Abstract
This July 2019 issue of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research (JMMR) includes an editorial, a rebuttal, three methodological/theoretical articles, three empirical methodological articles, and two media reviews.
In the editorial, we examine the role of mixed methods research for addressing compelling societal problems and for building a better world with five specific roles that mixed methods researchers can play (Molina-Azorin & Fetters, 2019). Following the editorial, Morgan (2019) provides a rebuttal to a commentary by Maxwell (2019) prompted by Morgan’s original article contesting the indistinguishability thesis (Morgan, 2018a) and a subsequent discussion thread (Hammersley, 2018; Maxwell 2019; Morgan, 2018b; Sandelowski, 2018).
In the first of three methodological/theoretical articles, Schoonenboom (2019), with an affiliation in education, introduces the “performative paradigm,” a philosophical framework supporting a mixed methods research approach. She justifies the need through critique of the dialectic stance, critical realism, and pragmatism. She argues researchers influenced by the performative paradigm hold that “worlds” arise from constituting concepts that researchers use to discuss them with a specific temporal context. She further expounds how researchers influenced by this view will strive for objectivity and conduct research as a “dance of agency,” that is, interactions between the researchers and their created worlds. Based on a feedback cycle, the researcher’s ideas are “mangled” through qualitative and quantitative strands of research. Using an example from education, she illustrates how the performative paradigm provides another world view to undergird mixed methods research.
In the second methodological article, Johnson, Grove, and Clark (2019), with backgrounds in medicine, articulate a joint display development technique for integrating mixed data through the “pillar integration process.” In essence, they illustrate a four-step approach for building a joint display using a five-column substrate where the two outside columns each represent either the qualitative or quantitative strands. In Stage I Listing, they advise recording raw quantitative or qualitative data in one of the outside columns. In Stage 2 Matching, they advise matching data horizontally with data from the other strand that matches in the opposite outside with content that relates to the initially listed data and thus aligning similar data, into “categories” columns. In Stage 3 Checking, they advise cross-checking the four outside columns to assess for completeness and ensuring the rows are appropriately matched. In Stage 4 Pillar Building, the central column is built by conceptualizing insights held in common to both types of data. This article thus contributes a unique perspective on building a joint display.
In the third methodological/theoretical article, Wenger-Trayner, Wenger-Trayner, Cameron, Eryigit-Madzwamuse, and Hart (2019), with affiliations in the social and health sciences, introduce an evaluation framework for mixed methods research. They illustrate the value-creation network as a means for integrating multiple data sources, and they describe the concept of boundary objects. That is, they explore how the “value-creation framework” acts as a boundary object across “boundaries of practice,” specifically across quantitative and qualitative methods. They illustrate a value creation network through the Imagine Program, which featured a shared language for negotiating interpretation and action across boundaries. This article provides a novel methodological approach for mixed methods evaluation work.
In the first of three empirical methodological articles, Hauken, Larsen, and Holsen (2019), with affiliations in crisis psychology and health promotion and development, introduce their experience with a longitudinal mixed methods research study called “Back on Track” where they conducted research on the rehabilitation of young adult cancer survivors. They collected qualitative and quantitative data at four different time points using questionnaires, physical testing, and interviews. They demonstrate the potential for a longitudinal mixed methods design to illustrate both process issues and outcomes.
In the second empirical methodological article, Puigvert, Valls, Garcia Yeste, Aguilar, and Merrill (2019), with affiliations in criminology, sociology, and education, examine the resistance to and transformations of gender-based violence in Spanish universities. Their work first illustrates the role of mixed methods research for mitigating violence against women. Central to their article is the “communicative evaluation of social impact,” a methodological tool they used to expose the social impact of a sequential multiphase mixed methods study conducted on gender-based violence in Spanish universities. The project features communicative methodology framework where interactions between society and science construct knowledge by integrating objectivity and subjectivity. This article contributes as an example of mixed methods for reducing gender violence and the communicative methodology framework.
In the third empirical methodological article, McCrudden and McTigue (2019), with affiliations in education and humanities, illustrate whole design integration in their study using an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. They articulate their integration procedures to examine belief bias about climate change with high school students. In their explanatory sequential mixed methods design, they demonstrate whole design integration at the methods level, through sampling, through development of the interview protocol with a methodological joint display, through the interpretation and reporting level through narrative, and through the use of a results joint display. Additionally, they illustrate the use of a multilevel mixed design with quantitative data collected at two levels, one at the level of analysis, namely, the class level, and a second level, namely, the student level. This article’s methodological strength stems from the comprehensive illustration of integration and a multilevel design.
This issue features two media reviews. Edwards, Reeping, Taylor, and Bowers (2019), with affiliations in education and engineering, review the book An Introduction to Fully Integrated Mixed Methods Research by Creamer (2018). They conclude Creamer’s primary contribution to the literature as making mixed methods research more accessible by illustrating integration throughout a mixed methods study. Sibett (2019), with an affiliation in education, reviews the book Quantitative Ethnography by Shaffer (2017). She identifies the primary contribution of the book to be an ethnographic approach to statistically analyzing big data and qualitative data alike. We round out the issue by acknowledging with heartfelt gratitude the 2018 reviewers who so generously gave their time and shared their wisdom to evaluate papers and provide comments that helped improve the quality of methodological research in the field of mixed methods.
In short, this issue contains a variety of innovations in mixed methods that we anticipate will have a broad appeal and can inform advances for the multidisciplinary readership of JMMR.