ABSTRACT
In this review, we examine current practices in mixing methods in communication research. We examined 209 mixed-method organizational communication articles published between 1994 and 2014. Our analysis revealed four trends: (1) the dominance of single-paradigm, interpretive studies; (2) the preponderance of triangulation, complementarity, and development as purposes for mixing methods; (3) varied combinations of methods; and (4) a lack of mixed methods citations. In response to findings, we clarify the value proposition of mixing methods, suggest criteria for when communication researchers should or should not consider mixing methods, and recommend strategies for greater transparency in the reporting of mixed-method research.
