JMMR293042 3..7 by Juan Pardo

Editorial

The New Era of Mixed Methods

Journal of Mixed Methods Research Volume 1 Number 1 January 2007 3-7 Ă&#x201C; 2007 Sage Publications 10.1177/2345678906293042 http://jmmr.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

he first issue of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research starts a new era in the conceptualization and utilization of integrated approaches across the social and behavioral sciences. For almost three decades, various scholars have discussed and debated the concepts, methods, and standards of quality for studies that utilize a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches (Creswell, 2003; Greene & Caracelli, 1997; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Newman & Benz, 1998; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998, 2003). Evolving from these discussions has been a body of literature devoted to issues of worldview, nomenclature, typology, design, analysis, and evaluation of mixed methods studies. Much more remains to be achieved because the field of mixed methodology is still developing. It is in the context of such development that we start the first issue of the JMMR. Hopefully, the journal will be an impetus for creating bridges between mixed methods scholars, a platform for debate and discourse about important issues in mixed methods research, and a forum for sharing ideas across disciplines, across philosophical and methodological boundaries, and among different cultures around the world. As the editors of JMMR, and on behalf of its managing editor (Vicki L. Plano Clark), associate editor (Pat Bazeley), and our editorial board, we would like to welcome our readers and contributors. Although in its early stages, the journal is enjoying a large number of high-quality submissions by authors from a wide range of disciplines, points of view, and geographic regions across the globe. We believe that we have assembled a worldclass editorial board to help review articles, and we have organized a sizable group of external reviewers who have known expertise in subject areas covered by the manuscripts to aid in the review process. Our plan is to publish two methodological/theoretical and two empirical reports in each issue. At times, this ratio may change to reflect the types of articles we receive. We also intend to include at least one book review and one software/media review in each issue. Although these media reviews are currently solicited, we would encourage you to contact Pat Bazeley, the associate editor in charge of media reviews, about books and software that need to be reviewed or reviews you would like to write. Given that mixed methods research is still evolving, we believe that it is essential to keep the discussion open about the definition of mixed methods. This might seem a trivial or commonsense issue because many scholars are often certain about what constitutes a mixed methods study. Often writers will say that a mixed methods project is one that includes a qualitative and a quantitative substudy. Inconsistencies and disagreements start when one considers how the two substudies (or strands) are related to each other. During the initial discussions of JMMR, especially during our development of the Call for Papers, we became keenly aware of some of these inconsistencies in the way we (the two editors) and other scholars define or conceptualize mixed methods. Also, we became keenly aware of the historical transitions in such definitions and conceptualizations. For example, we found it necessary to distinguish between mixed methods as a collection and analysis of two types of data (qualitative and quantitative) and mixed methods as the integration of two approaches to research (quantitative and qualitative). On the surface, the 3 Downloaded from http://mmr.sagepub.com by on June 5, 2008 ÂŠ 2007 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

Journal of Mixed Methods Research

two seemed interchangeable. However, on more careful examination, we found distinct differences between them with the former more closely focused on ‘‘methods’’ and the latter on ‘‘methodology.’’ A number of scholars have alluded to such inconsistencies (Morse, 1991; Sandelowski, 2003; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003). The need for distinguishing between studies that utilize two types of data without serious integration and those that integrate the findings of the qualitative and quantitative strands/arms has been expressed by some scholars.1 There have also been attempts to distinguish between mixing within a single phase/strand (see Patton, 1990; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998) of a study and mixing across phases/strands (e.g., sequential designs; Creswell, 2003). A quick search of the Internet or the academic databases would identify a large variety of studies in the social, behavioral, and health sciences that are explicitly labeled mixed methods. A quick comparison of these studies will reveal that they are considered ‘‘mixed’’ because they utilize qualitative or quantitative approaches in one or more of the following ways: • • • • • • •

two types of research questions (with qualitative and quantitative approaches), the manner in which the research questions are developed (participatory vs. preplanned), two types of sampling procedures (e.g., probability and purposive; see Teddlie & Yu, 2006 [this issue]), two types of data collection procedures (e.g., focus groups and surveys), two types of data (e.g., numerical and textual), two types of data analysis (statistical and thematic), and two types of conclusions (emic and etic representations, ‘‘objective’’ and ‘‘subjective,’’ etc.).

As an effort to be as inclusive as possible, we have broadly defined mixed methods here as research in which the investigator collects and analyzes data, integrates the findings, and draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches or methods in a single study or a program of inquiry. A key concept in this definition is integration (a topic addressed by Bryman in this issue). We invite mixed methodologists and mixed methods scholars to make comments on this definition, as well as the issues of integration. Mixed methods is still developing and will do so for years to come. There are important unresolved issues, and unexplored aspects that need to be explored, in addition to the core issue of defining the nature of mixed methods research. Another issue is how to conduct a mixed methods study, one especially important for beginning researchers who undertake this approach for the first time. But it is also important for experienced researchers who develop proposals for grants and advise students. The philosophical underpinnings of mixed methods is widely discussed, and questions about whether one philosophy such as pragmatism (a topic addressed by Morgan in this issue), multiple worldviews, or worldviews that relate to the methods used in a particular study are valued and used within the mixed methods community. This discussion also raises concerns about whether paradigms can be mixed (or integrated) in a mixed methods study, where this occurs in the process, and how it is done also occupy the attention of writers. Some individuals seek to discuss the value or ‘‘yield’’ of mixed methods research and call for establishing how and in what way it provides better findings about our research

Tashakkori, Creswell / Editorial

problems than using either qualitative or quantitative approaches alone. Still others seek to look closely at the language developing within the field of mixed methods, and these calls range from building consensus around terms to opening up the possibilities to deconstructing the terms in popular use. Related to this topic is the reflection of some about who controls the discourse in mixed methods research and whether this discourse is open enough at this stage of development for a wide audience of disciplines and international discussions. Finally, we see individuals mapping the diffusion and adoption of mixed methods in different fields of study with unique problems and modes of inquiry as well as within the context of world cultures. As interest in mixed methods spreads, we will undoubtedly see special discipline applications as well as approaches to interdisciplinary team research emerge. These issues and many more will be reflected in the future pages of the JMMR. They are also reflected in articles presented in this issue. Alan Bryman, in the first article, opens with a concern about the use of the term integration and the factors that impede researchers from bringing together qualitative and quantitative results in their studies. He focuses our attention on the ‘‘writing up’’ stage of research, the ‘‘value’’ that results from our mixed methods studies, and whether better integration might actually enhance our studies. Laura Bernardi, Sylvia Keim, and Holger von der Lippe, in the second article, present an empirically based article employing mixed methods in the population and family research area. Through the combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis, they investigate the effects of social influence on family formation among young adults in two German cities. They integrated qualitative and quantitative data through the structure of two case studies. In the end of their article, they reflect on the several ways their study contributes to the mixed methods literature—by its use of a concurrent design structure, by sampling relatively homogeneous cases for comparisons, and by using rigorous standards for their research. Again, how we design our studies plays out as an actual study unfolds. In the third article, by David L. Morgan, we turn to an essay on the philosophical underpinnings of mixed methods research. This essay reviews the many perspectives about the term paradigm, and especially how its use in qualitative research has grown and developed in research. Specifically, Morgan talks about a ‘‘metaphysical paradigm’’ that was initiated within qualitative research to replace the ‘‘positivistic paradigm’’ of research. Morgan critically appraises this ‘‘metaphysical paradigm’’ that emphasized, in his opinion, the defining characteristics of paradigms, the incommensurable kinds of knowledge, and the disconnect of its belief system from practice. As an alternative, Morgan recommends the ‘‘pragmatic approach’’ emanating from ideas from John Dewey, William James, and George Herbert Mead. The great strength, he says, of this approach is its emphasis on the connection between philosophical concerns about the nature of knowledge and the technical concerns about the methods that we use to generate that knowledge. The final paper returns us to the domain of discussing the methods of conducting mixed methods research. Charles Teddlie and Fen Yu take us into the sampling procedures of mixed methods research by first reviewing the traditional probability sampling techniques followed by the traditional purposive sampling techniques. After considering the issues important in sampling in mixed methods, they present a typology of mixed methods sampling strategies, with a focus on the nomenclature and language, and the types of designs

Journal of Mixed Methods Research

often employed in conducting mixed methods studies. They end with guidelines for mixed methods sampling that researchers might use in assembling their sampling procedures for a mixed methods study. The two reviews (by Manfred Max Bergman and Graham Gibbs) that end this issue focus on a new book recently authored by John Brewer and Albert Hunter (2006) on multimethod research and a popular qualitative software package, Atlas.ti, and its application to mixed methods research. We hope that these topics and those to come in the future will stimulate your thinking about mixed methods research and promote healthy debate and dialogue among mixed methods researchers. We encourage you to submit manuscripts to this new journal, become an active member in this world community of scholars, and add your voice to this ongoing discussion. Abbas Tashakkori John W. Creswell Editors

Note 1. Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) attempted to distinguish between mixed methods (mixed in the methods of study) and mixed model (mixed in more than the methods, including the questions and conclusions). Following the recent developments in conceptualization of mixed methods, they abandon this distinction. Instead, they place mixed methods studies in two broad families of mixed studies and quasi-mixed studies. The latter identifies studies in which a serious integration of the findings/inferences does not occur (see Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2006).

References Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (2006). Foundations of multimethod research: Synthesizing styles (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method analysis. In J. C. Greene & V. J. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (New Directions for Evaluation No. 74, pp. 5-17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morse, J. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40(2), 120-123. Newman, I., & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale: University of Illinois Press. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sandelowski, M. (2003). Tables or tableux? 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. 297-319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tashakkori, Creswell / Editorial

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 12-28. Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2006). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1: 77-100.