Divergence and Mixed Methods

Abstract

Is mixed methods research in its infancy, adolescence, or maturity? Should mixed methods researchers be searching for convergence on such topics as a definition of mixed methods, paradigmatic assumptions that guide mixed methods researchers, approaches in the conduct of mixed methods, or teaching of this subject area? Or, is mixed methods research at a stage in which too much convergence might result in premature closure in the sense that many issues related to mixed methods remain unaddressed, unresolved, or even unknown. The first three years of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research under the leadership of Abbas Tashakkori and John Creswell provided an important forum to create an international, interdisciplinary community with ‘‘self-identity and self-recognition’’ (Tashakkorri, 2009, p. 3). This community is buttressed by the annual Mixed Methods Conference that has been held in the UK for the last four years; it will be held in a new venue in 2010, Baltimore Maryland, but will still be under the steady hand of the conference convener, Tessa Muncy. The publication of mixed methods research texts is making it possible for readers to have multiple perspectives on some of the pressing issues in mixed methods research, as well as to have fundamental instruction on the possible paradigms, theories, and methods associated with this approach to research (Bergman, 2008; Creswell, 2009; Greene, 2007; Johnson & Christensen, 2008; Mertens, 2009; 2010; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). In addition, the second edition of the Handbook of Mixed Methods Research (Tashakkori & Teddlie, in press) is expected to be published in 2010. This level of cohesion in the mixed methods community sets the stage for an interesting period of exploration and extension of ideas relevant to this approach to systematic inquiry. A priority at this point, from our editorial perspective, is to keep the spirit of divergence alive and well. The first three years of the articles in JMMR address many important topics, including paradigms, design, sampling, data collection, data analysis, quality of mixed methods, teaching mixed methods, and empirical examples of mixed methods studies. Each of these topics offers room for growth in understandings from philosophical as well as empirical perspectives. For example, paradigms in JMMR have been addressed by several authors. Morgan (2007) argued that paradigms are not the proper concept to describe the system of shared beliefs amongst a community of scholars. He proposes the terminology be changed from paradigm to approach, and he continues his discussion by outlining the pragmatic approach that purports to function because scholars agree on the important questions and the methods for investigating those questions. Morgan bases his argument on the supposition that research questions are the determinants of methods choices thus making metaphysical assumptions associated with paradigms unnecessary. Following the work of Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, and Turner (2007), Denscombe (2008) offers a slightly different take on the concept of paradigm, suggesting that the research world is composed of three paradigms: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods, each of which is grounded in a philosophical belief system, i.e., positivism, constructivism, and pragmatism, respectively. Feilzer’s article in the current issue extends the discussion of paradigms and mixed methods. She addresses not only the philosophical beliefs associated with the pragmatic paradigm, but also provides an example of an empirical study as a way of illustrating the implications for Editorial