Extending the mixed methods research (MMR) notation system

Abstract

The mixed methods research (MMR) movement has been developing significantly in the last ten years and has gained in popularity and utility across many disciplines and fields. Most notably within the fields of social and behavioural sciences, health and nursing, medicine, education, sociology, evaluation and psychology. As a result there has been a growth in studies which analyse the use of mixed methods across disciplines which has been termed prevalence rates studies. Alise and Teddlie (2010) refer to the prevalence rates literature as a line of inquiry into research methods within mixed methods research that studies the adoption and utilisation of mixed methods across published literature from a broad discipline or sub-discipline area. Attention to the use of MMR in business and management fields has also been slowly increasing with several prevalence rates studies emerging (Cameron 2009, 2010; Hanson and Grimmer 2005; Hurmerinta-Nummela 2006; Mingers ; Molina-Azorin 2008, 2009). The nomenclature of the movement has slowly developed with such terms as “validity legitimation”, “inference transferability”, “meta-inferences”, “data integration”, “levels of integration” and the “quantisation” of qualitative data emerging as unique to the language system of the mixed methods movement. The MMR movement adopted Morse’s (1991) notation system very early and the unique visual depiction of MMR has also become a key feature of the movement. This paper has identified key research methodological terms, concepts and components from across the three major methodological movements (quantitative, qualitative and MMR). The concepts and terms used within these three traditions in the conduct and reporting of research has been mapped and an extension of the notation system adopted by the MMR movement is presented. The resulting extended notation system can be utilised by all three traditions for the purposes of: documenting methodological choices; reporting research by explicitly addressing aspects of rigour, and quality; and the good reporting of research.