Developing mixed methods research in sport and exercise psychology: potential contributions of a critical realist perspective

Tatiana V. Ryba · Gareth Wiltshire · Noora Johanna Ronkainen

114 citations0/0 files storedInternational Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Educational Research and Methods Sport Psychology and Performance Critical Realism in Sociology

Abstract

Notwithstanding diverse opinions and debates about mixing methods, mixed methods research (MMR) is increasingly being used in sport and exercise psychology. In this paper, we describe MMR trends within leading sport and exercise psychology journals and explore critical realism as a possible underpinning framework for conducting MMR. Our meta-study of recent empirical mixed methods studies published in 2017–2019 indicates that eight (36%) of the 22 MMR studies explicitly stated a paradigmatic position (five drew on pragmatism, two switched paradigms between qualitative and quantitative elements of the study, and one was situated in relativist-interpretivism). The remaining 14 (64%) studies did not report their underpinning research philosophical assumptions. Evaluating the merits and limitations of these positions against critical realist assumptions suggests that several paradigmatic disagreements are potentially reconcilable. These include (a) maintaining that ontological and epistemological concerns are important for methodological integrity of a mixed methods study; (b) switching between paradigms in the same study is problematic; and (c) refuting the qualitative-quantitative incommensurability thesis, therefore allowing mixed methods research without compromising philosophical coherence. From a critical realist position, we suggest that both quantitative and qualitative designs are justifiable in a mixed methods study because (1) they help corroborate, refine, or refute plausible explanations of phenomena (epistemological), but (2) with different methodologies utilised to perform different tasks in the same research design related to different psycho-social system features (ontological). We call for a collaborative engagement by researchers across paradigmatic positions to work towards the advancement of methodological pluralism in our research community.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

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

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 114 citations exist upstream.

References

1998Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory 2007Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research 2004Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come 2010Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research 2010Qualitative Quality: Eight “Big-Tent” Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research 1999Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches 2013A Realist Theory of Science 2017Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology

Cited by

2023Conducting and Writing Quantitative and Qualitative Research 2020Defining and characterizing organizational resilience in elite sport 2020From athletic talent development to dual career development? A case study in a Finnish high performance sports environment 2024An Integrated Perspective of Effort and Perception of Effort 2023Interdisciplinary sport injury research and the integration of qualitative and quantitative data

Explore the map →

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

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.