group until Phase 3. The researcher, now as a teacher, discussed the vignettes with the intervention group in class, and the teaching was audio-recorded for qualitative analysis. In some lessons, there was written work for formative feedback. For example, the students were asked to write savings or spending goals in the lesson on goal setting. In total, 12 lessons of 30 minutes each were taught twice weekly over 6 weeks.

Table 2.

Joint Display Table Used for Making Inference 1 in the Writing of Vignettes for the Intervention.

Quantitative findings	Qualitative findings	Recommendation	Sample vignettes
Had longer-term financial planning strategies: • Intervention (38.1%, n = 8 of 21) • Control (21.7%, n = 13 of 60)	Students could recall their school lessons on using a written budget template, but they said it was not necessary as they did not use much money. Instead, they preferred to have a mental plan of how to use money.	Teach mental accounting “labeling,” as this was hypothesized to have higher adoption and ease of use than a traditional budgeting template.	Story A: Peter gets $50 as pocket money. Story B: Peter gets $50 as a birthday present.
Had a regular savings habit: • Intervention (52.4%, n = 11 of 21) • Control (51.7%, n = 31 of 60) Would save up to buy something they wanted: • Intervention (61.9%, n = 13 of 21) • Control (66.7%, n = 40 of 60)	The students did not get much money and had little to save as their allowance was just enough for their daily expenses. They would plan a budget and save when they wanted to buy something.	Teach students to set specific financial goals, as this was hypothesized to improve saving and spending behaviors.	Story C: Peter goes shopping for fruits, but there are no fruits available, and he ends up buying snacks instead.
Would borrow from a family member to buy something they wanted: • Intervention (9.5%, n = 2 of 21) • Control (8.3%, n = 5 of 60)	Lending money to friends and sharing things was a social norm. Charitable giving was encouraged by family and religious practice. Some did not keep personal savings but saved as a family.	Teach students the social dimension of financial planning instead of focusing on personal wealth.	Story D: Peter is invited by Mary to the theme park for her birthday, but Peter’s parents think that the ticket is too expensive. Peter says that he can pay for it using his pocket money that he saved, but Peter’s parents say that the money should be used for more important things.

Next, there was a gap of 2 months due to the school tests and holidays. During this time, reflection on the first intervention and a better understanding of the students after having spent more time with them identified certain areas for reinforcement. It was decided that a second intervention (Phase 2b) would be beneficial. A phenomenologically oriented vignette (Ammann, 2018; Schratz et al., 2013) was written (Table 3). Each sentence of this was an experience of the students elicited during Phase 1 that had been confirmed as important and relevant during Phase 2a. Phase 2b could be described based on the models for mixed methods phenomenological research in Mayoh and Onwuegbuzie (2013) as using a [Quantitative + Qualitative] → Phenomenological design, whereby mixed data findings guided the writing of the phenomenologically oriented vignette. This second intervention had only two lessons, as there was little time left to conclude the study. The first lesson was delivered as a class (n = 20) and the second as three smaller groups (n = 7, 7, 6). The switch to smaller groups was intended to improve interaction, as some students had been rather passive during the whole-class learning. The differences in group size between Phases 2a and 2b were due to absenteeism. Classroom teaching audio recordings, student worksheets, and field journal notes contributed to the qualitative data of the analysis.

Table 3.

Phenomenologically Oriented Vignette for Phase 2b.

Peter’s story
Every week, Peter gets some pocket money from his parents. His parents also top up money into his stored-value payment card. He also gets money on special occasions. Sometimes, Peter spends money to buy the things he needs and wants. He usually buys some snacks on his way back home from school. Peter sometimes saves some money.Peter does not plan goals for his money. He just thinks that it is good to keep money around for whenever he feels like using it. Peter does not plan a budget for using his money. He thinks that he usually uses his money well, although he agrees that he sometimes buys unnecessary stuff. Peter agrees that setting goals and making budgets are useful and important, but he thinks that they are too much effort and not necessary for him. After all, he does not need to buy many things because his parents give him most of what he needs. Peter had tried setting goals and making budgets but ended up not achieving or following them. Peter thinks that he has enough money for anything he wants, whenever he wants it. Besides, he can always ask his parents for extra money.Peter sometimes buys things for others, like treating his friends to snacks. Lately, his friends have been buying more branded stuff when they go out together. He sometimes lends money to his friends because they do not have enough. There were also a few times that Peter borrowed money from his friends.

Peter’s story

Every week, Peter gets some pocket money from his parents. His parents also top up money into his stored-value payment card. He also gets money on special occasions. Sometimes, Peter spends money to buy the things he needs and wants. He usually buys some snacks on his way back home from school. Peter sometimes saves some money.Peter does not plan goals for his money. He just thinks that it is good to keep money around for whenever he feels like using it. Peter does not plan a budget for using his money. He thinks that he usually uses his money well, although he agrees that he sometimes buys unnecessary stuff. Peter agrees that setting goals and making budgets are useful and important, but he thinks that they are too much effort and not necessary for him. After all, he does not need to buy many things because his parents give him most of what he needs. Peter had tried setting goals and making budgets but ended up not achieving or following them. Peter thinks that he has enough money for anything he wants, whenever he wants it. Besides, he can always ask his parents for extra money.Peter sometimes buys things for others, like treating his friends to snacks. Lately, his friends have been buying more branded stuff when they go out together. He sometimes lends money to his friends because they do not have enough. There were also a few times that Peter borrowed money from his friends.

Phase 3: Follow-Up

After 1 month, the Phase 3 data collection using a postsurvey questionnaire [Quantitative + Qualitative] was carried out for both the intervention (n = 21) and control (n = 60) groups. This questionnaire investigated the same questions as the presurvey.

Analysis and Inference

Analysis 1

Analysis 1 involved three stages of thematic, content, and statistical analyses. First, the interview qualitative data underwent an inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Thomas, 2006). An initial step of data familiarization through several readings was followed by the identification and extraction of text segments into potential groups. This underwent several iterations before a final thematic map was produced. The thematic map categories were used as a coding framework for quantitizing (Sandelowski et al., 2009) to transform the qualitative survey data on students’ financial decision-making strategies into quantitative frequency counts of each observed theme via deductive content analysis (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). Statistical analyses using Fisher’s exact tests were carried out on this quantitative data and other survey quantitative data for cross-sectional analyses to check whether there were significant differences between the intervention and control groups. Statistical significance was set at p≤ .05 for two-sided exact significance.

Analyses 2 and 3

The classroom audio recordings, student work, and field journal notes were examined after each lesson for what worked well and what could be improved. In line with the transformative approach, this was evaluated from the students’ perspectives, rather than the researcher’s opinion, by looking for evidence in the students’ talk and in completed worksheets. As each subsequent lesson built upon the previous one, this informed whether changes were needed.

Analysis 4

Analysis 4 was similar to Analysis 1 for the survey, with qualitative data undergoing content analysis transformation to quantitative data, and quantitative data undergoing statistical analyses. Fisher’s exact tests were run for cross-sectional between-group differences and Bhapkar’s test of marginal homogeneity for within-group change analyses of paired Phase 1–Phase 3 data.

Inferences

In Phase 1, the findings were merged at the first point of integration (Schoonenboom & Johnson, 2017), Inference 1, to infer recommendations for writing the vignettes. In Phase 3, Inference 2 merged findings from Phases 2 and 3 for evaluation of the intervention. The final meta-inferences brought all the findings from Phases 1 to 3 together. Joint displays (Fetters et al., 2013; Guetterman et al., 2015) helped visualize the inferences and meta-inferences by creating virtual spaces to group and arrange the findings. In some groupings, the findings confirmed one another to point to a conclusion. In others, the findings seemingly conflicted, and explanations were sought. In line with the transformative approach, we prioritized explanations for confirming or conflicting findings from the perspectives of the students’ cultural finance. The joint displays for Inference 1 (Table 2) and Inference 2 (Table 4) were tables with rows to group and columns to separate the qualitative and quantitative findings. The joint displays for the meta-inferences used Venn diagrams (Figures 2 and 3) to link findings to their theoretical disciplines, with the intersections suggesting the interdisciplinary conclusions.

Table 4.

Joint Display Table Used for Making Inference 2 About Evaluating the Intervention’s Impact on Improving the Students’ Financial Literacy.

Findings	Quantitative findings	Qualitative findings
Positive findings	• Statistically significant difference (Fisher’s exact test, p < .001^; Cramer’s φ = 0.427, p = .001^) with intervention group (n = 17 of 21; 81.0%) coded for more longer-term financial planning strategies than control group (n = 20 of 60; 33.3%) • Statistically significant increase in intervention group toward longer-term financial planning strategies from Phase 1 to Phase 3 (Bhapkar’s test, p = .003^) • Statistically significant decrease in control group of the frequency of money talk with family members (Bhapkar’s test, p < .001^) was not observed in the intervention group	• The students said that mental accounting labeling was practical, quick, and easy to use, and provided real-life examples of use. • The students showed a greater understanding of the social consequences of financial decisions.
Negative findings	• Statistically significant change in intervention group’s spending behavior (Bhapkar’s test, p = .038^*) between Phase 1 and Phase 3 with more students borrowing money from family members to buy things they wanted at the follow-up • No statistically significant improvement in the intervention group’s savings behavior	• Most students still said that they did not practice budgeting, as they still thought it unnecessary because they did not have much money or many things to buy.

Note: *indicates significant findings at p≤.05.

Figure 2.

Joint display Venn diagram used for drawing a meta-inference about the students’ financial planning strategies and saving behavior.

Figure 3.

Joint display Venn diagram used for drawing a meta-inference about the students’ spending and borrowing behaviors.

Findings

Phase 1: Baseline

The qualitative thematic analysis categorized the students’ financial planning strategies into two types: (1) shorter-term doers who spent or saved without a budget and (2) longer-term planners who understood saving and spending as acts to be balanced with a budget (Shefrin & Thaler, 1988). Using these shorter-term versus longer-term strategies, the qualitative survey data about the students’ general strategies for using money was transformed into quantitative data using content analysis. Krippendorff (2004) alpha was calculated for intracoder reliability (α = .996, 95% CI [0.988, 1.000]) of the first author and intercoder reliability (α = .923, 95% CI [0.823, 0.988]) with a second coder. With good reliability, the first author’s coding was used, as the second coder did not code the full data set. There was no statistically significant difference between groups at Phase 1 in terms of the students’ financial planning strategies, saving behavior, spending behavior, or frequency of money talk with family members.

The quantitative and qualitative findings were merged for Inference 1. The joint display in Table 2 shows how the findings were interpreted to produce recommendations for the lessons and vignettes. With respect to the first row, the quantitative findings highlighted that improving longer-term financial planning strategies was an objective. It might have been decided to reteach the traditional budgeting template approach based on a presumption that the students had not learned it well. However, the qualitative findings revealed that most of the students could recall the school lessons on budgeting. The poor translation into practice was due to their opinion that making a written budget was cumbersome and unnecessary because they had little money. They preferred to simply use a mental plan. Informed by this integration, it was recommended that teaching mental accounting (Thaler, 1999) from behavioral finance might be effective. Mental accounting explains that the labels we attach to money are relatively nonfungible and constrain its use for specific purposes.

Drawing from experimental vignette methodology (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014), some lessons presented vignette pairs that varied in an experimental aspect, while other controlled aspects were kept constant to focus attention on the critical aspects of learning through discernment of variation (Evans et al., 2015; Marton & Pang, 2006). Stories A and B in Table 2 provide an example of a contrasting vignette pair in which the source of money is different in each vignette. The students were asked to consider how they labeled the money; for example, pocket money might be for “necessities,” while birthday money might be for “fun.” These sources of income as examples in the vignettes were informed by the interviews in which students discussed how they usually received their money. They were too young to work part-time for a salary, and it was not a cultural norm to get paid for doing chores.

The second row in Table 2 is related to the second recommendation, which was to teach goal setting as a means of increasing savings. From the quantitative findings, cultivating a regular savings habit was identified as an objective. Many students said they would save up to buy something they wanted. The qualitative findings likewise reported that many students would plan a budget and save when they needed to buy something in addition to their daily expenses. It was proposed, based on this integration, that teaching the students to set specific financial goals, as opposed to simply saving in general without a purpose, could help. Story C was presented for discussion concerning the specificity of the labels attached to money. The students were asked to consider the scenario, and it was discussed that if Peter had merely labeled the money as “food money,” then both fruits and snacks were food. A more specific goal, such as labeling it “fruit money,” might have helped prevent the purchase of snacks. The identification of food as a commonly purchased item was informed by the interviews. The students’ parents paid for most of their other needs, and they were not yet at the stage where they sought out branded stuff.

The third row in Table 2 is related to the third recommendation, which was to design the lessons to include the social dimension of money instead of only personal finance. Although the quantitative results reported that few would try to borrow money from a family member to buy something they wanted, the qualitative findings revealed that lending and borrowing was common as a social norm and that charitable giving was encouraged. Specific cultural practices were revealed, such as students not having personal savings but putting money into a common money jar for all family members to use. The qualitative findings provided evidence that money was seen as a social resource rather than for personal use. It would therefore be important to discuss the social dimension of financial planning with these more collectivist culture ethnic minorities that do not share the traditional focus on personal wealth management that is prevalent in individualistic societies (Lucey et al., 2015). In contrast to Stories A, B, and C that were directly based on the students’ real-life experiences, Story D was an imagined vignette, in the sense that no student had mentioned going to a theme park for a birthday celebration, but the researcher thought it was possible. The students were asked to consider the situation from the perspectives of the different characters to learn that every decision has social implications. During the Phase 1 interviews, the students expressed different degrees of freedom concerning the use of money. Some said they could spend as they wished, but others had to ask for permission from parents. A few expressed that they had experienced the beginning of peer pressure, and we wanted to explore this tension between family and friends through the vignette.

Phase 2: Intervention

The evaluation of Phase 2a revealed that the students liked the mental accounting labeling approach as it was practical, quick, and easy to use. One student said, “I started to look at my money differently. My strategy is to label my money before using it, so that I don’t spend on unnecessary things.” An area of improvement was noted regarding the lessons’ effectiveness in exploring the social dimension. One possibility concerned the fact that Stories A, B, and C focused more on individual actions but lacked social context. Story D, which had more background elements, was found effective in promoting discussion. However, many students reported that the imagined Story D lacked authenticity as they simply said they would not go to the theme park, and although the discussion could proceed hypothetically, it was less applicable. It was decided to revert to the students’ experiences as the source and write a new phenomenologically oriented vignette (Ammann, 2018; Schratz et al., 2013). This was used for Phase 2b to explore financial decision making in a richer context (Table 3).

The analysis of Phase 2b reported that the students related well to the phenomenologically oriented vignette, as one student remarked of the story character, “Yes, this is me, I am Peter!” The vignette allowed the students to reflect on their experiences and explore financial decision making by asking how they would advise the character in managing money better. Since the story reflected themselves, they would be indirectly giving themselves advice. The audio-recorded classroom dialogue revealed that the vignette helped them understand the social consequences of their decisions for family and friends. They expressed the importance of care when using their parents’ money, as one remarked, “I think Peter is spoiled, since his parents always give him money whenever he asks, and he spends it like he is the one earning it.” The students agreed that always lending money to friends would not be helpful in the long term. They affirmed that labeling money, setting goals, and social support were useful strategies. The same student who is quoted above said, “You could set a goal with one of your friends, so both of you can encourage each other to keep saving, even if you forget or are really tempted to buy something.”

Phase 3: Follow-Up

The content analysis of the students’ financial planning strategies for the between-groups analysis reported that statistically significantly more students coded for longer-term strategies in the intervention group than in the control group (Fisher’s exact test, p < .001^*; Cramer’s φ = 0.427, p = .001^*). The positive impact of the program was supported by the paired Phase 1–Phase 3 Bhapkar’s test of overall marginal homogeneity, which reported that there was not marginal homogeneity for the intervention group (p = .003^*), with a net upward movement of 38.1% toward longer-term strategies. There was no statistically significant change in the control group from Phase 1 to Phase 3, with a net upward movement of only 11.7% toward longer-term strategies.

There was a statistically significant reduction from Phase 1 to Phase 3 in the control group of the frequency of discussing money matters with family members (Bhapkar’s test, p < .001^*). As the control group was not taught, this change was assumed to be developmental and might be reflective of their growing up as teenagers and seeking independence. This was not observed in the intervention group, which suggested a preventive effect of the lessons. There was no statistically significant difference between groups in saving or spending behaviors at Phase 3, nor any statistically significant change from Phase 1 to Phase 3 in either group for saving behavior or in the control group for spending behavior. However, there was statistical significance from Phase 1 to Phase 3 for spending behavior in the intervention group (Bhapkar’s test, p = .038^*), with data suggesting that they were more often borrowing money from family members to buy things they wanted at the follow-up. Other findings will be examined in the Discussion section when discussing Inference 2.

Discussion

Contribution to Financial Education Research

Inference 2 combined findings from Phases 2 and 3. A second joint display (Table 4) shows the findings, revealing positive impacts as well as seemingly negative results that required explanations.

Confirming Findings

The statistically significant increase in the intervention group of longer-term financial planning strategies from Phase 1 to Phase 3 and the statistically significantly more longer-term strategies in the intervention group when compared with the control group at Phase 3 were supporting evidence of the lessons’ positive impact. Qualitatively, the students gave actual examples of improved financial behaviors. Preventing a decrease in the frequency of money talk with family members was also desirable as family plays a critical role in the financial socialization of children (Gudmunson & Danes, 2011).

Conflicting Findings

Most students still did not plan a budget. The statistically significant increase in borrowing in the intervention group and the lack of improvement in their saving behavior seemed to contradict the finding that they had improved in their longer-term financial planning strategies. Higher financial literacy might be expected to lead to saving and not borrowing (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2014b, 2017). This seemingly conflicting finding raised concerns about the program’s effectiveness.

Explanations

The final meta-inferences were used to interpret the findings. These were aided with joint displays of Venn diagrams (Figures 2 and 3). Finance research is a merging of three disciplines: economics (traditional/autonomous finance), psychology (behavioral finance), and sociology (cultural finance). An intervention might be labeled either a success or failure depending on the lenses through which we view the outcomes. In transformative research, the cultural perspective should provide the primary reference (Mertens, 2012). We propose the Venn diagram as an innovative joint display for presenting findings linked to their theoretical disciplines (Guetterman et al., 2015), with the intersection representing the emerging interdisciplinary meta-inference.

The findings may be of “cuts” from multiple entangled phenomena and cannot be integrated (Uprichard & Dawney, 2019). Autonomous and behavioral finance are primarily concerned with the individual, whereas cultural finance extends to the family. While intertwined, some findings could be “cuts” from the students and others from the families. These would not completely cohere because our intervention was designed to directly affect the students’ financial literacy, and that of their families’ financial literacy was beyond the scope of this study. Some integration was possible, and this is represented in the Venn diagram intersection. We suggest allowing seemingly conflicting findings to remain separate if indeed they represent aspects of different phenomena that do not cohere, and the individual sections of the Venn circles give space for this approach to interpretation.

In this study’s context, what would be considered good financial literacy? From the perspective of traditional finance, it would have been desirable if the students had chosen to save to buy what they wanted instead of borrowing. However, knowing that borrowing is a norm among these collectivist culture groups, this could be viewed differently. Furthermore, the students were dependent on their families, and if they did not have more money but wanted to spend after having been taught goal setting, they would ask for money from their families. Likewise, failure to increase savings could be judged differently based on the cultural understanding that some families saved collectively. As one student said, “I have always been saving but my parents asked me to go and buy something for my younger siblings, so I could not save.” Another said, “I saved around $300, but my mum took it because she needed it. I felt a bit sad that I could not use it myself. I felt a bit happy that I could help my mum.”

Contribution to Mixed Methods Research

Vignettes have been discussed as a powerful and versatile tool for the toolkit of a transformative mixed methods researcher. Both the vignette-based methodology and transformative research have common underlying principles of relationship building with the target community, respect for cultural responsiveness, and representation of reality from the individuals’ experiences. In this study, we provided examples of how baseline quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated and interpreted to write vignettes that represented the students’ voices, and how these vignettes were used in the multiphase mixed methods intervention. As the range of topics in financial education is vast, it would have been challenging to identify appropriate content without this step. The use of vignettes goes beyond identifying what to teach, but the vignettes are what to teach. The inclusion of student voices in the lessons made the lessons more relatable and applicable. As the students had limited experience with money, and some felt uncomfortable discussing personal money matters, the vignettes pooled experiences to learn from each other and reduced power differences between the researcher and students by creating a safe environment for discussion from a third-person perspective.

The effectiveness of three different types of vignettes can also be examined. In Phase 2a, there were (1) the real-life vignettes (Table 2, Stories A, B, and C) and (2) an imagined vignette (Table 2, Story D). In Phase 2b, there was (3) the phenomenologically oriented vignette (Table 3). The imagined vignette was a scenario made up by the researcher and was found by many students to be unrelatable. They remarked that they would not waste so much money on fun, nor ask their friends to pay. If a vignette was interesting to discuss but had less relevance for the students, it was less useful. For example, Story C (Table 2), which discussed buying food, was relatable and useful. However, another vignette modified from behavioral finance literature that discussed what they would do if they lost a movie ticket they had bought (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984) was found to be less useful as it turned out that most students did not go to the cinema but watched movies online for free. We recommend more extensive piloting for member checking of the vignettes before use.

The phenomenologically oriented vignette could be said to have been the most successful. It is quite new as a research tool, and this study provided an example of its use and potential. However, we suggest that the combination and sequence of vignettes used are also important to develop an understanding of the critical aspects investigated (Marton & Pang, 2006). We believe that the success of the phenomenologically oriented vignette would not have been possible without the students first learning the earlier vignettes to help them discern different aspects of the problem before reviewing the complex situation.

It may further be discussed that our qualitative Venn diagrams were constructed using vignettes that describe the findings for each theoretical discipline and the interdisciplinary conclusions. Used this way, vignettes can capture “faithful accounts of contrasting ‘stories’ of reality” (Sanscartier, 2020, p. 60). One of the features of transformative mixed methods is its recognition of multiple realities, which can lead to the discovery of divergence (Mertens, 2010). As research problems become more complex and interdisciplinary, there will be findings that do not cohere. Instead of ignoring them or trying to force integration, we propose that we should more openly engage with the empirical mess and simultaneously work with both data integration and diffraction. This may necessitate the use of a Venn diagram or a similar approach. Our study illustrates the diffractive challenge that “assumes that the whole is always part of something else and that, sometimes, research thoroughly confuses and messes up what we see as the parts and wholes of what we are studying” (Uprichard & Dawney, 2019, p. 27). Our qualitative vignette-based Venn diagram examples complement that of Bustamante (2019) who had at the core of her joint display a Venn diagram to display the quantitative findings.

Future Research

The small sample size limits the generalizability of the findings. Neither should the vignettes be generalized, as they described “highly individual and personal experiential moments” (Ammann, 2018, p. 9) of the particular group. It also should not be assumed that the mixed ethnicity sample was homogeneous in their cultural finance. Future research should involve larger samples, multiple groups, and the use of single ethnicity samples. While we discussed how we compensated for the lack of an initial relationship-building stage through the interviews and use of the vignettes, this could have been more thorough. Some of the content of the intervention was less useful due to a lack of understanding of the students’ cultural finance. During one lesson, for example, a student bluntly remarked, “Sir, you don’t understand Indian parents!”

This study demonstrated that it was possible to implement an effective transformative mixed methods interventional evaluation in a school-based setting within a year. The complexity of wicked problems and potentially long duration of undertaking transformative research may appear challenging and discouraging to novice researchers or the school-based teacher-researcher. It is hoped that the fact that this study was carried out by the first author as a lone field researcher will encourage others. Through this article, we invite further research combining the synergies of transformative mixed methods, vignette-based methodology, and phenomenology. We recommend exploring other formats of vignettes, such as images, audio, and video, which may be useful with students who have difficulty with long text passages. Utilizing and building on this study’s findings, a larger-scale study with both ethnic minorities and Chinese students is underway involving several schools and a few hundred students from poorer neighborhoods.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We thank the students who participated in this study, the second coder who helped with the intercoder reliability, and the editors and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Hua Loon Ling

References

Aggarwal

Goodell

J. W.

(2014). National cultural dimensions in finance and accounting scholarship: An important gap in the literatures? Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 1(March), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2013.11.002

Aguinis

Bradley

K. J.

(2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351-371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952

Al Sadi

F. H.

Basit

T. N.

(2017). “I have just understood it from the story . . .”: Using vignettes in educational research to investigate cultural tolerance. Research Papers in Education, 32(2), 183-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2016.1158858

Ammann

(2018). Leadership for learning as experience: Introducing the use of vignettes for research on leadership experiences in schools. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918816409

Ariely

(2008). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. Harper Collins.

Barter

Renold

(2000). “I wanna tell you a story”: Exploring the application of vignettes in qualitative research with children and young people. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(4), 307-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570050178594

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Breuer

Quinten

(2009). Cultural finance. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1282068

Bryman

(2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877

10.

Bustamante

(2019). TPACK and teachers of Spanish: Development of a theory-based joint display in a mixed methods research case study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(2), 163-178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817712119

11.

Cheung

K. C.-K.

Chou

K.-L.

(2018). Child poverty among Hong Kong ethnic minorities. Social Indicators Research, 137(1), 93-112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1599-z

12.

Crabtree

S. A.

(2011). Gendered discourses of coping strategies and perceived cultural challenges for low-income Pakistani families in Hong Kong, SAR. European Journal of Social Work, 14(3), 363-378. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2010.485931

13.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage.

14.

Danes

S. M.

Garbow

Jokela

B. H.

(2016). Financial management and culture: The American Indian case. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 27(1), 61-79. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1161819.pdf

15.

Doyle

Brady

A.-M.

Byrne

(2016). An overview of mixed methods research—revisited. Journal of Research in Nursing, 21(8), 623-635. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987116674257

16.

Elo

Kyngäs

(2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

17.

Equal Opportunities Commission. (2016). Study on discrimination against ethnic minorities in the provision of goods, services and facilities, and disposal and management of premises. https://www.eoc.org.hk/EOC/Upload/UserFiles/File/ResearchReport/201609/EM-GSF_Report(Eng)V8_2_final.pdf

18.

Evans

S. C.

Roberts

M. C.

Keeley

J. W.

Blossom

J. B.

Amaro

C. M.

Garcia

A. M.

Stough

C. O.

Canter

K. S.

Robles

Reed

G. M.

(2015). Vignette methodologies for studying clinicians’ decision-making: Validity, utility, and application in ICD-11 field studies. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 15(2), 160-170. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.12.001

19.

Fernandes

Lynch

J. G.

Jr. Netemeyer

R. G.

(2014). Financial literacy, financial education, and downstream financial behaviors. Management Science, 60(8), 1861-1883. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1849

20.

Fetters

M. D.

Curry

L. A.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs-principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6, Pt 2), 2134-2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117

21.

Fetters

M. D.

Freshwater

(2015). The 1 + 1 = 3 integration challenge. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(2), 115-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815581222

22.

Finch

(1987). Research note. The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology, 21(1), 105-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038587021001008

23.

Gudmunson

C. G.

Danes

S. M.

(2011). Family financial socialization: Theory and critical review. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 32(4), 644-667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-011-9275-y

24.

Guetterman

T. C.

Fetters

M. D.

Creswell

J. W.

(2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Annals of Family Medicine, 13(6), 554-561. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1865

25.

Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department. (2018). Hong Kong poverty situation report on ethnic minorities 2016. https://www.statistics.gov.hk/pub/B9XX0004E2016XXXXE0100.pdf

26.

Hughes

Huby

(2004). The construction and interpretation of vignettes in social research. Social Work & Social Sciences Review, 11(1), 36-51. https://doi.org/10.1921/17466105.11.1.36

27.

Investor and Financial Education Council. (2019). Financial literacy strategy 2019. https://www.ifec.org.hk/common/pdf/fls/financial-literacy-strategy-2019.pdf

28.

Jefferson

Austen

Sharp

Ong

Lewin

Adams

(2014). Mixed-methods research: What’s in it for economists? Economic and Labour Relations Review, 25(2), 290-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035304614530819

29.

Jenkins

Bloor

Fischer

Berney

Neale

(2010). Putting it in context: The use of vignettes in qualitative interviewing. Qualitative Research, 10(2), 175-198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794109356737

30.

Kahneman

(2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449-1475. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803322655392

31.

Kahneman

Tversky

(1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341-350. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341

32.

Kaiser

Menkhoff

(2017). Does financial education impact financial behavior, and if so, when? The World Bank Economic Review, 31(3), 611-630. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhx018

33.

Kapai

(2015). Status of ethnic minorities in Hong Kong 1997-2014. The Zubin Foundation and Centre for Comparative and Public Law. https://fec852e0-797f-4982-8bed-d091603e2956.filesusr.com/ugd/5242b7_f0e1461b55b54f66b8af8c1badfb6ff7.pdf

34.

Karolyi

G. A.

(2016). The gravity of culture for finance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 41, 610-625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2016.07.003

35.

Krippendorff

(2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Sage.

36.

Lucey

T. A.

Agnello

M. F.

Laney

J. D.

(2015). A critically compassionate approach to financial literacy. Sense.

37.

Marton

Pang

M. F.

(2006). On some necessary conditions of learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 193-220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_2

38.

Mayoh

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

(2013). Toward a conceptualization of mixed methods phenomenological research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(1), 91-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689813505358

39.

Mertens

D. M.

(2010). Transformative mixed methods research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 469-474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364612

40.

Mertens

D. M.

(2012). Transformative mixed methods: Addressing inequities. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 802-813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211433797

41.

Mertens

D. M.

(2015). Mixed methods and wicked problems. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(1), 3-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689814562944

42.

Mertens

D. M.

(2019). Prologue: Transformative mixed methods and getting lost in the city. In McIntyre-Mills

Romm

N. R. A.

Corcoran-Nantes

(Eds.), Democracy and governance for resourcing the commons: Theory and practice on rural-urban balance (pp. xi-xvi). Springer Nature.

43.

Mertens

D. M.

Bazeley

Bowleg

Fielding

Maxwell

Molina-Azorin

J. F.

Niglas

(2016). Expanding thinking through a kaleidoscopic look into the future: Implications of the Mixed Methods International Research Association’s task force report on the future of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(3), 221-227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816649719

44.

Mertens

D. M.

Wilson

A. T.

(2012). Program evaluation theory and practice. Guilford Press.

45.

Miller

Reichelstein

Salas

Zia

(2015). Can you help someone become financially capable? A meta-analysis of the literature. The World Bank Research Observer, 30(2), 220-246. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkv009

46.

Morgan

D. L.

(2019). Commentary: After triangulation, what next? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(1), 6-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818780596

47.

Nadler

Breuer

(2019). Cultural finance as a research field: An evaluative survey. Journal of Business Economics, 89(2), 191-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-017-0888-y

48.

O’Dell

Crafter

de Abreu

Cline

(2012). The problem of interpretation in vignette methodology in research with young people. Qualitative Research, 12(6), 702-714. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112439003

49.

O’Prey

Shephard

(2014). Financial education for children and youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis (Aflatoun Working Paper 2014.1C). https://youtheconomicopportunities.org/sites/default/files/uploads/resource/Financial%20Education%20for%20Children%20%26%20Youth.pdf

50.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014a). PISA 2012 financial literacy background questionnaire.

51.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014b). PISA 2012 results: Students and money: Financial literacy skills for the 21st century (Volume VI).

52.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017). PISA 2015 results (Volume IV): Students’ financial literacy.

53.

Reuter

C. H. J.

(2011). A survey of culture and finance. Finance (Revue de l’association française de finance), 32(1), 75-152. https://doi.org/10.3917/fina.321.0075

54.

Rittel

H. W. J.

Webber

M. M.

(1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730

55.

Sandelowski

Voils

C. I.

Knafl

(2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 208-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809334210

56.

Sanscartier

M. D.

(2020). The craft attitude: Navigating mess in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(1), 47-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818816248

57.

Schoonenboom

Johnson

R. B.

(2017). How to construct a mixed methods research design. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(2), 107-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1

58.

Schratz

Schwarz

J. F.

Westfall-Greiter

(2013). Looking at two sides of the same coin: Phenomenologically oriented vignette research and its implications for teaching and learning. Studia paedagogica, 18(4), 57-73. https://doi.org/10.5817/sp2013-4-4

59.

Schuchardt

Bagwell

D. C.

Bailey

W. C.

DeVaney

S. A.

Grable

J. E.

Leech

I. E.

Lown

J. M.

Sharpe

D. L.

Xiao

J. J.

(2007). Personal finance: An interdisciplinary profession. Financial Counseling and Planning, 18(1), 61-69. http://afcpe.org/journal-articles.php?volume=370&article=297

60.

Shefrin

H. M.

Thaler

R. H.

(1988). The behavioral life-cycle hypothesis. Economic Inquiry, 26(4), 609-643. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1988.tb01520.x

61.

Silva

Campos-Silva

Gouvea

Farina

(2019). Vignettes: A data collection technique to handle the differential operation of items in surveys. Brazilian Business Review, 16(1), 16-31. https://doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2019.16.1.2

62.

Spalding

N. J.

Phillips

(2007). Exploring the use of vignettes: From validity to trustworthiness. Qualitative Health Research, 17(7), 954-962. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307306187

63.

Starr

M. A.

(2014). Qualitative and mixed-methods research in economics: Surprising growth, promising future. Journal of Economic Surveys, 28(2), 238-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12004

64.

Sweetman

Badiee

Creswell

J. W.

(2010). Use of the transformative framework in mixed methods studies. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 441-454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364610

65.

Thaler

R. H.

(1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(3), 183-206. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199909)12:3<183::AID-BDM318>3.0.CO;2-F

66.

Thomas

D. R.

(2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748

67.

Tisdell

E. J.

(2014). The role of emotions and assumptions in culturally responsive financial education practice in a capitalist economy. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 141, 89-98. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.20088

68.

Tisdell

E. J.

Taylor

E. W.

Forté

K. S.

(2013). Community-based financial literacy education in a cultural context: A study of teacher beliefs and pedagogical practice. Adult Education Quarterly, 63(4), 338-356. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713613477186

69.

Torres

(2009). Vignette methodology and culture-relevance: Lessons learned through a project on successful aging with Iranian immigrants to Sweden. Journal of Cross-cultural Gerontology, 24(1), 93-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10823-009-9095-9

70.

Uprichard

Dawney

(2019). Data diffraction: Challenging data integration in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816674650

71.

Wilks

(2004). The use of vignettes in qualitative research into social work values. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice, 3(1), 78-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325004041133

72.

Willis

L. E.

(2011). The financial education fallacy. American Economic Review, 101(3), 429-434. www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/29783784