Journal of Mixed Methods Research

The intersection of mixed methods and social justice has implications for the role of the researcher and choices of specific paradigmatic perspectives. The transformative paradigm with its associated philosophical assumptions provides a framework for addressing inequality and injustice in society using culturally competent, mixed methods strategies. The recognition that realities are constructed and shaped by social, political, cultural, economic, and racial/ethnic values indicates that power and privilege are important determinants of which reality will be privileged in a research context. Methodological inferences based on the underlying assumptions of the transformative paradigm reveal the potential strength of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. A qualitative dimension is needed to gather community perspectives at each stage of the research process, while a quantitative dimension provides the opportunity to demonstrate outcomes that have credibility for community members and scholars. Transformative mixed methodologies provide a mechanism for addressing the complexities of research in culturally complex settings that can provide a basis for social change.

Mixed methods research has increased in popularity over the past 20 years. Literature reveals that exploratory qualitative analysis followed by confirmatory survey research is common and concurrent studies outnumber longitudinal design. Longitudinal studies using quantitative and qualitative methods in sequence for exploratory purposes are rare, and no studies were found that combine exploratory quantitative analysis followed by both an exploratory cross-case analysis, and an exploratory longitudinal analysis. This design was used in the present study of postsecondary disability support services, and it is being presented to highlight how recursive analysis at each stage can be used to refine subsequent research questions.

Although social support is assumed to be an important factor following loss, the mechanisms by which it influences outcomes are not well understood. This study explored the nature of social support following loss using mixed methods. Widows participated in semistructured interviews 1 and 4 months after loss; a subsample completed 98 days of questionnaires between interviews. Interviews were analyzed using the constant comparative method; themes included the importance of supportive groups and the meaning of support. Social support trajectories were examined using hierarchical linear modeling; perceived social control explained differences in trajectories. Additional interviews were selected by their maximally divergent plots. The findings of these analyses were integrated to contribute a more detailed description of social support in the transition to widowhood.

A sequential design utilizing identical samples was used to classify mixed methods studies via a two-dimensional model, wherein sampling designs were grouped according to the time orientation of each study's components and the relationship of the qualitative and quantitative samples. A quantitative analysis of 121 studies representing nine fields in the social or health sciences revealed that more studies utilized a sampling design that was concurrent (66.1%) than sequential (33.9%). Also, identical sampling designs were the most prevalent, followed by nested sampling, multilevel sampling, and parallel sampling, respectively. Qualitative analysis suggested that across a number of studies the researchers made statistical generalizations that were not sufficiently warranted—culminating in interpretive inconsistency and contributing to crises of representation, legitimation, integration, and politics.