Key scholars have lauded benefits of integrating mixed methods and grounded theory-or mixed methods-grounded theory (MM-GT)-yet there have been few attempts to ascertain in what ways researchers use MM-GT. Our aim was to systematically, but not exhaustively, examine applications of MM-GT and offer procedural guidelines. We identified 61 empirical MM-GT articles and developed a codebook for analysis. MM-GT was widely used across disciplines. Most published MM-GT provided little methodological detail regarding grounded theory, mixed methods, and their integration; theoretical development was noticeably absent; and the majority followed a convergent mixed methods design. This inquiry contributes to emerging discussions regarding the ways in which MM-GT can or should be used to more fully realize the potential of this approach.

Mixed methods–grounded theory (MM–GT) has emerged as a promising methodology that intersects the value of mixed methods with rigorous qualitative design. However, recent reviews have found that MM–GT empirical studies tend to lack procedural details. The purpose of this article is to apply the “best practices” for conducting MM–GT in a study designed to develop and then test a theoretical model for how undergraduate engineering students develop interest in the engineering PhD. This study contributes to the field of mixed methods research by (a) illustrating best practices for MM–GT, (b) providing an MM–GT scale development example, (c) demonstrating how an MM-GT scale could potentially bypass exploratory factor analysis and proceed directly to confirmatory factor analysis for testing psychometric properties, and showing how a joint display for data collection planning can be used to strengthen integration in an instrument development study.

A grounded theory approach was used in an attempt to generate theory about client perceptions and experiences of a cardiac rehabilitation program conducted in a rural community. A series of interviews was conducted with a selection of people who had experienced a life-threatening cardiac event. The cohort was divided into two groups: those who attended a cardiac rehabilitation program and those who did not. The findings, though not generalisable, allowed the generation of a number of theories (which may come to be the genesis of future research) regarding the differences in the physiological, psychological, sociological and vocational well-being between the groups. The findings also suggested that location of the program, the times it was conducted, and the communication skills of significant healthcare workers who recruited participants were important factors affecting attendance.