Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to examine how the field of mixed methods currently is being defined. The authors asked many of the current leaders in mixed methods research how they define mixed methods research. The authors provide the leaders' definitions and discuss the content found as they searched for the criteria of demarcation. The authors provide a current answer to the question, What is mixed methods research? They also briefly summarize the recent history of mixed methods and list several issues that need additional work as the field continues to advance. They argue that mixed methods research is one of the three major “research paradigms” (quantitative research, qualitative research, and mixed methods research). The authors hope this article will contribute to the ongoing dialogue about how mixed methods research is defined and conceptualized by its practitioners.

Developing mixed methods research in sport and exercise psychology: Critical reflections on five points of controversy

“…The benefits proposed for undertaking a mixed methods study according to Doyle, Brady and Byrne (2009) The views of Mason (2006) suggest that researchers in sport and exercise psychology are well advised to approach MMR with caution. Rich and critical debates within the social sciences about MMR show it is best viewed as a contested and ambiguous concept (Gill, 2011;Johnson, Onwuegbuzie & Turner, 2007;Whaley & Krane, 2011). Cresswell (2011), a leading advocate of MMR, highlights an extensive range of controversies in an emerging field that include the following: basic issues of the legitimacy and meaning, philosophical underpinnings, and the pragmatics of conducting a mixed methods study.…”

“…Just doing this, however, does not necessarily make it a 'mixed methods' study as opposed to what some might call a 'multiple methods' study (see Cresswell, 2011;Johnson, Onwuegbuzie & Turner, 2007;Morse and Maddox, 2014;. It also needs to be recognized that just borrowing a quantitative or qualitative data gathering technique does not make one a positivist, postpositivist, constructivist, critical or poststructural researcher.…”

Mixing-up research methods: A recipe for success or disaster?

“…Triangulation also incorporates many different perspectives, helps to avoid the biases of a single method or researcher, and completes the links between observation and theory construction 7 . The validity of quantitative studies, and rigour and trustworthiness of qualitative studies can also be improved by verifying and elaborating findings from one component with findings from another component 2,4 . Indeed, other qualitative researchers have talked about how a combining visual methods with in-depth interviews leads to longer, more in-depth, and more focussed interviews, in comparison to the semi-structured interviews 8,9 .…”

“…Concurrent research designs involve a single data collection episode incorporating various qualitative and / or quantitative strategies to answer a research question 2,4 . Using Morse's 5 taxonomy, the research design for a hypothetical concurrent study is illustrated in Figure 1.…”

Applying Enterprise Architecture to Business Networks

“…Adopting a qualitative method can construct the concepts; then using a statistical analysis provides guidance that facilitates the validation and stabilization of the constructs. Johnson et al [2007] classified this approach as a qualitative dominant mixed method research design (Qual-quan). Combining the qualitative and quantitative methods can be seen as a complimentary act in which the integration of the methods provides richer understanding of the research problem than provided by either method alone [Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009].…”