Mixed Methods Research: A Brief History, Definitions, Perspectives, and Key Elements

Abstract

Mixed methods research is an approach that involves collecting, analyzing, and intentionally integrating qualitative and quantitative data in a study. With the growing interest in mixed methods research across countries and disciplines, researchers have adopted mixed methods research to better understand complex research problems. Turkey is such country that has paid growing attention to mixed methods research. As an example of this growing interest, some well-known mixed methods research books have been translated from English to Turkish to make mixed methods research more accessible to Turkish researchers, faculty members, and graduate students who have been interested in learning about and using mixed methods research.
As a methodologist trained in the field of mixed methods research, the author has watched the trends in the use of mixed methods research to understand the conceptualization and use of this new way of thinking in the context of Turkey. Based on the author’s interaction with colleagues and graduate students from Turkey as well as her observations about misconceptualization and misuse of mixed methods research due to translation from English to Turkish and examination of mixed methods studies, the author positioned herself in this paper to advocate for mixed methods research and provide an introductory overview of mixed methods. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper was to provide an overview of the brief history, definitions, perspectives, and key elements of mixed methods research. In addition, the author offered her suggestions about the translated versions for some of the mixed methods research concepts that have translation issues about conveying the underlying assumptions about mixed methods research as she has argued.
The author used Crotty’s framework in explaining four major elements of research process: (a) philosophical and paradigmatic assumptions, (b) theoretical perspective, (c) methodology, and (d) methods. Using this framework, the author provided some mixed methods research definitions to explain how the use of mixed methods research may vary depending on the perspective(s) taken in the research process. In addition, the author explained the formulation of mixed methods research based on the editorial written by Fetters (2018) and discussed the current status of mixed methods research in the context of Turkey based on her ongoing study about the prevalence of mixed methods research in master’s theses, doctoral dissertations, and peer-reviewed articles published in Turkey.
The author then focused on explaining 14 mixed methods research elements: mixed methods term in the title, mixed methods rationale, paradigmatic assumption for mixed methods, mixed methods design, qualitative methods, quantitative methods, sequence (timing) of qualitative and quantitative components, priority (weighting or importance) of qualitative and quantitative components, integration techniques, the results of qualitative analysis, the results of quantitative analysis, the mixed methods integrated results, added value of using mixed methods research, and advancing the field of mixed methods research. The author discussed five major points for readers to take away from this manuscript. First, the author emphasized the importance of providing the definition of mixed methods research used in a study. The author encouraged scholars to understand and embrace the various definitions of mixed methods research with the strong emphasis on mixed methods experts’ common understanding about mixed methods research.
 

Keywords

• mixed methods research,
• key elements,
• paradigm,
• methodology, method

Karma Yöntemler Araştırması: Kısa Tarihi, Tanımı, Bakış Açıları ve Temel Kavramlar/ Mixed Methods Research: A Brief History, Definitions, Perspectives, and Key Elements

Öz

Karma yöntemler araştırması, son yıllarda farklı disiplinlerde ve ülkelerde popülerlik kazanan ve araştırmacılara farklı metot, metodoloji ve paradigmaları bir arada kullanarak araştırma sorularına cevap arama imkânı veren bir yaklaşımdır. Bu makalenin amacı, okuyucuları karma yöntemler araştırmasına ilişkin genel bir yolculuğa çıkarmak ve bu metodolojiyi kullanmak isteyen araştırmacılara rehberlik etmektir. Bu makalede, karma yöntemler araştırmasının kısa tarihine, tanımına, bakış açılarına ve temel kavramlarına değinilmektedir. Karma yöntemler araştırmasını tam anlamıyla tanımak ve bu yaklaşımı çalışmalarında kullanmak isteyen araştırmacılar, yüksek lisans ve doktora öğrencileri bu makalenin hedef okuyucu kitlesini oluşturmaktadır. Bu makalede araştırmacı, karma yöntemler araştırması alanında yetişen bir metodolojist (yöntembilimci) olarak karma yöntemler araştırmasının Türkçeleştirilmesinde ve kullanılmasında gördüğü sorunlara dikkat çekmekte ve araştırmacılara karma yöntemler araştırmasının kullanımına ilişkin öneriler sunmaktadır. Crotty’nin (1998) genel olarak araştırma sürecinin temellerini açıkladığı yapısal model yaklaşımını tanıtarak araştırma sürecinin temellerini dört elementin (felsefik varsayımlar, teorik dayanaklar, metodolojik yaklaşımlar ve metotlar) oluşturduğunu belirten araştırmacı, karma yöntemler araştırmasına ilişkin farklı tanımları bu modeli kullanarak açıklamıştır. Bu makaledeki temel tartışma noktaları beş ana başlıkta özetlenebilir. Birincisi, karma yöntemler araştırması çalışmalarında karma yöntemler araştırmasının felsefe, metodoloji veya metot tanımlarından hangisinin kullanıldığı önemlidir ve araştırmacılar kullandıkları tanımı açıkça belirtmelidir. İkincisi, araştırmacıların karma yöntemler araştırması çalışmalarında kullandıkları tanımla karma yöntemler araştırmasının uygulanmasının örtüşmesi gerekmektedir. Üçüncüsü, karma yöntemler araştırması çalışmalarında nitel ve nicelin entegrasyonu (birleştirme) önemlidir ve araştırmacılar kendilerine “neden, neleri, ne zaman ve nasıl” entegre ediyoruz sorularını sormalıdırlar. Bu noktada, entegrasyon (birleştirme) olmayan karma yöntemler araştırması çalışmalarının karma yöntemler araştırmasını daha az benimsediği verisinden hareketle, araştırmacıların karma yöntemler araştırmasında entegrasyona ve birleştirilmiş karma yöntemler araştırması sonuçlarını sunmaya özen göstermeleri önerilmektedir. Dördüncüsü, karma yöntemler araştırmaları nicel ve nitel verilerin toplanması ve analizi gibi komplike bir süreci gerektirdiği için araştırmacıların çalışmalarında metodolojik prosedürlerin diyagram (procedural diagram) olarak gösterimine yer vermesi önerilmektedir. Beşincisi, araştırmacıların karma yöntemler araştırmasını kullanmanın çalışmalarına olan katkısına vurgu yapılmasına özen göstermesi önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• karma yöntemler araştırması
• temel kavramlar
• paradigma
• metodoloji
• metot

References

1. Alise, M., & Teddlie, C. (2010). A continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 103-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809360805
2. Bazeley, P. (2018). Integrating analyses in mixed methods research. Sage.
3. Bazeley, P., & Kemp, L. (2012). Mosaics, triangles, and DNA: Metaphors for integrated analysis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(1), 55-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689811419514
4. Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. Routledge.
5. Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877
6. Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906290531
7. Christ, T. W. (2013). The worldview matrix as a strategy when designing mixed methods research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 7(1), 110-118.
8. Clark, R. S., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2019). Grit within the context of career success: a mixed methods study. International Journal of Applied Positive Pyschology, 4, 91-111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-019-00020-9

9. Coyle, C. E., Schulman-Green, D., Feder, S., Toraman, S., Prust, M. L., Plano Clark, V. L., & Curry, L. (2018). Federal funding for mixed methods research in the health sciences in the United States: Recent trends, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 305-324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816662578
10. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage.
11. Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage.
12. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (1st ed.). Sage.
13. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage.
14. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2014). Karma yöntem araştırmaları tasarımı ve yürütülmesi. (Çev. Edt. Y. Dede, S. B. Demir). Anı Yayıncılık. (Orijinal çalışmanın yayın tarihi 2011).
15. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
16. Crotty, M. (1998). Introduction: The research process. In M. Crotty (Au.) The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process (pp. 1-17). Sage.
17. DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., & Schutz, P. A. (2017). Developing a mixed methods proposal: A practical guide for beginning researchers. Sage.
18. Fetters, M. D. (2020). The mixed methods research workbook: Activities for designing, implementing, and publishing projects. Sage.
19. Fetters, M. D. (2018). Six equations to help conceptualize the field of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 262-267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818779433
20. Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs – principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6), 2134-2156. https://doi.org/10.l l l l/1475-6773.12117
21. Fetters, M. D., & Freshwater, D. (2015). The 1 + 1 = 3 integration challenge [Editorial]. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(2), 115-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815581222
22. Fetters, M. D., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2019). A checklist of mixed methods elements in a submission for advancing the methodology of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4), 414-423. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819875832
23. Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. Wiley.
24. Greene, J., Caracelli, V., & Graham, W. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1163620
25. Greene, J. C., & Hall, N. J. (2010). Dialectics and pragmatism. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie, Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd Edition ed., pp. 119-143). Sage.
26. Guetterman, T., Fetters, M., & Creswell, J. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Annals of Family Medicine, 13(6), 554-561. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1865
27. Headley, M. G. (2016). What is symbolic mathematics language literacy? A multilevel mixed methods study of adolescents in a middle school (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from the ProQuest dissertations and theses global database (Accession Number 10308492).
28. Johnson, R. B. (2017). Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has come. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 156-173. http://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607692
29. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm w hose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014
30. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
31. Maxwell, J. A. (2016). Expanding the history and range of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 12-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815571132
32. McKim, C. A. (2017). The value of mixed methods research: A mixed methods study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 202-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607096
33. Mertens, D. M. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212-225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807302811
34. Mertens, D. M., & Hesse-Biber, S. (2012). Triangulation and mixed methods research: Provocative positions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 75-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437100
35. Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2011). The use and added value of mixed methods in management research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(1), 7-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689810384490
36. Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462
37. Morgan, D. L. (2014). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. Sage.
38. Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40(2), 120-123.
39. Newman, I., Ridenour, C. S., Newman, C., & DeMarco, Jr., 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 the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 167-188). Sage.
40. O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 13(2), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007074
41. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2006). Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures. Qualitative Report, 11(3), 474-498. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR11-3/onwuegbuzie.pdf
42. Plano Clark, V. L. (2005). Cross-disciplinary analysis of the use of mixed methods in physics education research, counseling psychology, and primary care (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA.
43. Plano Clark, V. L. (2019). Meaningful integration within mixed methods studies: Identifying why, what, when, and how. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 57, 106-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.01.007
44. Plano Clark, V. L., & Creswell, J. W. (2010). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide. Pearson Education.
45. Plano Clark, V. L., & Ivankova, N. V. (2016). Mixed methods research: A guide to the field. Sage.
46. Plano Clark, V. L., & Sanders, K. (2015). The use of visual displays in mixed methods research: Strategies for effectively integrating the quantitative and qualitative components of a study. In M. McCrudden, G. Schaw, & C. Buckendahl (Eds.), Use of visual displays in research and testing: Coding, interpreting, and reporting data (pp. 177-206). Information Age.
47. Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126–136.
48. Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Knafl, G. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 208-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809334210
49. Shannon-Baker, P. (2016). Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(4), 319-334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815575861
50. Stockman, C. (2015). Achieving a doctorate through mixed methods research. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 13(2), 74-84.
51. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage. Tashakkori, A., Johnson, R. B., & Teddlie, C. (2020). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Sage.
52. 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 the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 3-50). Sage.
53. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage.
54. Türk Dil Kurumu (n.d.). Retrieved from https://sozluk.gov.tr/
55. Toraman, S. (2013). 6. ve 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin fen-teknoloji-toplum-çevre ilişkilendirmelerini geliştirmeye yönelik bir eylem araştırması: çevremi eğitiyorum (Yüksek lisans tezi). Sakarya Üniversitesi Açık Erişim veritabanından alışmıştır (Erişim Tarihi: 26 Aralık 2020). https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12619/74727
56. Toraman, S. (2020). Prevalence of mixed methods research in Turkey: A methodological review study. Manuscript in preparation.
57. Toraman, S., Cox, K., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2021, April). Can Adoption of Mixed Methods Research Be Measured? A Mixed Methods Study of Dissertation Abstracts [Accepted for paper presentation]. Annual American Educational Research Association Conference [Virtual], Orlando, FL, United States.
58. Toraman, S., Cox, K., Plano Clark, V. L., & Dariotis, J. K. (2020). Graduate students’ current practices for writing a mixed methods research study abstract: An examination of doctoral dissertation and master’s thesis abstracts in the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses GlobalTM database. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 12(1), 110-128. https://doi.org/10.29034/ijmra.v12n1a4
59. Toraman, S., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2020). Reflections about intersecting mixed methods research with social network analysis. In D. E. Froehlich, M. Rehm, & B. Rienties (Eds.), Mixed methods social network analysis: Theories and methodologies in learning and education (pp. 175 – 188). Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780429056826-16
60. Toraman, S., Plano Clark, V. L., & Kelley, L. E. (2018, April). Examining social contexts for mixed methods research: Comparing NSF and NIH funding trends. Manuscript presented at the Annual American Educational Research Association Conference, New York City, NY, USA.