Writing and publishing mixed methods research in the social sciences: Editorial introduction to the mixed methods section of BMS

Can regulation and governance make a difference?

Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research in Cross-Cultural Psychology

This text is devoted to the question of using mixed methods in social sciences. The attention is paid to the positions of leaders in the field, articulated by the uplevel “Journal of Mixed Methods Research”. The main results and discussions on the journal’s pages will be outlined briefly. As scholars note, mixed methods provide an integrative methodology in social sciences and a third paradigm beyond quantitative and qualitative approaches within social research. The third methodological paradigm is distinguished by pluralism and pragmatism, openness and flexibility of principles. Quantitative and qualitative methods in social cognition are well complemented by digital tools. In many methodological works one can find descriptions of software products by which mixed research is commonly produced. The purpose of the article is to review the important results and discussions published in JMMR, describe the philosophical and methodological principles that shape the basis for integrative research, and compare them with other traditions of reflection on methodology of social cognition. In conclusion, it is said that there is a continuum of different scientific studies, where quantitative and qualitative methodologies may be treated only as the basic types of design. A review helps to validate one more conclusion: there is no radical opposition between social and nomological sciences grounded in the nature of their methods, as philosophers presuppose. Finally, mixed methods research is highly relevant to philosophy, where qualitative analysis has always prevailed.

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.

The types of language‐related issues investigated by applied linguists are detailed and complex. They cut across many domains of social life from school to business, law, and government, to name a few. Questions pertain to issues such as the effectiveness of particular language‐teaching practices, the language needs for prospective employees in a business, comprehensibility of language used for legal purposes, and assessment of language ability to meet government‐set standards. In view of the many purposes of applied linguistics inquiry, it is not surprising that applied linguists draw upon a range of empirical methods for conducting research (Mackey & Gass, 2005; Dörnyei, 2007). The quantitative and mixed methods section of the encyclopedia introduces the characteristics of two approaches to research, which have been adopted and adapted from methods in social science, through entries that explain basic concepts underlying them, show the statistical tools used by researchers, and illustrate their use with descriptions of example studies.

PurposeMuch of the contemporary methodological literature tends to be self-referential and frequently ignorant of the breadth and depth of philosophical assumptions underpinning various methodological positions. Without a clear understanding of the philosophical underpinnings, logically deriving applicable validity criteria becomes very difficult (if not impossible). As a result, the purpose of this paper is to present a critical review of historical and more recent philosophical arguments for qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research in social science.Design/methodology/approachA targeted review of seminal philosophy of science papers dealing with ontological and epistemological assumptions of, and relation between, natural and social science.FindingsThe paper highlights the link between ontological/epistemological assumptions and methodological choices in social science. Key differences between the natural and social science are discussed and situated within the main paradigms.Originality/valueThe paper draws attention to a range of difficulties associated with the adoption of the natural sciences and the related positivist approaches as a role model for work in the social sciences. Unique contributions of interpretive and critical approaches are highlighted. The paper may be of value to scholars who are interested in the historical context of the still-ongoing qualitative-quantitative debate.

For over fifty years, successive waves of critique have underscored that the apolitical character of much of Political Science research betrays the founding mission of the discipline to have science serve democracy. The Caucus for a New Political Science was originally based on such a critique, and the Perestroika movement in the discipline included a call for more problem-driven as opposed to theory- or method-driven work that would better connect Political Science research to ongoing political struggles. In recent years, movements for a public Sociology and public Anthropology as well as dissonant movements in Economics and related fields have added to the insistence that social science research was too often disconnected from the real world. Phronetic Social Science has emerged out of the ferment for change in the social sciences, starting with the much-debated book by Bent Flyvbjerg, Making Social Science Matter (Cambridge 2001). Flyvbjerg critiqued the social sciences for mimicking the natural sciences while proposing an alternative approach that focuses research on helping people address the problems they are facing in the context they are facing them. Today, Phronetic Social Science goes beyond the call for an alternative approach to social inquiry and its growing adherents are providing evidence that this alternative approach to doing research can enrich the social sciences by more effectively connecting research to efforts to address real world problems as people experience them. This essay provides a genealogy of efforts to connect Political Science to politics, a review of the major critiques of mainstream research, an explication of the rationale for more problem-driven, mixed methods research, a specification of the key principles of the phronetic approach, and examples of its application in the public realm. The essay concludes with implications for realizing a more political Political Science by way of taking a phronetic approach.Article listed on SSRN's Top Ten Download List for Social and Political Philosophy.

For over fifty years, successive waves of critique have underscored that the apolitical character of much of political science research betrays the founding mission of the discipline to have science serve democracy. The Caucus for a New Political Science was originally based on such a critique, and the perestroika movement in the discipline included a call for more problem-driven as opposed to theory- or method-driven work that would better connect political science research to ongoing political struggles. In recent years, movements for a public sociology and public anthropology as well as dissonant movements in economics and related fields have added to the insistence that social science research was too often disconnected from the real world. Phronetic social science has emerged out of the ferment for change in the social sciences, starting with the much-debated book by Bent Flyvbjerg, Making Social Science Matter (Cambridge, 2001). Flyvbjerg critiqued the social sciences for mimicking the natural sciences, while proposing an alternative approach that focuses research on helping people address the problems they are facing. Today, phronetic social science goes beyond the call for an alternative approach to social inquiry and its growing adherents are providing evidence that this alternative approach to doing research can enrich the social sciences by more effectively connecting research to efforts to address real world problems as people experience them. This article provides a genealogy of efforts to connect political science to politics, a review of the major critiques of mainstream research, an explication of the rationale for more problem-driven, mixed-methods research, a specification of the key principles of the phronetic approach, and examples of its application in the public realm. The article concludes with implications for realizing a more political political science by way of taking a phronetic approach.

Background. The integration of interdisciplinary approaches in legal studies is increasingly recognized as essential for addressing complex societal issues. Combining social science and data science offers innovative ways to analyze legal phenomena, providing deeper insights and more robust solutions. Purpose. This study aims to explore the benefits and challenges of integrating social science and data science in legal studies. The research seeks to identify effective interdisciplinary methodologies, evaluate their impact on legal research outcomes, and propose frameworks for their implementation in legal academia and practice. Method. A mixed-methods research design was employed, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The study involved a literature review, case studies, and expert interviews to gather insights into existing interdisciplinary practices. Additionally, data analysis techniques from social and data sciences were applied to legal datasets to demonstrate the potential of these methods in enhancing legal research. Results. The findings indicate that integrating social science and data science in legal studies significantly enhances the analytical depth and breadth of legal research. Case studies revealed successful applications of interdisciplinary methods in areas such as criminal justice, human rights, and regulatory compliance. Conclusion. The study concludes that interdisciplinary approaches combining social science and data science hold great promise for advancing legal studies. Implementing these methodologies can lead to more informed legal analyses, better policy recommendations, and enhanced legal education.

The dynamic and unfolding relationship between the oceans and humans underwrites a general narrative of oceans in ‘crisis’ and the need for new governance and regulatory frameworks to attend to it. As concerns surrounding marine space have proliferated, sovereignty, territory and property in the oceans remain imprecise and subject to controversy, presenting challenges (and opportunities) for oceans governance. This special issue employs the concept of ocean frontiers as a pivot into these concerns because of the eroding, but still frequent, portrayal of the oceans as a planetary space separate from humans and because the concept offers entry points for navigating the unfolding dimensions of ocean conservation and exploitation. Deducing from the eight contributions from the special issue, we develop four inter‐related arguments. First, while ocean frontiers pre‐exist the epistemological, jurisdictional and commodification categories that we conceptualize in this editorial introduction, we find that these categories, which may be understood as intersecting inocean regimes, play central roles in closing the spatial and socially‐constituted ocean frontier, bringing it closer to human purview. Second, the materiality of oceans – their mobile and volumetric elements ‐ influences all of these emerging and intersecting oceanic processes. Third, contributing authors have developed innovative methodological approaches to the study of the oceans, revealing oceans not as ‘siteless’, but multi‐sited, and demonstrating that the social sciences are well suited methodologically to bring unfolding ocean processes into view. Last but not least, drawing from the insights set out by the contributors, we argue for ongoing interdisciplinary social (and natural) science research on the oceans as they and human‐ocean relations unfold in a period of dramatic change.

Social science has an important role in aviation biofuels research, yet social science methods and approaches tend to be underdeveloped and under-utilized in the broader aviation biofuels literature and biofuels overall. Over the last 5 years, social science approaches in aviation biofuels research, particularly site-selection, have made several advances. Where early site-selection models either entirely excluded social science concepts or included only a few measurements using poor proxies, current models more accurately, and more comprehensively capture key social science concepts to better examine and predict project implementation success and long-term sustainability. Despite several studies published within the last 20 years noting the need for more empirical studies of social sustainability and improvement in incorporation of social criteria, progress has remained rather stagnant in several areas. To help move the field forward, we conduct a review of the current state of social science research in aviation biofuels with a focus on sustainability, site-selection, and public acceptance research, identifying key approaches, important developments, and research gaps and weaknesses of current approaches. While several review studies already exist, they tend to focus on a single area of biofuels such as public acceptance. By broadening our review to several areas, we are able to identify several common limitations across these areas that contribute to the continued underutilization of social science approaches in aviation biofuels. This includes the preference for practical and reliable indicators for social criteria that prioritize quantitative methods over other approaches. Based on these limitations, we make several recommendations to improve social science research in aviation biofuels, including ensuring that social scientists are key members of the research team, the adoption of a mixed-methods research designs that combines quantitative and qualitative approaches that better measure some criteria and local-level impacts, and adequate resources for social science research throughout biofuel development projects as these methods are often more time-consuming and costly to implement. We argue that implementing these recommendations in future aviation biofuel development projects will improve social science approaches utilized in aviation biofuels research and address a long-acknowledged gap in the field.

The potential of social transformation embedded in mixed methods research is one of the longstanding and ongoing debates within the specialized literature (Hesse-Biber, 2010; Mertens, 2011). Manifold reflections have been provided in this regard, each of them shedding light on different perspectives, with arguments ranging from a strong support for this role for mixed methods research and others arguing against this position (Mertens & Hesse Biber 2012; Sandelowski, 2014). The transformative paradigm serves as one philosophical framework that supports the use of mixed methods research to address social justice issues, particularly considering the need to give voice to underprivileged populations (Mertens, 2009, 2014). The communicative paradigm also considers the importance of creating useful scientific knowledge by establishing an intersubjective dialogue with the researched groups (Gomez, Puigvert, & Flecha, 2011; Puigvert, 2012). Denzin (2012) argues that mixed methods research can promote a dialogic democracy as a way toward shaping real utopias. Postcolonial or indigenous researchers have also shed light on different aspects to counter the existing power relations with postcolonial societies (Chilisa, 2011; Smith, 1999). Social science researchers encounter stimulation to give greater consideration to addressing issues of social justice from a variety of sources. In a context of scarcity of resources, citizenry is demanding more public discussion and accountability in the decision-making processes about how to allocate public resources. In this context, European funding for social science research was questioned because of its dubious returns to society. While research in other sciences were clearly supporting the improvement of citizens’ lives, this was not that clear in the case of social sciences. The program Horizon 2020 defined research priorities in Europe for the next decade; however, in its initial proposal, social sciences were not included. The scientific community mobilized and submitted an open letter signed by thousands of researchers and major stakeholders to the Commissioner (see the open letter at http://www.eash.eu/openletter2011/) stating that in order to tackle large-scale transitions European societies are undergoing, there is a need to include social science research as part of the solution. Citizens and societies need to see in which ways social science research is contributing to improve their lives and communities. The usefulness claim also comes from the most at risk groups of society as the research community is asked to contribute to reduce inequalities and provide effective solutions for

Mixed methods research emerged during a period in social science methodology that emphasized the importance of paradigms. Although the concept of paradigms as worldviews was popularized by the work of Thomas Kuhn starting in the 1960s, almost all of the work on this subject in the social sciences has followed an alternative version based on the philosophy of science. This approach compares paradigms according to their stances on ontology, epistemology, methodology, and axiology. The current chapter continues that tradition by using this framework to make systematic comparisons across four major paradigms in mixed methods: pragmatism, critical realism, transformative-emancipatory, and dialectical pluralism. Among the four paradigms, pragmatism is unique for its rejection of ontology and epistemology in favor of an emphasis on action as the basis for knowledge. Next, in contrast to classical realism, critical realism recognizes the inevitable "theory ladenness of facts," so that all observations are influenced by personal history and prior beliefs, rather than allowing objective, direct reports of reality. For the transformative-emancipatory version of paradigms, the distinguishing feature is a primary goal of joining with research participants to achieve improvements in their lives. Finally, for dialectical paradigms, and dialectical pluralism in particular, the primary emphasis is on working across differences at both the practical and the paradigmatic level. Although the early history of different social science paradigms emphasized their incompatibility over ontological and epistemological, contrasts, the field of mixed methods research has responded to its multiple paradigms options by emphasizing their compatibility on methodological grounds. There is thus an acceptance that mixed methods researchers are free to choose their preferred paradigm, without entering into arguments about whether that paradigm is superior to others.

The adoption of mixed methods research in psychology has trailed behind other social science disciplines. Teaching psychology students, academics, and practitioners about mixed methodologies may increase the use of mixed methods within the discipline. However, tailoring and evaluating education and training in mixed methodologies requires an understanding of, and way of measuring, attitudes toward mixed methods research in psychology. To date, no such measure exists. In this article we present the development and initial validation of a new measure: Attitudes toward Mixed Methods Research in Psychology. A pool of 42 items developed from previous qualitative research on attitudes toward mixed methods research along with validation measures was administered via an online survey to a convenience sample of 274 psychology students, academics and psychologists. Principal axis factoring with varimax rotation on a subset of the sample produced a four-factor, 12-item solution. Confirmatory factor analysis on a separate subset of the sample indicated that a higher order four factor model provided the best fit to the data. The four factors; ‘Limited Exposure,’ ‘(in)Compatibility,’ ‘Validity,’ and ‘Tokenistic Qualitative Component’; each have acceptable internal reliability. Known groups validity analyses based on preferred research orientation and self-rated mixed methods research skills, and convergent and divergent validity analyses based on measures of attitudes toward psychology as a science and scientist and practitioner orientation, provide initial validation of the measure. This brief, internally reliable measure can be used in assessing attitudes toward mixed methods research in psychology, measuring change in attitudes as part of the evaluation of mixed methods education, and in larger research programs.

The Handbook is intended for all researchers in education and the social sciences─undergraduate students to advanced doctoral students and research faculty. Part I provides an introduction to basic quantitative research methods, including analysis and interpretation of statistical tests associated with each method. Examples of qualitative designs and mixed methods research are also included. A chapter on measurement techniques in education and the social science is provided. Part II of the Handbook includes over a 130 instruments organized under 40 topics, extracted from the research literature. Each instrument is discussed in detail concerning its measurement characteristics used in its development. A section also includes Instruments Available through Commercial Organizations, which provide the latest sources for teacher and principal evaluation. New to This Edition -Enhanced chapters concerning Quantitative research methods with analysis and interpretation of research data appropriate to each statistical test. -Detailed chapter of measurement procedures used in instrumentation development, including the appropriate application of reliability and validity tests, item analysis, and factor analysis with analysis and interpretation of research data. -Introduction to Qualitative research design and appropriate methods, and the application of mixed methods in research design. -Expanded section of actual research instruments available for measurement purposes in education and social science research. -Enhanced section including Instruments Available through Commercial Organizations. This provides the latest sources for teacher and principal evaluation.