Mixed methods and mixed methodologies

Abstract

This paper presents a discussion of mixed-methods approaches drawing largely on the nursing literature. Taking a supportive but sceptical stance to the mixed-methods approach, the paper considers conditions to manage this tension. Competing claims for qualitative versus quantitative evidence alongside a growing commitment for multidisciplinary research when dealing with complex phenomena offer background issues providing incentives to adopt mixed-method approaches. The paper identifies a tendency to assume that all mixed-method approaches involve quantitative and qualitative methods creating a binary division between induction and deduction. At the same time, discussion explores three frameworks enabling differentiation of mixed-method approaches, producing a merging and revision of these frameworks into a new typology – the practical, the technical and the political – allowing the possibility of qualitative mixed-methods designs. In addition, a distinction emerges between approaches with a clear theoretical and methodological commitment enabling or carrying the potential for political action from approaches lacking political potential and therefore limited to practical or technical qualities. The paper draws on a number of studies from the literature to provide examples of the ‘types’ that provide the typology. It concludes by claiming that the typology enables the management of the critical tension between support and scepticism when reviewing mixed-method approaches.

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 — 69 citations exist upstream.

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