ABSTRACT
The opportunity to engage dissonance and incongruities in the results emerging from different methods is a unique benefit of a mixed methods approach. When pursued systematically, these are often associated with original insight. The chapter begins broadly with a discussion of different sources of dissonance in mixed methods research, including when findings from different sources of data or analytical procedures are not in agreement, when findings dispute extant theory, or when the analysis reveals limitations of long-standing measures or instruments. It shifts next to an acknowledgment that attitudes toward dissonance and how it should be resolved varies by philosophical paradigm. The remaining sections of the chapter are designed to arm the reader with a wide array of procedures they could deploy to engage unexpected findings. It provides an extended discussion of two exemplars and a number of examples that used mixed methods with grounded theory to illustrate a range of methodological strategies that can aid in the systematic investigation of discordant findings. A third example utilized mixed methods and case study to build theory. The chapter closes by considering the implications of prioritizing dissonance, and consequently complexity, in the design of MM-GTM.
