Journal of Mixed Methods Research

http://mmr.sagepub.com/

Editorial: The New Era of Mixed Methods

Abbas Tashakkori and John W. Creswell
Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2007 1: 3
DOI: 10.1177/2345678906293042

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://mmr.sagepub.com/content/1/1/3

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Mixed Methods Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://mmr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://mmr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://mmr.sagepub.com/content/1/1/3.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 2007

What is This?

Downloaded from mmr.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012

4 Journal of Mixed Methods Research

two seemed interchangeable. However, on more careful examination, we found distinct

differences between them with the former more closely focused on ‘‘methods’’ and the lat-
ter on ‘‘methodology.’’
A number of scholars have alluded to such inconsistencies (Morse, 1991; Sandelowski,
2003; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003). The need for distinguishing between studies that uti-
lize two types of data without serious integration and those that integrate the findings of
the qualitative and quantitative strands/arms has been expressed by some scholars.1 There
have also been attempts to distinguish between mixing within a single phase/strand (see
Patton, 1990; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998) of a study and mixing across phases/strands
(e.g., sequential designs; Creswell, 2003).
A quick search of the Internet or the academic databases would identify a large variety
of studies in the social, behavioral, and health sciences that are explicitly labeled mixed
methods. A quick comparison of these studies will reveal that they are considered
‘‘mixed’’ because they utilize qualitative or quantitative approaches in one or more of the
following ways:

• two types of research questions (with qualitative and quantitative approaches),

• the manner in which the research questions are developed (participatory vs. preplanned),
• two types of sampling procedures (e.g., probability and purposive; see Teddlie & Yu, 2006
[this issue]),
• two types of data collection procedures (e.g., focus groups and surveys),
• two types of data (e.g., numerical and textual),
• two types of data analysis (statistical and thematic), and
• two types of conclusions (emic and etic representations, ‘‘objective’’ and ‘‘subjective,’’ etc.).

As an effort to be as inclusive as possible, we have broadly defined mixed methods here

as research in which the investigator collects and analyzes data, integrates the findings,
and draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches or methods in a
single study or a program of inquiry. A key concept in this definition is integration (a topic
addressed by Bryman in this issue). We invite mixed methodologists and mixed methods
scholars to make comments on this definition, as well as the issues of integration.
Mixed methods is still developing and will do so for years to come. There are important
unresolved issues, and unexplored aspects that need to be explored, in addition to the core
issue of defining the nature of mixed methods research. Another issue is how to conduct a
mixed methods study, one especially important for beginning researchers who undertake
this approach for the first time. But it is also important for experienced researchers who
develop proposals for grants and advise students. The philosophical underpinnings of
mixed methods is widely discussed, and questions about whether one philosophy such as
pragmatism (a topic addressed by Morgan in this issue), multiple worldviews, or world-
views that relate to the methods used in a particular study are valued and used within the
mixed methods community. This discussion also raises concerns about whether paradigms
can be mixed (or integrated) in a mixed methods study, where this occurs in the process,
and how it is done also occupy the attention of writers.
Some individuals seek to discuss the value or ‘‘yield’’ of mixed methods research and
call for establishing how and in what way it provides better findings about our research

Downloaded from mmr.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012

 Tashakkori, Creswell / Editorial 5

problems than using either qualitative or quantitative approaches alone. Still others seek
to look closely at the language developing within the field of mixed methods, and these
calls range from building consensus around terms to opening up the possibilities to decon-
structing the terms in popular use. Related to this topic is the reflection of some about who
controls the discourse in mixed methods research and whether this discourse is open
enough at this stage of development for a wide audience of disciplines and international
discussions. Finally, we see individuals mapping the diffusion and adoption of mixed
methods in different fields of study with unique problems and modes of inquiry as well as
within the context of world cultures. As interest in mixed methods spreads, we will
undoubtedly see special discipline applications as well as approaches to interdisciplinary
team research emerge.
These issues and many more will be reflected in the future pages of the JMMR. They
are also reflected in articles presented in this issue. Alan Bryman, in the first article, opens
with a concern about the use of the term integration and the factors that impede research-
ers from bringing together qualitative and quantitative results in their studies. He focuses
our attention on the ‘‘writing up’’ stage of research, the ‘‘value’’ that results from our
mixed methods studies, and whether better integration might actually enhance our studies.
Laura Bernardi, Sylvia Keim, and Holger von der Lippe, in the second article, present
an empirically based article employing mixed methods in the population and family
research area. Through the combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection and
analysis, they investigate the effects of social influence on family formation among young
adults in two German cities. They integrated qualitative and quantitative data through the
structure of two case studies. In the end of their article, they reflect on the several ways
their study contributes to the mixed methods literature—by its use of a concurrent design
structure, by sampling relatively homogeneous cases for comparisons, and by using rigor-
ous standards for their research. Again, how we design our studies plays out as an actual
study unfolds.
In the third article, by David L. Morgan, we turn to an essay on the philosophical under-
pinnings of mixed methods research. This essay reviews the many perspectives about the
term paradigm, and especially how its use in qualitative research has grown and developed
in research. Specifically, Morgan talks about a ‘‘metaphysical paradigm’’ that was initiated
within qualitative research to replace the ‘‘positivistic paradigm’’ of research. Morgan cri-
tically appraises this ‘‘metaphysical paradigm’’ that emphasized, in his opinion, the defin-
ing characteristics of paradigms, the incommensurable kinds of knowledge, and the
disconnect of its belief system from practice. As an alternative, Morgan recommends the
‘‘pragmatic approach’’ emanating from ideas from John Dewey, William James, and
George Herbert Mead. The great strength, he says, of this approach is its emphasis on the
connection between philosophical concerns about the nature of knowledge and the techni-
cal concerns about the methods that we use to generate that knowledge.
The final paper returns us to the domain of discussing the methods of conducting mixed
methods research. Charles Teddlie and Fen Yu take us into the sampling procedures of
mixed methods research by first reviewing the traditional probability sampling techniques
followed by the traditional purposive sampling techniques. After considering the issues
important in sampling in mixed methods, they present a typology of mixed methods sam-
pling strategies, with a focus on the nomenclature and language, and the types of designs

Downloaded from mmr.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012

6 Journal of Mixed Methods Research

often employed in conducting mixed methods studies. They end with guidelines for mixed
methods sampling that researchers might use in assembling their sampling procedures for
a mixed methods study.
The two reviews (by Manfred Max Bergman and Graham Gibbs) that end this issue
focus on a new book recently authored by John Brewer and Albert Hunter (2006) on mul-
timethod research and a popular qualitative software package, Atlas.ti, and its application
to mixed methods research.
We hope that these topics and those to come in the future will stimulate your thinking
about mixed methods research and promote healthy debate and dialogue among mixed
methods researchers. We encourage you to submit manuscripts to this new journal,
become an active member in this world community of scholars, and add your voice to this
ongoing discussion.

Abbas Tashakkori
John W. Creswell
Editors

Note
1. Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) attempted to distinguish between mixed methods (mixed in the methods
of study) and mixed model (mixed in more than the methods, including the questions and conclusions). Fol-
lowing the recent developments in conceptualization of mixed methods, they abandon this distinction. Instead,
they place mixed methods studies in two broad families of mixed studies and quasi-mixed studies. The latter
identifies studies in which a serious integration of the findings/inferences does not occur (see Teddlie &
Tashakkori, 2006).

References
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (2006). Foundations of multimethod research: Synthesizing styles (2nd ed.). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method analysis. In
J. C. Greene & V. J. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of
integrating diverse paradigms (New Directions for Evaluation No. 74, pp. 5-17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Morse, J. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research,
40(2), 120-123.
Newman, I., & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive
continuum. Carbondale: University of Illinois Press.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sandelowski, M. (2003). Tables or tableux? The challenges of writing and reading mixed methods studies. In
A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp.
297-319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Downloaded from mmr.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012

 Tashakkori, Creswell / Editorial 7

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social
and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social &
behavioral research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods.
Research in the Schools, 13(1), 12-28.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2006). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 1: 77-100.

Downloaded from mmr.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on December 7, 2012