Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/108521
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Type: Journal article
Title: Current mixed methods practices in qualitative research: a content analysis of leading journals
Author: Archibald, M.
Radil, A.
Zhang, X.
Hansen, W.
Citation: International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2015; 14(2):5-33
Publisher: University of Alberta
Issue Date: 2015
ISSN: 1609-4069
1609-4069
Statement of
Responsibility: 
Mandy M. Archibald, Amanda I. Radil, Xiaozhou Zhang, William E. Hanson
Abstract: Mixed methods research (MMR) has become increasingly popular in recent years. Yet, methodological challenges of mixing qualitative and quantitative data remain. Understanding how MMR is approached in qualitative research journals provides insights into lingering mixing issues. In this article, we content analyzed five leading qualitative research journals from 2003 to 2014, which represents the reflective period of MMR. Of the 5,254 articles published, 94, or 1.79%, were mixed methods in nature, comprising 44 theoretically oriented articles and 50 empirical articles. In terms of theoretical articles, five content-based themes were identified: (a) MMR advocacy, (b) philosophy issues, (c) procedural suggestions, (d) practical issues and best practices, and (e) future directions. In terms of empirical articles, 36% used exploratory sequential designs, primarily to develop instruments, and 52% explicitly identified as MMR. None of the studies included MMR questions, and development (21%) and complementarity (14%) were the primary rationales for mixing. In virtually all studies (98%), mixing occurred at the data interpretation stage through some comparison of qualitative and quantitative research. Qualitative data were prioritized in 86% of the studies. Based on these findings, it appears that MMR affects qualitative research most directly by influencing study design and study purpose; however, there is a strong tendency to conduct and publish qualitative and quantitative studies separately. Recommendations for publishing future MMR are discussed.
Keywords: Mixed methods research; qualitative research; content analysis; systematic review; integration; multiple research methods; publishing
Rights: © 2015 Archibald, Radil, Zhang, Hanson. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License 4.0 International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.1177/160940691501400205
Published version: http://proxy.library.adelaide.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=103298352&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 3
Nursing publications

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
hdl_108521.pdfPublished version1.33 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.