Advertisement

The Use of Mixed Methods in Research

  • Kate A. McBrideEmail author
  • Freya MacMillan
  • Emma S. George
  • Genevieve Z. Steiner
Living reference work entry
First Online:

Abstract

Mixed methods research is becoming increasingly popular and is widely acknowledged as a means of achieving a more complex understanding of research problems. Combining both the in-depth, contextual views of qualitative research with the broader generalizations of larger population quantitative approaches, mixed methods research can be used to produce a rigorous and credible source of data. Using this methodology, the same core issue is investigated through the collection, analysis, and interpretation of both types of data within one study or a series of studies. Multiple designs are possible and can be guided by philosophical assumptions. Both qualitative and quantitative data can be collected simultaneously or sequentially (in any order) through a multiphase project. Integration of the two data sources then occurs with consideration is given to the weighting of both sources; these can either be equal or one can be prioritized over the other. Designed as a guide for novice mixed methods researchers, this chapter gives an overview of the historical and philosophical roots of mixed methods research. We also provide a practical overview of its application in health research as well as pragmatic considerations for those wishing to undertake mixed methods research.

Keywords

Mixed methods Concurrent triangulation Sequential exploratory Sequential explanatory Convergent parallel Embedded design Transformative design Multiphase design 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Appleton JV, King L. Journeying from the philosophical contemplation of constructivism to the methodological pragmatics of health services research. J Adv Nurs. 2002;40(6):641–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baba CT, Oliveira IM, Silva AEF, Vieira LM, Cerri NC, Florindo AA, de Oliveira Gomes GA. Evaluating the impact of a walking program in a disadvantaged area: using the RE-AIM framework by mixed methods. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):709.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4698-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bryman A. The research question in social research: what is its role? Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2007;10(1):5–20.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570600655282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryman A. The end of the paradigm wars. In: Alasuutari P, Bickman L, Brannen J, editors. The Sage handbook of social research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2008. p. 13–25.Google Scholar
  5. Caracelli VJ, Greene JC. Data-analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educ Eval Policy Anal. 1993;15(2):195–207.  https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737015002195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castro FG, Kellison JG, Boyd SJ, Kopak A. A methodology for conducting integrative mixed methods research and data analyses. J Mixed Methods Res. 2010;4(4):342–60.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689810382916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Center for Innovation in Teaching in Research. Choosing a mixed methods design. 2017. Retrieved 15 Nov 2017 from https://cirt.gcu.edu/research/developmentresources/research_ready/mixed_methods/choosing_design.
  8. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2018.Google Scholar
  9. Curry LA, Krumholz HM, O’Cathain A, Clark VLP, Cherlin E, Bradley EH. Mixed methods in biomedical and health services research. Circ-Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6(1):119–23.  https://doi.org/10.1161/circoutcomes.112.967885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Denscombe M. Communities of practice: a research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. J Mixed Methods Res. 2008;2(3):270–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doyle L, Brady A-M, Byrne G. An overview of mixed methods research. J Res Nurs. 2009;14(2):175–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foster NE, Bishop A, Bartlam B, Ogollah R, Barlas P, Holden M, … Young J. Evaluating acupuncture and standard carE for pregnant women with back pain (EASE back): a feasibility study and pilot randomised trial. Health Technol Assess. 2016;20(33):1–236.  https://doi.org/10.3310/hta20330.
  13. Haider AH, Schneider EB, Kodadek LM, Adler RR, Ranjit A, Torain M, … Lau BD. Emergency department query for patient-centered approaches to sexual orientation and gender identity the EQUALITY study. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(6):819–828.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0906.
  14. Harding KE, Taylor NF, Bowers B, Stafford M, Leggat SG. Clinician and patient perspectives of a new model of triage in a community rehabilitation program that reduced waiting time: a qualitative analysis. Aust Health Rev. 2013;37(3):324–30.  https://doi.org/10.1071/ah13033.Google Scholar
  15. Hoddinott P, Britten J, Prescott GJ, Tappin D, Ludbrook A, Godden DJ. Effectiveness of policy to provide breastfeeding groups ( BIG) for pregnant and breastfeeding mothers in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial. Br Med J. 2009;338:a3026, 10.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a3026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ivankova NV, Creswell JW, Stick SL. Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: from theory to practice. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):3–20.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x05282260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson B, Gray R. A history of philosophical and theoretical issues for mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2010. p. 69–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson BR, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Res. 2004;33(7):14–26.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x033007014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keeney S, McKenna H, Fleming P, McIlfatrick S. Attitudes to cancer and cancer prevention: what do people aged 35–54 years think? Eur J Cancer Care. 2010;19(6):769–77.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2354.2009.01137.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McBride KA, Ballinger ML, Schlub TE, Young MA, Tattersall MHN, Kirk J, et al. Psychosocial morbidity in TP53 mutation carriers: is whole-body cancer screening beneficial? Familial Cancer. 2017;16(3):423–32.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-016-9964-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mertens DM. Transformative mixed methods: addressing inequities. Am Behav Sci. 2012;56(6):802–13.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211433797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moffatt S, White M, Mackintosh J, Howel D. Using quantitative and qualitative data in health services research – what happens when mixed method findings conflict? BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:28.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morse JM. Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nurs Res. 1991a;40(2):120–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morse JM. Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In: Tashakkori A, Teddilie C, editors. SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1991b.Google Scholar
  25. Mutrie N, Doolin O, Fitzsimons CF, Grant PM, Granat M, Grealy M, et al. Increasing older adults’ walking through primary care: results of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Fam Pract. 2012;29(6):633–42.  https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cms038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Newman I, Ridenour C, Newman C, De Marco G. A typology of research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2003. p. 167–88.Google Scholar
  27. O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(2):92–8.  https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Collins KMT. A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. Qual Rep. 2007;12(2):281–316.Google Scholar
  29. Plano Clark VL, Badiee M. Research questions in mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2010. p. 275–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prades, J., Algara, M., Espinas, J. A., Farrus, B., Arenas, M., Reyes, V., . . . Borras, J. M. (2017). Understanding variations in the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy and its specific indications for breast cancer: a mixed-methods study. Radiother Oncol, 123(1), 22–28. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2017.01.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tariq S, Woodman J. Using mixed methods in health research. JRSM Short Rep. 2013;4(6):1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2042533313479197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tashakkori A, Creswell JW. Editorial: the new era of mixed methods. J Mixed Methods Res. 2007;1(1):3–7.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906293042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tashakkori A, Teddlie C. The past and future of mixed methods research: from data triangulation to mixed model designs. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2003. p. 671–701.Google Scholar
  34. Teddlie C, Tashakkori A. Foundations of mixed methods research: integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2009.Google Scholar
  35. Teddlie C, Yu F. Mixed methods sampling a typology with examples. J Mixed Methods Res. 2007;1(1):77–100.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292430.Google Scholar
  36. Wellard SJ, Rasmussen B, Savage S, Dunning T. Exploring staff diabetes medication knowledge and practices in regional residential care: triangulation study. J Clin Nurs. 2013;22(13–14):1933–40.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhang W. Mixed methods application in health intervention research: a multiple case study. Int J Mult Res Approaches. 2014;8(1):24–35.  https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2014.8.1.24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kate A. McBride
    • 1
    Email author
  • Freya MacMillan
    • 2
  • Emma S. George
    • 2
  • Genevieve Z. Steiner
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Medicine and Translational Health Research InstituteWestern Sydney UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of Science and HealthWestern Sydney UniversitySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.NICMWestern Sydney UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations

Cite entry