Following the mixed methods trail: some travel advice.

Abstract

If you pay any attention to the primary care literature (as you are reading the BJGP , I assume you do), you may have noticed a new bandwagon snaking its way through our research teams and outputs in recent years. Yes, ‘mixed methods’ approaches are on the move and heading to an academic paper near you. Interviews, focus groups, surveys, observation, a sprinkling of statistics, a touch of thematic analysis: it’s all in there, strengthening inference and adding depth. Or is it? In truth, much of what is described as ‘mixed methods’ has rather fallen off the integrative path, and should more accurately be described as ‘multi-method’. So, here’s my brief road map for how to really follow the mixed methods trail. Let’s set off with a look at definitions. There are many, but a pretty common sense (and commonly-used) one is John Cresswell’s: ‘Mixed methods research is a methodology for conducting research that involves collecting, analyzing, and integrating (or mixing) quantitative and qualitative research (and data) in a single study or a longitudinal program of inquiry.’ 1 That looks clear: first, we need both quantitative and qualitative approaches, and, second, these need to be integrated or mixed in some way. However, although we’re pretty good at meeting the first requirement, we’re on a steep learning curve with the second. I’ll return to this later. Moving on, why might we want to do this? Greene, Caracelli, and Graham 2 formulated an influential scheme summarising different purposes for mixed methods research, including: These are not necessarily mutually exclusive: …