Advertisement

Content Analysis in Mixed Methods Research

  • Kristina MikkonenEmail author
  • Helvi Kyngäs
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter aims to present the philosophical background of mixed methods approaches, demonstrate how they are used in the context of nursing science, and provide examples of how content analysis can be applied in this research approach. Mixed methods approaches are relevant to nursing science as they allow researchers to gain insight into little-explored research topics by using qualitative methods to focus on human experiences and quantitative methods to translate these experiences into clearly defined concepts. The value of qualitative methods in mixed methods approaches is that they can reveal information that would have been impossible to uncover through quantitative methodologies alone. The chapter concludes with a critical evaluation of the benefits and challenges of mixed methods approaches.

Keywords

Content analysis Mixed methods Qualitative research Quantitative research Research method 

References

  1. 1.
    McEwen M, Wills EM. Theoretical basis for nursing. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meleis AI. Theoretical nursing: development and progress. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allmark P, Machaczek K. Realism and Pragmatism in a mixed methods study. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74:1301–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Edwards SD. What is philosophy of nursing? J Adv Nurs. 1997;25:1089–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Playle JF. Humanism and positivism in nursing: contradictions and conflicts. J Adv Nurs. 1995;22:979–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Giuliano KK. Expending the use of empiricism in nursing: can we bridge the gap between knowledge and clinical practice? Nurs Philos. 2003;4(3):44–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    David S. Critical realism and empirical research methods in education. J Philos Educ. 2005;39(4):633–46.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9752.2005.00460.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maxwell J, Mittapalli K. Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2010. p. 145–68.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62:107–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Regnault A, Willgoss T, Barbic S, International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Mixed Methods Special Interest Group (SIG). Towards the use of mixed methods inquiry as best practice in health outcomes research. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2017;2:19.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0043-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wiens V. Well-being of the adolescent girls in Northern Finland—a hypothetical model. Acta Univ. Oul. D 1498. University of Oulu; 2018. http://urn.fi/urn:isbn:9789.
  13. 13.
    DeVellis R. Scale development. Theory and applications. 3rd ed. Newbury Park: Sage; 2012.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Anguera MT, Portell M, Chacon-Moscoso S, Sanduvete-Chaves S. Indirect observation in everyday contexts: concepts and methodological guidelines within a mixed methods framework. Front Psychol. 2018;9:13.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00013.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kyngäs H, Skaar-Chandler C, Duffy M. The development of an instrument to measure the compliance of adolescents with chronic disease (CDCI). J Adv Nurs. 2000;32:1499–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Loehlin JC, Beaujean AA. Latent variable models: an introduction to factor, path, and structural equation analysis. 5th ed. New York: Routledge; 2016.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315643199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carmen DT, Roger SZ, Fuller WB, Guoyao W, Raymond JC. Functional multiple indicators, multiple causes measurement error models. Biometrics. 2017;74:127–34.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Isohätälä J, Louis JN, Mikkonen K, Pyhältö K. Towards a doctoral degree and future career: perceptions of doctoral students at the University of Oulu. Acta Univ. Oul. F 12, Scripta Academica; University of Oulu; 2017. http://jultika.oulu.fi/Record/isbn978-952-62-1675-1.
  19. 19.
    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Unit of Nursing Science and Health ManagementOulu UniversityOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations