Mixed Methods Research in Media and Communication Studies: From the Philosophical Framework to Research Designs and Applied Models

The purposes of this article are to position mixed methods research ( mixed research is a synonym) as the natural complement to traditional qualitative and quantitative research, to present pragmatism as offering an attractive philosophical partner for mixed methods research, and to provide a framework for designing and conducting mixed methods research. In doing this, we briefly review the paradigm “wars” and incompatibility thesis, we show some commonalities between quantitative and qualitative research, we explain the tenets of pragmatism, we explain the fundamental principle of mixed research and how to apply it, we provide specific sets of designs for the two major types of mixed methods research ( mixed-model designs and mixed-method designs), and, finally, we explain mixed methods research as following (recursively) an eight-step process. A key feature of mixed methods research is its methodological pluralism or eclecticism, which frequently results in superior research (compared to monomethod research). Mixed methods research will be successful as more investigators study and help advance its concepts and as they regularly practice it.

Mixed methods research: An opportunity to improve our studies and our research skills

A B S T R A C T A new era in research methods is emerging and has been quietly lauded by several emerging authorities in the field of mixed methods research. Like the mythology of the phoenix, mixed methods research has arisen out of the ashes of the paradigm wars to become the third methodological movement (Cameron & Miller 2007). The fields of applied social science and evaluation are among those which have shown the greatest popularity and uptake of mixed methods research designs. This article provides a brief overview of the rise of mixed methods research, its usage in business and management fields and its relationship to the philosophy of pragmatism. Typologies of mixed methods research designs are discussed and a case study of a sequential mixed model research design in the human resource development (HRD) field is presented. Issues related to design, analytical processes and display arising from utilising this particular mixed method research design are discussed. As a consequence, the article contains several Tables and Figures which exemplify display options that may assist those researchers who are considering utilising a mixed method research design.

The mixed methods approach has been gaining momentum in conducting research. This chapter helps to understand the use of mixed methods as an alternative approach to collect data. It describes the characteristics of mixed research. It explains when the mixed methods approach is appropriate to use. The literature reveals several types of mixed methods using the qualitative and quantitative research designs. Four types of mixed methods approaches have been presented, including: triangulation, embedded design, explanatory design and exploratory design. The use of a mixed methods design aims to capitalise on the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative approaches and thus the results of the study will be more credible and reliable. Several mixed methods theorists have developed mixed methods typologies. The mixed methods research can be utilised to: provide a rich understanding of a phenomenon by combining exploratory, descriptive and causal research designs.

Mixed methods research is recognized as a third model of research in social and behavioral sciences. Its value for educational research just recently began to be discussed in the literature (Ponce, 2014: Scott & Sutton, 2009: Ellis, 2005). A mixed methods research study means the use of quantitative and qualitative methods as components of a research design (Caruth, 2013; Ponce, 2011; Creswell, 2009; Greene, 2007) or a research program (Phillips, 2009). Most of the literature on mixed methods research could be considered generic (Creswell, 2009). This means that the discussion centered on research designs with little or no relation to any particular disciplinary context. According to Creswell (2009), the development of literature in a particular discipline's context, using mixed methods research, will help to strength the mixed research movement. In this article, the authors explain mixed methods research and its possible uses, strengths, and challenges in educational research.

Mixed methods research is not commonly adopted by researchers studying tax compliance behaviour despite the benefits that it can bring to research in this area. This is a method that is generally associated with social sciences however, this emergent methodology is being increasingly applied in disciplines that are traditionally associated with quantitative research, including in tax compliance research. Despite the growing trend in applying mixed methods to tax compliance research, there are no known studies that have summarised this methodological approach for researchers and provide guidance on how mixing research methods can allow for an in-depth view of tax compliance behaviour. The purpose of this article is first, to briefly explain mixed methods research for novice and established researchers unfamiliar with this methodological approach; second, provide an overview of the use of mixed methods in tax compliance research; third, provide an example of using mixed methods in order to illustrate a practical application of mixed methods; fourth, to discuss the value gained in applying mixed methods to examine and understand the effect of reciprocity nudges on tax compliance behaviour as well how challenges in applying mixed methods research can be faced. This article contributes to the business and management methodological literature by summarising the implementation of this approach and how studies aimed at understanding tax compliance behaviour could be enriched by embracing a mixed methods approach.

Onwuegbuzie et al. (2018) documented that the degree of collaboration is higher for mixed researchers than for qualitative and quantitative researchers. The present investigation examined the (a) link between the research experience of lead authors and their propensity to collaborate (Quantitative Phase), and (b) role of research experience in collaborative mixed research studies (Qualitative Phase). Analyses of articles published in the Journal of Mixed Methods Research from 2007 (its inception) to the third issue in 2018 (time of data collection) revealed that the average research experience of lead authors decreased from 20.29 in 2007 to 14.24 in 2017 (last complete year), representing a significant reduction of 29.8%. No statistically significant relationship emerged between degree of collaboration and research experience. The qualitative phase yielded 3 themes and 9 subthemes that identified several differences and similarities between the desire for collaboration and research experience. In particular, for the least-experienced mixed methods researchers, collaboration might be associated with negative emotions (e.g., frustration, stress, anxiety) and this coupled with the lack of perceived weaknesses reported by the most-experienced sub-participants, suggest that years of experience have an impact on their affective state during the conduct of collaborative mixed methods research studies. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Mixed methods is a youthful but increasingly robust methodological movement characterised by: a growing body of trans-disciplinary literature; prominent research methodologists/authorities; the emergence of mixed method specific journals, research texts, and courses; a growth in popularity amongst research funding bodies. Mixed methods is being utilised and reported within business and management fields, despite the quantitative traditions attached to certain business and management disciplines. This paper has utilised a multistrand conversion mixed model research design to undertake a retrospective content analysis of refereed papers (n = 281) from the 21st Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Conference 2007. The aim of the study is to provide a methodological map of the management research reported at the conference, and in particular the use, quality and acceptance level of mixed methods research within business and management fields. Implications for further research are discussed along with a call to the ‘first generation’ of business and management mixed method researchers to instigate mixed methods research training and capacity building within their respective business schools, relevant academies and associated professional forums and publications.

Mixed methods is a youthful but increasingly robust methodological movement characterised by: a growing body of trans-disciplinary literature; prominent research methodologists/authorities; the emergence of mixed method specific journals, research texts, and courses; a growth in popularity amongst research funding bodies. Mixed methods is being utilised and reported within business and management fields, despite the quantitative traditions attached to certain business and management disciplines. This paper has utilised a multistrand conversion mixed model research design to undertake a retrospective content analysis of refereed papers (n = 281) from the 21st Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Conference 2007. The aim of the study is to provide a methodological map of the management research reported at the conference, and in particular the use, quality and acceptance level of mixed methods research within business and management fields. Implications for further research are discussed along with a call to the ‘first generation’ of business and management mixed method researchers to instigate mixed methods research training and capacity building within their respective business schools, relevant academies and associated professional forums and publications.

Surprisingly, scant information exists regarding the collaboration patterns of mixed methods researchers. Thus, the purpose of this mixed methods bibliometric study was to examine (a) the distribution of the number of co-authors in articles published in the flagship mixed methods research journal (i.e., Journal of Mixed Methods Research [JMMR]) as a function of article genre (Quantitative Phase); (b) the relationship between the genre of articles published in JMMR and degree of collaboration in these articles (Quantitative Phase); (c) the difference between the number of authors in empirical research articles and non-empirical research articles published in JMMR (Quantitative Phase); and (d) select leading mixed methods researchers’ collaboration experiences as a function of genre of article (Qualitative Phase). An analysis of all articles published in JMMR from 2007 (its inception) to 2015 (the latest complete year at the time that the study was conducted) revealed (a) a statistically significantly higher proportion of empirical research articles (63.2%) than non-empirical research articles (36.8%), (b) that empirical research articles were 1.4 times (95% confidence interval = 1.10, 1.78) more likely to involve multiple authors than were non-empirical research articles; and (c) that empirical research articles contained statistically significantly more authors than did non-empirical research articles. With respect to the qualitative phase, four themes (i.e., mental perception, mixed methods research, publication and research aids, and independent/group work) emerged regarding collaboration for empirical articles versus for non-empirical research articles. Implications of these findings are discussed.

BackgroundTo describe the ethical issues and experiences of scientists conducting mixed methods health services research and to advance empirical and conceptual discussion on ethical integrity in mixed methods health research.MethodsThe study was conducted with 64 scholars, faculty and consultants from the NIH-funded Mixed Methods Research Training Program (MMRTP) for the Health Sciences. This was a cross-sectional study. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics to characterize responses and open coding to summarize strategies about eight ethical mixed methods research issues. Respondents completed an online survey to elicit experiences related to eight ethical issues (informed consent, confidentiality, data management, burden, safety, equitable recruitment, communication, and dissemination) and strategies for addressing them.ResultsOnly about one-third of respondents thought their research ethics training helped them plan, conduct, or report mixed methods research. The most frequently occurring ethical issues were participant burden, dissemination and equitable recruitment (> 70% endorsement). Despite occurring frequently, < 50% of respondents rated each ethical issue as challenging. The most challenging ethical issues were related to managing participant burden, communication, and dissemination. Strategies reported to address ethical issues were largely not specific or unique to mixed methods with the exception of strategies to mitigate participant burden and, to a lesser degree, to facilitate equitable recruitment and promote dissemination of project results.ConclusionsMixed methods health researchers reported encountering ethical issues often yet varying levels of difficulty and effectiveness in the strategies used to mitigate ethical issues. This study highlights some of the unique challenges faced by mixed methods researchers to plan for and appropriately respond to arising ethical issues such as managing participant burden and confidentiality across data sources and utilizing effective communication and dissemination strategies particularly when working with a multidisciplinary research team. As one of the first empirical studies to examine mixed methods research ethics, our findings highlight the need for greater attention to ethics in health services mixed methods research and training.

Although in the last 25 years the methodology of mixed research (also known as mixed methods research) has developed substantially, there are still many vocal critics at both ends of the methodological spectrum (i.e., at the extreme quantitative and qualitative ends). Some of these critics attempt to continue the paradigm wars. Yet, as a collection of research communities, what is needed is mutual respect among all researchers, regardless of epistemological orientation. Mixed researchers can play an important role in promoting this mutual respect. However, it is not enough for mixed methodology researchers to exist in an epistemological space that lies somewhere between the quantitative and qualitative epistemological spaces. Rather, mixed researchers should strive for what is the radical middle, which should not be a passive and comfortable middle space wherein the status quo among quantitative and qualitative epistemologies is maintained, but rather a new theoretical and methodological space in which a socially just and productive coexistence among all research traditions is actively promoted, and in which mixed research is consciously local, dynamic, interactive, situated, contingent, fluid, strategic, and generative. In this editorial, I will identify mental models that problematize the current methodological divide. In so doing, I contend that moving toward the radical middle represents an important step in uniting research communities. I will challenge mixed researchers to guide researchers from other communities toward a more constructivist view of epistemological spaces. To this end, I will outline five themes – represented by the acronym MIXED – for promoting the radical middle.

For many researchers, writing the research report is among the most difficult steps. When writing about a mixed methods research study, researchers have had little guidance for how to structure the manuscript. Thus, the purpose of this article is to present multiple approaches to reporting information from a mixed research study. Recommendations for mixed research writing from the extant literature are delineated, and 12 themes that were identified across these texts are presented. The multitude of approaches and organizational possibilities for the mixed research report are explored. Emphasis is placed on allowing the researcher to be creative in her or his presentation of a mixed methods research report.

The purpose of this editorial is to advocate for increased use of nonparametric statistics in mixed methods research studies, or more aptly labeled as mixed research to denote the fact that more than methods typically are mixed (e.g., philosophical assumptions and stances, research questions). First, we outline how the strengths of using nonparametric statistics outweighs the limitations. Second, we demonstrate empirically how infrequently nonparametric statistics appear in a flagship journal (i.e., Journal of Mixed Methods Research [JMMR]). We document that relatively few JMMR authors use nonparametric analyses to analyze qualitative data. Third, we provide a heuristic example from the extant literature to exemplify the use of nonparametric statistics in mixed research studies. Finally, we introduce a meta-framework for using nonparametric statistics in mixed research studies. Our article contributes to the mixed research literature by promoting increased rigor in particular and ethicality in general during the mixed analysis process.

Despite criticisms questioning its raison d'être (e.g., Giddings &amp; Grant, ), mixed methods research has been welcomed in social research as a methodology in its own right (Greene, ). Recently, it has also been acknowledged and advocated in applied linguistics (Dörnyei, ; Hashemi, ). In an attempt to investigate the status of this relatively new trend in applied linguistics, the current study examines the nature of the integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in terms of research designs, sampling designs, and quality of interpretations. Content analysis of 205 research articles published in seven comprehensive international peer reviewed applied linguistics journals between 1995 and 2008 reveals that concurrent designs are more prevalent than sequential designs and that studies make limited use of mixed designs that are detailed in the mixed methods literature. Moreover, although a considerable number of articles used both qualitative and quantitative methods, only a small number achieved high degrees of integration at various stages of the study as a quality standard for mixed research. The study concludes with several implications for making more effective use of mixed methods research in applied linguistics and calls for a more systematic treatment of this trend as a versatile research methodology.