Mixed Methods: Readings about Designing and Publishing Research

Categories: Data Analysis, Data Collection, Focus Series, Getting published, Mixed, Research Skills, Uncategorised

Tags:

Mixed and multimethods research are our focus for May. This tag will take you to the series as it unfolds.

Dr. Michael Fetters is our Mentor-in-Residence and webinar panelist. He is the editor of the SAGE Journal of Mixed Methods Research, an interdisciplinary, international publication, and author of the practical new Mixed Methods Workbook.

Joint Display Analysis for Mixed Methods Research
Webinar slides and recording.

Readings relevant to the webinar:

Two studies mentioned in the webinar are open access through these links only.

See this example using the open-access link, ungated until August 18, 2020.

Bustamante, C. (2019). TPACK and Teachers of Spanish: Development of a Theory-Based Joint Display in a Mixed Methods Research Case Study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(2), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817712119

Abstract. This article describes the development of a joint display in a mixed methods research case study, using a theoretical framework as the start point. A case study of professional development on Web 2.0 technologies for teachers of Spanish illustrates how the qualitative results from interviews, observations, and documents, and quantitative results from pre, post, and follow-up surveys were integrated via a joint display using the TPACK model. The discussion focuses on the role of joint displays in data merging and how they facilitate the representation of fit of data integration, enriching the results in convergent designs.



Another example of joint display analysis is open access until June 30, 2020 through this link.

Peroff, D. M., Morais, D. B., Seekamp, E., Sills, E., & Wallace, T. (2019). Assessing Residents’ Place Attachment to the Guatemalan Maya Landscape Through Mixed Methods Photo Elicitation. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819845800

Abstract. We developed mixed methods photo elicitation to mitigate cultural and language barriers and to acquire deeper understandings of indigenous participants’ place attachment. We define mixed methods photo elicitation to integrate quantitative rankings of photos with qualitative induction of the meanings ascribed to the photos. Multidimensional scaling is used to thematically analyze the resulting photo clusters in relation to qualitative investigation of photo meanings. We also introduce a novel approach to a mixed methods joint display, which was used to visualize emerging themes and reveal how quantitative and qualitative findings are integrated. Reacting to a collection of landscape photographs endemic to rural Guatemala, indigenous farmers expressed place dependence to landscapes for economic and noneconomic reasons, and place identity for sociocultural reasons.


Open-access articles and editorials by Dr. Michael Fetters

Moseholm, E., & Fetters, M. D. (2017). Conceptual models to guide integration during analysis in convergent mixed methods studies. Methodological Innovations. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799117703118

Abstract. Methodologists have offered general strategies for integration in mixed-methods studies through merging of quantitative and qualitative data. While these strategies provide researchers in the field general guidance on how to integrate data during mixed-methods analysis, a methodological typology detailing specific analytic frameworks has been lacking. The purpose of this article is to introduce a typology of analytical approaches for mixed-methods data integration in mixed-methods convergent studies. We distinguish three dimensions of data merging analytics: (1) the relational dimension, (2) the methodological dimension, and (3) the directional dimension. Five different frameworks for data merging relative to the methodological and directional dimension in convergent mixed-methods studies are described: (1) the explanatory unidirectional approach, (2) the exploratory unidirectional approach, (3) the simultaneous bidirectional approach, (4) the explanatory bidirectional approach, and (5) the exploratory bidirectional approach. Examples from empirical studies are used to illustrate each type. Researchers can use this typology to inform and articulate their analytical approach during the design, implementation, and reporting phases to convey clearly how an integrated approach to data merging occurred.

Fetters, M. D., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2019). A Checklist of Mixed Methods Elements in a Submission for Advancing the Methodology of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4), 414–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819875832

As the Co-Editors-in-Chief at the Journal of Mixed Methods Research (JMMR) we are excited with the growing number of scholars around the world who are conducting highly innovative mixed methods studies and submitting their innovative mixed methods work to the journal. With the growth in interest, we have seen an increase among authors new to the journal who are less familiar with the elements that constitute a compelling mixed methods study. We appreciate and applaud the highly thoughtful and innovative ideas from the current mixed methods researchers community. Herein, our purpose is to provide transparency about elements in articles that we believe help advance the methodology of mixed methods research, and guidance to those new to the mixed methods research community through the use of a checklist.

Fetters, M. D., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2019). A Call for Expanding Philosophical Perspectives to Create a More “Worldly” Field of Mixed Methods: The Example of Yinyang Philosophy. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(1), 15–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818816886

In this editorial, we briefly review a series of worldviews that have been articulated to support mixed methods inquiry that emerged partially in response to the paradigm wars in mixed methods. While emphasizing their value, we also note the articulated philosophies largely reflect North American and European thought. Worldviews from other regions of the world remain noticeably absent from discussions about the philosophical underpinnings of mixed methods. After a sabbatical teaching and conducting research in China, one of us (MDF) experienced firsthand the potential and relevance for yinyang philosophy to render mixed methods understandable and to feel more accessible to an Asian audience. Here, we introduce how yinyang philosophy adds a novel perspective for unifying qualitative and quantitative research as a value-added “mixed methods whole.” Finally, we make a call for scholars around the world to consider their own unique cultural traditions and thinking, and introduce these worldviews to the global mixed methods community.

Fetters, M. D. (2018). Six Equations to Help Conceptualize the Field of Mixed Methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 262–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818779433

In my mixed methods voyage, I have encountered philosophers, methodologists, empirical researchers, and other scholars who interface with the field of mixed methods with very different backgrounds and ways of thinking, some much more qualitatively oriented in their thinking, and others much more quantitatively oriented. Through this journey, I have discovered the power of mathematical equations to convey core concepts mixed methodology experts grapple with. After publication of the editorial “The 1 + 1 = 3 Integration Challenge” (Fetters & Freshwater, 2015), I heard both a warm reception for its power, as well as criticism that mixed methods was more than could be expressed in this single equation. This prompted me to think further about how additional equations might help conceptualize the field. In the interest of providing an “equation framework” to help conceptualize some of the compelling issues in the field of mixed methods, I offer the following six equations.

Fetters, M. D., & Freshwater, D. (2015). Publishing a Methodological Mixed Methods Research Article. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815594687

At the Journal of Mixed Methods Research (JMMR), we welcome and encourage methodological/theoretical and original empirical mixed methods submissions. But to make the odds better for a competitive submission, we wanted to become more transparent about our expectations. The particular focus of this editorial is to share our experience both with common reasons for desk rejections, and to promote elements of rigorous methodological/theoretical and empirical mixed methods research papers that have been proven to be successful at JMMR. This editorial builds and expands on the previous suggestions of Mertens in 2011 (Mertens, 2011). At JMMR, we seek original mixed methods studies written to illustrate or emphasize novel methodological procedures or innovative applications. We are very excited about the growing number of purely empirical mixed methods studies, but JMMR is not the optimal venue if authors only seek to present the results of original mixed methods research. An ever-growing number of journals in many fields are publishing rigorous and compelling, mixed methods studies. Thus, original papers solely presenting results without consideration of unique methodological issues should be submitted to a journal focused on the specific content. The most successful empirical original mixed methods papers at JMMR use content-specific findings to illustrate methodological issues.

Molina-Azorin, J. F., & Fetters, M. D. (2016). Mixed Methods Research Prevalence Studies: Field-Specific Studies on the State of the Art of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(2), 123–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816636707

The Journal of Mixed Methods Research (JMMR) has always welcomed two main kinds of manuscripts: original empirical articles and methodological/theoretical articles (Creswell & Tashakkori, 2007Fetters & Freshwater, 2015aMertens, 2011). Both types of articles must clearly state methodological aims, review mixed methods literature relative to the methodological aim, and advance the field of mixed methods—empirical articles must address integration (Fetters & Freshwater, 2015b). In this editorial, our purpose is to provide insight into a specific type of methodological/theoretical article welcome at the journal, namely, mixed methods research (MMR) prevalence studies. Our purpose here is to situate where MMR prevalence studies fit into the overall MMR methodological literature and to review essential elements needed in rigorous MMR prevalence articles to be successful at JMMR.

Relevant MethodSpace Posts

Leave a Reply