This paper reports the findings of a study that was carried out to establish the relationship between conceptions held by librarians in Zimbabwean university libraries and practice of research support. Librarians in Zimbabwean universities were seemingly invisible within the orbit of research practices of their institutions. Such ineffective research support in practice is in sharp contrast to conceptions of research support which position librarians as integral to research. To understand the relationship, the study used a conceptual framework developed from the Theory of Action. Eight university libraries were examined and a meta-analysis of findings using the constant comparison method was conducted. Metaclaims were contrived from the eight group studies and this facilitated the juxtaposition of espoused conceptions with actual practices. Although major congruence was found from the constant comparison of meta-claims, the expectations of what the libraries should be doing exceeded what appears in their mission statements. It was concluded that inadequate espoused theories and incongruence in areas such as services, staff deployment, collaboration and training contributed to the ineffectiveness of librarians in support of researchers. The authors present a model for effective research support for academic libraries.

This chapter reports on a study that investigated how graduate students in the Faculty of Communication and Information Science at NUST were approaching integration in their mixed-methods research dissertations. There has been a concern that lack of expertise of what mixed-methods research is restricts the integrative capacity. Using a research synthesis method, the study investigated three graduate programmes, namely Master's degrees in Library and Information Science, Records and Archives Management, and Journalism and Media Studies from 2016 up to 2018. A total of 95 dissertations were reviewed, and 40 employed mixed-methods research design. It was discovered that integration was commonly done at methods and interpretation levels. Integration of qualitative and quantitative data sets resulted in confirmation (83), expanding understanding (27), and discordance (31). Graduate students dealt with discordant findings by either ignoring the discordance (20), seek corroboration with existing literature (7), or give priority to the quantitative strand (4).

Mixed methods research (MMR) has gained traction among scholars owing to its ability to allow researchers to investigate a phenomenon with the lens of both qualitative and quantitative strands. However, the mixed methods field has been grappling with the challenge of demonstrating its foundation in philosophical or paradigmatic terms. To interrogate this subject of the MMR foundation, this chapter begins by tracing the evolution of MMR and then discusses why researchers find it attractive to use. The chapter moves to present the paradigmatic dilemma associated with the use of MMR. It also debates pragmatism as a philosophical position and questions whether pragmatism is an opportunistic paradigm for MMR. It produces a picture that shows the resultant logical challenge associated with MMR in practice. The chapter concludes by taking the position that it is not logically possible to carry out a study from the standpoint of a fence sitter. A researcher needs a stable disposition from which to think logically. The chapter adds weight to the growing body of MMR literature.

This chapter reports on a study that investigated how graduate students in the Faculty of Communication and Information Science at NUST were approaching integration in their mixed-methods research dissertations. There has been a concern that lack of expertise of what mixed-methods research is restricts the integrative capacity. Using a research synthesis method, the study investigated three graduate programmes, namely Master's degrees in Library and Information Science, Records and Archives Management, and Journalism and Media Studies from 2016 up to 2018. A total of 95 dissertations were reviewed, and 40 employed mixed-methods research design. It was discovered that integration was commonly done at methods and interpretation levels. Integration of qualitative and quantitative data sets resulted in confirmation (83), expanding understanding (27), and discordance (31). Graduate students dealt with discordant findings by either ignoring the discordance (20), seek corroboration with existing literature (7), or give priority to the quantitative strand (4).