A very informative article especially about the (US) background. However, one factor that seems to be crucial, at least in some applied researchi n the UK is the requirements of funding bodies for mixed methods, regardless of any philosophical or theoretical commitments. It is a kind of administrative pragmatism, aimed at producing some ‘balanced’ and ‘credible’ findings. I am of the view that at least some of the enthusiasm for mixed methods comes from this ‘political’ pressure from funders. Hardly surprising if you take the view in ANT and elsewhere that all ‘science’ is political?
I understand the call for a distinctive third methodology, especially since my brain straddles the fence in the qualitative/quantitative debate. In the nonprofit sector, research is hampered by the lack of data and the need to generate data on a project by project basis that is rich with detail and applicable to practitioners. Greene makes a moving argument for a third distinct methodology. Isn’t this already the case? With as much research as I have uncovered, a journal devoted to it – Journal of Mixed Methods – isn’t this already covered? Who gives approval, Creswell? Perhaps it would be when the PhD programs begin teaching it, independent of other research methods courses. It would then be accepted as a third methodology.
As a member of that Editorial board at JMMR, I can assure that the journal operates in the traditional manner, including the use of flock of outside reviewers, although Creswell and Tashakkori (as editors), do indeed make the final decisions.