ABSTRACT
Deploying more than one method of data collection and/or analysis in empirical research is certainly not a new phenomenon. Indeed, it is often an intuitive and practical response to the varied demands of understanding the dynamic and multifaceted nature of human practices and the (social) world. To this end, researchers have long been drawing on various traditions, techniques, and tools in order to gain further insight into an array of research problems. Resultantly, we should not view the rise of a specific mixed-methods literature as indicative of a new, or “third” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004), way of doing research, but an attempt to encourage and enable researchers to make considered and justified choices for practices they have already been undertaking. Such is the need for careful and considerate examination of mixed-methods research that Denzin notes “we are 30 to 40 years deep into a multiple, mixed-methods discourse, and we still can’t define the method or be clear on its benefits” (2012, p. 82). The purpose of this chapter is not to prescribe or proscribe any particular approaches to developing mixed-methods research, nor to make any claim as to what counts as mixed-methods research as related to the type of methods used, location and extent of mixing in the research process. Rather, following Greene, Benjamin, and Goodyear (2001, p. 29) the purpose of this chapter is to encourage and facilitate “thoughtful mixed-method planning” so that any researcher considering using more than one method will make explicit and defensible choices in designing and carrying out their research. In doing so, I hope to encourage quantitative researchers to be more considerate of the complexities of qualitative methodologies, and for qualitative researchers to seek opportunities for deploying quantitative methods.
