Abstract
A robust dialogue about the (un)reliability of psychological science findings has emerged in recent years. In response, metascience researchers have developed innovative tools to increase rigor, transparency, and reproducibility, stimulating rapid improvement and adoption of open science practices. However, existing reproducibility guidelines are geared toward purely quantitative study designs. This leaves some ambiguity as to how such guidelines should be implemented in mixed methods (MM) studies, which combine quantitative and qualitative research. Drawing on extant literature, our own experiences, and feedback from 79 self-identified MM researchers, the current paper addresses two main questions: (a) how and to what extent do existing reproducibility guidelines apply to MM study designs; and (b) can existing reproducibility guidelines be improved by incorporating best practices from qualitative research and epistemology? In answer, we offer 10 key recommendations for use within and outside of MM research. Finally, we argue that good science and good ethical practice are mutually reinforcing and lead to meaningful, credible science.
Highlights
A robust dialogue about thereliability of psychological science findings has emerged in recent years
In the current study we draw on extant literature, our own experiences, and feedback from 79 self-identified mixed methods (MM) researchers to address two main questions: (a) how and to what extent do existing reproducibility guidelines apply to MM study designs; and (b) can existing reproducibility guidelines be improved by incorporating best practices from qualitative research and epistemology?
Survey Method Data were collected via an online survey distributed to selfidentified MM researchers; we provided our definition of “mixed methods” at the outset of the survey, as described below
Summary
A robust dialogue about the (un)reliability of psychological science findings has emerged in recent years. A growing metascience literature offers valuable recommendations on research transparency (Miguel et al, 2014; Morey et al, 2016; Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2011; Simons, Shoda, & Lindsay, 2017), replication studies (Asendorpf et al, 2012; Crandall & Sherman, 2016; Simons, 2014), data sharing (Goodman et al, 2014; Lindsay, 2017), and overall research design and execution (Chambers, 2017; Christensen, 2018; Wicherts et al, 2016) This attention has largely focused on a certain type of psychology study: confirmatory, quantitative analyses, often of convenience samples. Quantitative researchers addressing these issues risk reinventing the wheel if they are not exposed to relevant qualitative best practices
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
