Moving Beyond our Methodological Default: A Case for Mixed Methods

Abstract

Within criminal justice/criminology exists a host of available research methods that generally default along qualitative and quantitative lines. Studying crime and justice phenomena, then, generally involves choosing one approach or the other. Although this binary tradition of qualitative vs. quantitative has predominated, our field’s methodological infrastructure has recently demonstrated a willingness to adopt more inclusive practices. The purpose of this study is to discuss the nascent yet probable transformation of re‐orienting our field toward a new paradigm of inclusiveness that acknowledges the use of mixed methods research as being both legitimate and beneficial. This paper examines the role methodological exclusivism has had in delaying an appreciation of both paradigms as credible in their own right and even compatible under certain circumstances. In addition, this effort uncovers the increasingly yet little recognized presence of mixed methods research in our field and illuminates that this approach can be used to conduct rigorous multi‐dimensional research.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 53 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.