Menjembatani Data dan Makna

Muttaqin Khabibullah; Alimin; Gus Malik Imam Sholahuddin

doi:10.62048/qjms.v3i1.125

Authors

Muttaqin Khabibullah Program Studi Manajemen Pendidikan Islam, Universitas Qomaruddin, Gresik, Indonesia
Alimin Program Studi Manajemen Pendidikan Islam, Universitas Qomaruddin, Gresik, Indonesia
Gus Malik Imam Sholahuddin Program Studi Pendidikan Agama Islam, Universitas Qomaruddin, Gresik, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62048/qjms.v3i1.125

Keywords:

Abduction Logic, Mixed Method Research, Pragmatism

Abstract

Mixed Methods Research (MMR) faces significant challenges in integrating quantitative and qualitative findings, particularly when the two types of data produce conflicting interpretations. Although abductive logic has been widely discussed in qualitative research, its role as a systematic mode of reasoning for bridging data and paradigm tensions in MMR remains underexplored. This article aims to analyze the role of abductive logic across four major MMR models: convergent, sequential, embedded, and transformative. Using a conceptual review approach, the study demonstrates that abduction functions as an interpretive mechanism for simultaneous data conflicts in the convergent model; as a bridge for reinterpretation across research phases in the sequential model; as a trigger for critically re-evaluating dominant findings through minor data in the embedded model; and as an interpretive leap that challenges dominant meanings and opens spaces for emancipation in the transformative model. These findings underscore that abductive logic expands the interpretive scope of research outcomes and strengthens reflective and context-sensitive methodological integration, particularly in educational and social policy research.

References

Åsvoll, H. (2014). Abduction, deduction and induction: Can these concepts be used for an understanding of methodological processes in interpretative case studies? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(3), 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2012.759296

Bazeley, P. (2009). Integrating data analyses in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 203–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809334443

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Chan, M. L. (2017). An explicit pragmatic approach to integrative data analysis strategies for mixed methods research. International Journal of Linguistics, 9(3), 245–263. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v9i3.11246

Christensen, J. H. (2022). Enhancing mixed methods pragmatism with systems theory: Perspectives from educational research. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 39(1), 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2751

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Dube, B., Nkomo, D., & Thokweng, M. A. (2024). Pragmatism: An essential philosophy for mixed methods research in education. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 8(3), 1001–1010. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.803073

Eisman, A. B., Palinkas, L. A., Brown, S., Lundahl, L., & Kilbourne, A. M. (2022). A mixed methods investigation of implementation determinants for a school-based universal prevention intervention. Implementation Research and Practice, 3, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895221124962

Feilzer, M. Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809349691

Feilzer, M. Y. (2023). A pragmatist approach to mixed methods research. In Philosophical foundations of mixed methods research: Dialogues between researchers and philosophers (pp. 13–29). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003273288-3

Gillespie, A., Gl?veanu, V., & de Saint Laurent, C. (2024). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods. In Pragmatism and methodology (pp. 117–134). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009031066.007

Grinnell, R. M., & Unrau, Y. A. (2018). Social work research and evaluation: Foundations of evidence-based practice (10th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Hampson, T., & McKinley, J. (2023). Problems posing as solutions: Criticising pragmatism as a paradigm for mixed research. Research in Education, 116(1), 124–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/00345237231160085

Jones, C. (2004). Quantitative and qualitative research. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Networked Learning (Vol. 4, pp. 107–113). https://doi.org/10.54337/NLC.V4.9618

Khabibullah, M., Alimin, A., & Sholahuddin, G. M. I. (2024). Tahapan dan langkah-langkah penerapan mixed method research (MMR) dalam penelitian pendidikan. Qomaruna Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(1), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.62048/QJMS.V2I1.55

Khabibullah, M., Alimin, A., & Sholahuddin, G. M. I. (2025). Melampaui paradigm wars: Pragmatisme sebagai meta-framework untuk integrasi tradisi filosofis dalam mixed method research. Qomaruna Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(2), 110–125. https://doi.org/10.62048/QJMS.V2I2.81

Kistruck, G. M., & Slade Shantz, A. (2022). Research on grand challenges: Adopting an abductive experimentation methodology. Organization Studies, 43(9), 1479–1505. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211044886

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.

Maxwell, J. A. (2022). Integration in mixed methods research. In J. H. Hitchcock & A. J. Onwuegbuzie (Eds.), The Routledge handbook for advancing integration in mixed methods research (pp. 86–93). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429432828

Mehedi, M., & Emon, H. (2024). Research approach: A comparative analysis of quantitative and qualitative methodologies in social science research. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202412.1128.v1

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

Mertens, D. M. (2022). Mixed methods integration for transformative purposes. In The Routledge handbook for advancing integration in mixed methods research (pp. 71–85). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429432828-7

Mitchell, A. (2018). A review of mixed methods, pragmatism and abduction techniques. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 16(3), 103–116.

Mehrad, A., & Zangeneh, M. H. T. (2019). Comparison between qualitative and quantitative research approaches: Social sciences. International Journal for Research in Educational Studies, 5(7), 1–7.

Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462

Morgan, D. L. (2017). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544304533

Moscoso, J. N., & Palacios, L. (2019). Abductive reasoning: A contribution to knowledge creation in education. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 49(171), 308–329. https://doi.org/10.1590/198053145255

Nilsen, A. (2023). Methodological and other controversies. In Biographical life course research: Studying the biography–history dynamic (pp. 123–148). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44717-4_6

Parey, B. (2019). Understanding teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with disabilities in inclusive schools using mixed methods: The case of Trinidad. Teaching and Teacher Education, 83, 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.04.007

Parvaiz, G. S., Mufti, O., & Wahab, M. (2016). Pragmatism for mixed method research at higher education level. Business & Economic Review, 8(2), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.22547/BER/8.2.5

Peirce, C. S. (1998). The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings (Vol. 2). Indiana University Press.

Perumal, J., Taliep, N., Olujuwon, O., & Moyo, Z. (2022). Understanding integration via a kaleidoscope metaphor: The case of Scratchmaps. In J. H. Hitchcock & A. J. Onwuegbuzie (Eds.), The Routledge handbook for advancing integration in mixed methods research (pp. 501–523). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429432828-38

Ponce, O. A. (2022). The emergence of mixed methods in educational research. In Introduction to the philosophy of educational research (pp. 61–68). River Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003338697-5

Proudfoot, K. (2023). Inductive/deductive hybrid thematic analysis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(3), 308–326.

https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221126816

Reichertz, J. (2010). Abduction: The logic of discovery of grounded theory. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(1), Article 13. https://doi.org/10.17169/FQS-11.1.1412

Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2022). Real world research (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Sandoval-Hernández, A., & Rutkowski, D. J. (2025). Embracing complexity: Abductive reasoning as a versatile tool for analyzing international large-scale assessments. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 37, 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-024-09449-2

Schoonenboom, J. (2018). Mixed methods in early childhood education. In International handbook of early childhood education (pp. 269–293). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0927-7_11

Shaw, R. L., Hiles, D. R., West, K., Holland, C., & Gwyther, H. (2018). From mixing methods to the logic(s) of inquiry: Taking a fresh look at developing mixed design studies. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, 6(1), 226–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2018.1515016

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Tashakkori, A., Johnson, B., & Teddlie, C. (2021). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Tashakkori, A., & Newman, I. (2023). Foundations of mixed methods research. In International encyclopedia of education (4th ed., pp. 372–379). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.11036-X

Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. University of Chicago Press.

Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914

Wheeldon, J. (2010). Mapping mixed methods research: Methods, measures, and meaning. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809358755

Wheeldon, J., & Ahlberg, M. K. (2012). Mapping mixed-methods research: Theories, models, and measures. In Visualizing social science data (pp. 113–148). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483384528