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.
Bazeley, P. (2006). The contribution of computer software to integrating qualitative and quantitative data analyses. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 64-74.
2.
Boring, E.G. (1953). The role of theory in experimental psychology . American Journal of Psychology, 66, 169-184.
3.
Bouchard, T.J., Jr. (1976). Unobtrusive measures: An inventory of uses . Sociological Methodsand Research, 4, 267-300.
4.
Bracht, G.H., & Glass, G.V. (1968). The external validity of experiments. American Educational Research Journal, 5, 437-474.
5.
Brandom, R. B. (Ed.). (2000). Rorty and his critics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
6.
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (2006). Foundations of multimethod research: Synthesizing styles. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
7.
Campbell, D.T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin,54, 297-312.
8.
Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin,56, 81-105.
9.
Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally .
10.
Collins, K.M.T., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Jiao, Q.G. (in press). A mixed methods investigation of mixed methods sampling designs in social and health science research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research.
11.
Collins, K.M.T., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Sutton, I.L. (2006). A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed methods research in special education and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4, 67-100.
12.
Cook, T.D. (1985). Postpositivist critical multiplism. In L. Shotland & M. M. Mark (Eds.), Social science and social policy (pp. 21-62). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
13.
Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago : Rand McNally.
14.
Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (in press). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
15.
Denzin, N.K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: Praeger.
16.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
Dzurec, L.C., & Abraham, J.L. (1993). The nature of inquiry: Linking quantitative and qualitative research. Advances in NursingScience, 16, 73-79.
18.
Fry, G., Chantavanich, S., & Chantavanich, A. (1981). Merging quantitative and qualitative research techniques: Toward a new research paradigm. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 12, 145-158.
19.
Gans, H.J. (1963). Urban villagers: Group life and class in the life of Italian-Americans. New York: Free Press.
20.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
21.
Greene, J.C. (2006). Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry . Research in the Schools, 13(1), 93-98.
22.
Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 11, 255-274.
23.
Guba, E. G. (Ed.). (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
Hollingshead, A.B. (1949). Elmtown's youth. New York: John Wiley.
28.
Houts, A.C., Cook, T.D., & Shadish, W.R. (1986). The person-situation debate: A critical multiplist perspective. Journal of Personality, 54(1), 52-105.
29.
Hunter, A., & Brewer, J. (2003). Multimethod research in sociology. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 577-594). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
Jahoda, M., Lazarsfeld, P.F., & Zeisel, H. (1931/2003). Marienthal: The sociography of an unemployed community. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
31.
Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly,24, 602-611.
32.
Johnson, R. B. (Ed.). (2006). New directions in mixed methods research [Special issue]. Research in the Schools, 13(1). Available online at http://www.msera.org/rits_131.htm
Johnson, R.B., Meeker, K., Loomis, E., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004, April). Development of the Philosophical and Methodological Beliefs Inventory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
35.
Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher , 33(7), 14-26.
36.
Johnson, R.B., & Turner, L.A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research . In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 297-319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38.
Kuhn, T.S. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
Kvale, S. (1995). The social construction of validity. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 19-40.
40.
Lather, P. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a soft place. Interchange, 17, 63-84.
41.
Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism . Sociological Quarterly, 34, 673-693. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
42.
Lynd, R.S., & Lynd, H.M. (1929/1959). Middletown: A study in modern American culture. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
43.
Mark, M.M., Henry, G.T., & Julnes, G. (2000). Evaluation: An integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
44.
Maxcy, S.J. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 51-89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
Maxwell, J.A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research . Harvard Educational Review, 62, 279-299.
46.
McLafferty, C., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2006, November). A dimensional resolution of the qualitative-quantitative dichotomy: Implications for theory, praxis, and national research policy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Birmingham, AL.
47.
Mertens, D. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The transformative-emancipatory perspective. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 135-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). Old Tappan, NJ: Macmillan.
49.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741-749.
50.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51.
Miller, S., & Gatta, J. (2006). The use of mixed methods models and designs in the human sciences: Problems and prospects. Quality & Quantity, 40(4), 595-610.
52.
Morgan, D.L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 362-376.
53.
Morgan, D.L. (2006). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 48-76.
54.
Morse, J. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research,40, 120-123.
55.
Morse, J.M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
56.
Newman, I., Ridenour, C.S., Newman, C., & DeMarco, G.M.P. (2003). A typology of research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2003). Expanding the framework of internal and external validity in quantitative research. Research in the Schools , 10(1), 71-90.
58.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Johnson, R.B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.
59.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Leech, N.L. (in press). Validity and qualitative research: An oxymoron?Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology.
60.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351-383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
62.
Putnam, H. (2002). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
63.
Reichardt, D.S., & Cook, T.D. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods . In T. D. Cook & C. S. Reichardt (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp. 7-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
64.
Rescher, N. (2000). Realistic pragmatism: An introduction to pragmatic philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
65.
Rossman, G.B., & Wilson, B.L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9, 627-643.
66.
Sandelowski, M. (2003). Tables or tableaux? The challenges of writing and reading mixed methods studies. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 321-350). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
67.
Schwandt, T. (2006). Opposition redirected. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, 803-810.
68.
Schwandt, T.A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189-213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
69.
Sechrest, L., & Sidana, S. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative methods: Is there an alternative?Evaluation and Program Planning, 18, 77-87.
70.
Sieber, S.D. (1973). The integration of fieldwork and survey methods . American Journal of Sociology, 73, 1335-1359.
71.
Smith, M.L. (in press). Multiple methodology in education. In J. Green, G. Camilli, & P. Elmore (Eds.), Complementary methods for research in education. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
72.
Smith, M.L., & Glass, G.V. (1987). Research and evaluation in education and the social sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
73.
Tashakkori, A. (2006, July). Growing pains? Agreements, disagreements, and new directions in conceptualizing mixed methods. Keynote address presented at the 2nd annual Mixed Methods Conference, Humerton School of Health Studies, Cambridge, UK.
74.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches (Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
75.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
76.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2006, April). Validity issues in mixed methods research: Calling for an integrative framework. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
77.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 12-28.
78.
Thomas, R.M. (2003). Blending qualitative and quantitative research methods in theses and dissertations. Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin.
79.
Webb, E.J., Campbell, D.T., Schwartz, R.D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures. Chicago : Rand McNally.
80.
Yin, R.K. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel?Research in the Schools, 13(1), 41-47.
