Table 5.

Methods of legitimation.

Approacha	Description
Inside-outside legitimation	Insider (emic) viewpoint refers to viewpoint of a group member while outsider (etic) viewpoint refers to an objective viewpoint gathered from an external source. Peer reviews, expert reviews, participant views, and team members’ views are used for legitimation.
Paradigmatic or philosophical validity	Successful integration of philosophical and methodological beliefs, defining the paradigm assumptions explicitly, and conducting research accordingly are the main indicators of legitimation.
Commensurability legitimation	This type of validity is obtained when researchers develop a third, mixed view, which helps them make broader and richer explanations about their study conclusions.
Weakness minimization	This type of validity is related to the integration of the research; researchers must continuously work to have nonoverlapping weaknesses while planning and designing their study.
Sequential legitimation	This type of validity is used to understand whether the sequential order of qualitative and quantitative phases in a study influences the results.
Conversion legitimation	By quantifying the narrative descriptions and creating a narrative profile for quantitative results (qualitizing), researchers can interpret their data in a broader perspective.
Sample integration	This type of validity refers to making appropriate generalizations from mixed samples. The relationship between the sampling designs in quantitative and qualitative phases is an important indicator of validity.
Sociopolitical legitimation	In order to achieve this type of legitimation, mixed-methods researchers should advocate pluralism of perspectives and try to build a practical theory or result that research consumers will find valuable.
Multiple legitimation	This type of validity indicates the extent to which all the pertinent validities (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed) are addressed and resolved successfully.

^aAdapted from Onwuegbuzie and Johnson [32].