Abstract
We advance the idea that with the commitment to the intentional engagement of multiple sources of data or analytical procedures to explore complex problems as its core defining feature, the field of mixed methods may now be at a point that we can consider it as an inquiry logic that has the potential to spawn the construction of new methodologies. The special issue invites further conversation that builds on the challenge of mixing at the methodological level.
Those of us who have enjoyed the luxury of years spent being immersed in the methodological literature are long familiar with the debate about whether mixed methods constitute a distinctive methodology. Greene opened the discussion about this very question in two publications (Greene, 2007, 2008). Leaders in the field have defined mixed methods research as both a method and a methodology that “involves philosophical assumptions that guide the direction of the collection and analysis and the mixture of qualitative and quantitative approaches at many phases of the research process” (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011, p. 5). Deeply embedded in this definition is the conviction that benefits accrue from being intentional about integrating qualitative and quantitative data, collection techniques, sampling strategies, analytical procedures, and/or inferences. Multilevel mixing is envisioned as having the potential to push the envelope by leveraging integration of paradigms, theory, conceptual models, designs, methods, analysis, interpretation, visualizations, presentation, publications, and/or teams (Fetters & Freshwater, 2015; Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2017). A distinction is typically made between mixed methods research and multimethod research, with the most judicious use of the mixed method label being when there is an intent to communicate that the interface between qualitative and quantitative strands is key to understanding the way in which the research was executed and the conclusions drawn (Creamer, 2018).
Those primarily devoted to a methodological orientation, such as Greene (2007, 2015; Greene & Hall, 2010), reflect a conviction that mixed methods is a coherent logic of inquiry that invites the marriage of diverse philosophies, disciplines, and theories. While Maxwell and Mittapalli (2010) see critical realism as a foundation for this methodological orientation, Onwuegbuzie (2012) points to constructivism as the epistemological or paradigmatic foundation that invites this kind of multilevel mixing. Schoonenboom (2017) and Johnson (2012) join Greene (2007) in foregrounding dialectical pluralism as the philosophical scaffolding for this drive to provide a more nuanced explanation of the seemingly disparate findings that often materialize over the course of a project designed to understand, for example, why an intervention is effective with one group and not with another.
When considered as a whole, the articles in this special issue put forward an entirely different response to the method-methodology debate. Their inventive interweaving of mixed methods with qualitative approaches reframes the assumption that mixed methods is a single methodology or a single, coherent, and distinctive inquiry logic. Instead, we advance the idea that with the commitment to the intentional engagement of multiple sources of data or analytical procedures to explore complex problems as its core defining feature, the field may now be at a point that we can consider mixed methods as an inquiry logic that has the potential to spawn the construction of new methodologies. The articles in this issue illustrate that with an appropriate level of expertise in methods that share compatible epistemological assumptions, mixed methods can invite the type of inter-method mixing that can be a gateway to innovative new methodologies. They present the radical idea that, as Walsh (2015) maintained, a research project that mixes methods across several phases can evolve over time to have its own distinct, holistic, integrative methodology. This mind-set requires both creativity and a good deal of expertise in both mixed methods and a qualitative tradition.
Rationale, Purpose, and Goals of the Special Issue
The purpose of this special issue is to demonstrate the versatility of mixed methods approaches to empirical research by illustrating how they can be used in synergistic ways with a variety of methods traditionally housed with the family of qualitative traditions. This includes mixed methods approaches to phenomenography, case study, grounded theory, visual methods, and action research. Our call for submissions explicitly reached out to welcome a new generation of voices with expertise in mixed methods and a qualitative tradition to contribute to the methodological literature.
In focusing on qualitative traditions, we align with other figures in the field who have questioned if conventional configurations of mixed methods designs have downplayed the potential of a qualitative strand with a strong emergent quality to contribute to explanatory power. Hesse-Biber (2010), for example, charged that there is a “methodological orthodoxy” in how mixed methods is practiced and that it is biased toward a quantitative and positivist mind-set. Provocatively labeling mixed methods as “positivism in drag,” Giddings and Grant (2007) made a similar claim when they argued, “Although it passes for an alternative methodological movement that purports to breach the divide between qualitative and quantitative research, most mixed methods studies favor the form of analysis and truth finding associated with positivism” (p. 52). These concerns may well be a vestige of the “paradigm wars” that so thoroughly engaged academics in the 1970s when the debate about the compatibility of qualitative and quantitative methods was so hotly contested as to downplay the many shared assumptions at their core.
We also align with those whose work is primarily method oriented and those who tend to highlight the endless possibilities of the creative intermingling of diverse data sources and analytical techniques in pursuit of ways to understand the complex interplay between individuals, groups, or organizations and the environments that is so fundamental to understanding questions that preoccupy educational and health researchers. We go one step further by showing how engaging with a variety of methods—as compared with procedures for data collection—can lead to innovation through the development of new methodologies.
The principal argument put forward by this special issue joins one made by others that there is nothing in the definition or foundational logic of mixed methods research that interferes with its ability to be paired productively with qualitative approaches (Creswell, Shope, Plano Clark, & Green, 2006). Creswell et al. (2006) made this argument, pointing out, “Qualitative research can be prominent in mixed methods research rather than compromised by it” (p. 1). The type of methodological mixing that is actualized in this issue moves beyond early conversations that reflect an additive logic about what a qualitative phase could add to what is otherwise primarily a quantitative study and where the interaction between the phases or stages is quarantined until the final stage of drawing conclusions. Taken as a whole, they envision a more interactive engagement across multiple stages of the research process in ways that can make it an exercise in semantics to prioritize one method as dominant.
Each article in this special issue engages in a conversation that considers the implications of inter-method mixing with a well-established qualitative tradition with a thoroughness not yet evident in the methodological literature. The purpose of each article is not to provide a report about empirical research the authors have completed but to develop an argument that evolved from an in-depth exploration and synthesis of the insight gained by examining the use of mixed methods approaches in a set of exemplars that serve as case studies. This is done while maintaining a respect for the foundational assumptions of both approaches. By and large, issue authors came away from the synthesis with the conclusion that the full potential of the inter-method mixing was yet to be fully realized.
The principal audience for this special issue is graduate students and novice researchers from a wide range of applied disciplines who are in the midst of considering the parameters of their own research project or agenda and who are interested in using mixed methods in novel ways. The special issue will serve as a useful supplement to a textbook in a mixed methods course. It could be a good fit with a survey course that divides its attention between qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. The volume is also addressed to more advanced researchers, such as postdoctoral fellows and research associates, and to others whose route to mixed methods is the product of unexpected or contradictory results. Students from a wide range of applied disciplines, from education, business, and health services to human development and sociology, will find the content of the special issue useful.
Contributions of the Articles in the Special Issue
Each of the articles in this special issue opens the door to considering new methodological approaches that are available through inter-method mixing invited by mixed methods approaches to qualitatively oriented traditions. They differ in the emphasis given to different types of mixing, with some presenting method-oriented types of integration, while others framing the integration primarily at the methodological level as grounded in a compatibility of philosophical or epistemological assumptions. This is a distinction Schoonenboom pursues more thoroughly in the concluding article in the volume. Most of the authors frame their discussion with the implicit assumption that there is a mutuality in the benefits that accrue from integrating methods and methodologies.
The contribution of each article is highlighted below.
“Phenomenography as a Platform for Mixed Methods Research,” by David Feldon and Colby Tofel-Grehl, Utah State University
Feldon and Tofel-Grehl present an argument for phenomenography as a methodological paradigm that emphasizes personal conceptions as necessary to understand the relationship between the physical events (phenomena) that people experience and the personal meanings that they derive from those experiences. The authors adopt the language of mixed model designs to highlight the ways in which mixing occurred during the data collection and/or analysis phases. Three cases involving teaching and learning in higher education were selected after an extensive literature review to illustrate informative similarities and differences in the application of mixed method approaches, as well as because of the potential they offer for broader application.
“Two Methodological Approaches to the Integration of Mixed Methods and Case Study Designs: A Systematic Review,” by Timothy C. Guetterman and Michael D. Fetters, University of Michigan
Guetterman and Fetters introduce a salient distinction between two ways in which case study research and mixed methods can be integrated: case study nested within a mixed methods study or mixed methods nested within a case study. Based on a review of published research integrating mixed methods and case study designs, they describe key methodological features and discuss four exemplar interdisciplinary studies.
“Enlarging the Conceptualization of Mixed Method Approaches to Grounded Theory With Intervention Research,” by Elizabeth G. Creamer, Virginia Tech
Strategies for mixing are at the foreground of this chapter about using mixed methods approaches to develop formal or classic grounded theory in research evaluating educational and health-related interventions. When taken as whole, the examples introduce the idea of a fully integrated mixed method approach to grounded theory by illustrating that integration that advances theory development can occur at many points throughout the research process.
“The Affordances and Challenges to Integrating Visual Methods in Mixed Methods Research,” by Peggy Shannon-Baker, Georgia Southern University, and Cherie Edwards, Virginia Tech
Shannon-Baker and Edwards build their article around a typology of visual methods to explore the affordances and challenges afforded by each. They analyze three sample studies that utilize different visual approaches to identify their unique and important contributions. Their conclusion is that visual methods approaches have much to offer to studies that use a mixed methods design.
“Integrating Art With Mixed Methods Research,” by Mandy Archibald, University of Adelaide, and Nancy Gerber, Dexel University
Archibald and Gerber put forward an argument that arts and mixed methods integration exists on a continuum, ranging from low-level (i.e., communicating about mixed methods research using art) to high-level integration (i.e., interweaving arts-based and mixed methods research approaches). They use four case examples to illustrate the potential of this type of inter-method mixing to enable insight not available through other approaches and to promote social change.
“Applying Mixed Methods in Action Research: Methodological Potentials and Advantages,” by Nataliya Ivankova and Nancy Wingo, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Arguing that certain conceptual, philosophical, and procedural similarities between mixed methods and action research make the integration of the two approaches possible and justifiable, Ivankova and Wingo describe similarities between mixed methods and action research, discuss the advantages of applying mixed methods in action research, and illustrate such applications using a mixed methods action research methodological framework that captures the synergistic combination of the two approaches by integrating mixed methods into the action research cycle.
“Designing Mixed Methods Research by Mixing and Merging Methodologies: A 13-Step Model,” by Judith Schoonenboom, University of Vienna
Schoonenboom closes the volume with an article that brings the issue of methodological innovation to the forefront. Placed last in the volume because some of the ideas emerged from reading and discussion of the first draft of each article, Schoonenboom draws a critical distinction between mixed methodology research where two methodologies inhabit separate strands and merged methodology research in which a researcher creates a new methodology. She builds an argument that it is restrictive to think of mixed methods research as a single methodological tradition by using three real-world examples from research practice to illustrate the distinctions between mixed methodology and merged methodology.
Conclusions and Future Directions
This special issue about mixed methods approaches partnered with what have been conceived as fundamentally qualitative traditions embody the potential to achieve mixing that involves both methods and methodology. These defy the additive logic that mixed methods is an “add and stir” approach that involves simply adding a quantitative phase to a fundamentally qualitative study or a qualitative phase to a study primarily conceived as quantitative.
Articles in the issue rise to the challenge suggested by the title. They are innovative in that they propose a type of mixing that is achieved at the methodological level rather than simply at a procedural level. In this sense, they meet the invitation offered in a 2015 editorial by Fetters and Freshwater to meet the integration challenge and achieve the “1 + 1 = 3 integration formula” (p. 116) where the sum is greater than the addition of the parts. Onwuegbuzie (2012) envisioned this a few years earlier as way to promote a “radical middle.” The special issue invites further conversation that builds on the challenge of mixing at the methodological level.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
