example of a mixed method research proposal

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Developing a Mixed Methods Proposal A Practical Guide for Beginning Researchers

• Jessica T. DeCuir-Gunby - University of Southern California, USA
• Paul A. Schutz - University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
• Description

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

“This text is one of the most superior texts that I have come across in Mixed Methods Research. This is a gem of a book and a must have for any serious-minded researcher.”

“This book provides the clarity of a proven design approach, so common mistakes or more often oversights don’t happen.”

“The book can serve as a reference for my students’ dissertation writing. Also, from teaching point of view, the book also provides good activities for the instructors to use in their instructions.”

We have all waited a long time for a good book on developing a mixed methods proposal. DeCuir-Gunby and Schutz have delivered this book to us. They write in clear, straight-forward language, they include the latest advances in mixed methods, they incorporate activities, further readings, and sample sessions illustrating the use of each chapter's content. I especially liked the ‘real-world’ sample proposal at the end on racial microaggressions. I will encourage workshop participants and students to study this chapter closely. This is a must-read book in the field of mixed methods .

Well structured book which gets to the heart of its subject matter. Easy to read, and additional thinking points should catalyse the student reader's imagination.

• Chapter-opening Learning Objectives provide readers with a road map to each chapter’s topics.
• A practical, accessible “Practice Session” in each chapter includes guided questions, exercises, and extra resources to help novice researchers master each step in the mixed methods research process.
• “Sample Sessions” following the “Practice Sessions” use a real-world research example focusing on racial microaggressions to demonstrate how to complete each exercise.
• Helpful suggestions on the writing process, selecting a dissertation committee, and gaining approval from the Institutional Review Board provide additional guidance for beginning researchers.

Sample Materials & Chapters

For instructors, select a purchasing option, related products.

This title is also available on SAGE Research Methods , the ultimate digital methods library. If your library doesn’t have access, ask your librarian to start a trial .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Language: English | German

How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design

Wie man ein mixed methods-forschungs-design konstruiert, judith schoonenboom.

1 Institut für Bildungswissenschaft, Universität Wien, Sensengasse 3a, 1090 Wien, Austria

R. Burke Johnson

2 Department of Professional Studies, University of South Alabama, UCOM 3700, 36688-0002 Mobile, AL USA

This article provides researchers with knowledge of how to design a high quality mixed methods research study. To design a mixed study, researchers must understand and carefully consider each of the dimensions of mixed methods design, and always keep an eye on the issue of validity. We explain the seven major design dimensions: purpose, theoretical drive, timing (simultaneity and dependency), point of integration, typological versus interactive design approaches, planned versus emergent design, and design complexity. There also are multiple secondary dimensions that need to be considered during the design process. We explain ten secondary dimensions of design to be considered for each research study. We also provide two case studies showing how the mixed designs were constructed.

Zusammenfassung

Der Beitrag gibt einen Überblick darüber, wie das Forschungsdesign bei Mixed Methods-Studien angelegt sein sollte. Um ein Mixed Methods-Forschungsdesign aufzustellen, müssen Forschende sorgfältig alle Dimensionen von Methodenkombinationen abwägen und von Anfang an auf die Güte und damit verbundene etwaige Probleme achten. Wir erklären und diskutieren die für Forschungsdesigns relevanten sieben Dimensionen von Methodenkombinationen: Untersuchungsziel, Rolle von Theorie im Forschungsprozess, Timing (Simultanität und Abhängigkeit), Schnittstellen, an denen Integration stattfindet, systematische vs. interaktive Design-Ansätze, geplante vs. emergente Designs und Komplexität des Designs. Es gibt außerdem zahlreiche sekundäre Dimensionen, die bei der Aufstellung des Forschungsdesigns berücksichtigt werden müssen, von denen wir zehn erklären. Der Beitrag schließt mit zwei Fallbeispielen ab, anhand derer konkret gezeigt wird, wie Mixed Methods-Forschungsdesigns aufgestellt werden können.

What is a mixed methods design?

This article addresses the process of selecting and constructing mixed methods research (MMR) designs. The word “design” has at least two distinct meanings in mixed methods research (Maxwell 2013 ). One meaning focuses on the process of design; in this meaning, design is often used as a verb. Someone can be engaged in designing a study (in German: “eine Studie konzipieren” or “eine Studie designen”). Another meaning is that of a product, namely the result of designing. The result of designing as a verb is a mixed methods design as a noun (in German: “das Forschungsdesign” or “Design”), as it has, for example, been described in a journal article. In mixed methods design, both meanings are relevant. To obtain a strong design as a product, one needs to carefully consider a number of rules for designing as an activity. Obeying these rules is not a guarantee of a strong design, but it does contribute to it. A mixed methods design is characterized by the combination of at least one qualitative and one quantitative research component. For the purpose of this article, we use the following definition of mixed methods research (Johnson et al. 2007 , p. 123):

Mixed methods research is the type of research in which a researcher or team of researchers combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e. g., use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the broad purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration.

Mixed methods research (“Mixed Methods” or “MM”) is the sibling of multimethod research (“Methodenkombination”) in which either solely multiple qualitative approaches or solely multiple quantitative approaches are combined.

In a commonly used mixed methods notation system (Morse 1991 ), the components are indicated as qual and quan (or QUAL and QUAN to emphasize primacy), respectively, for qualitative and quantitative research. As discussed below, plus (+) signs refer to concurrent implementation of components (“gleichzeitige Durchführung der Teilstudien” or “paralleles Mixed Methods-Design”) and arrows (→) refer to sequential implementation (“Sequenzielle Durchführung der Teilstudien” or “sequenzielles Mixed Methods-Design”) of components. Note that each research tradition receives an equal number of letters (four) in its abbreviation for equity. In this article, this notation system is used in some depth.

A mixed methods design as a product has several primary characteristics that should be considered during the design process. As shown in Table  1 , the following primary design “dimensions” are emphasized in this article: purpose of mixing, theoretical drive, timing, point of integration, typological use, and degree of complexity. These characteristics are discussed below. We also provide some secondary dimensions to consider when constructing a mixed methods design (Johnson and Christensen 2017 ).

List of Primary and Secondary Design Dimensions

On the basis of these dimensions, mixed methods designs can be classified into a mixed methods typology or taxonomy. In the mixed methods literature, various typologies of mixed methods designs have been proposed (for an overview see Creswell and Plano Clark 2011 , p. 69–72).

The overall goal of mixed methods research, of combining qualitative and quantitative research components, is to expand and strengthen a study’s conclusions and, therefore, contribute to the published literature. In all studies, the use of mixed methods should contribute to answering one’s research questions.

Ultimately, mixed methods research is about heightened knowledge and validity. The design as a product should be of sufficient quality to achieve multiple validities legitimation (Johnson and Christensen 2017 ; Onwuegbuzie and Johnson 2006 ), which refers to the mixed methods research study meeting the relevant combination or set of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods validities in each research study.

Given this goal of answering the research question(s) with validity, a researcher can nevertheless have various reasons or purposes for wanting to strengthen the research study and its conclusions. Following is the first design dimension for one to consider when designing a study: Given the research question(s), what is the purpose of the mixed methods study?

A popular classification of purposes of mixed methods research was first introduced in 1989 by Greene, Caracelli, and Graham, based on an analysis of published mixed methods studies. This classification is still in use (Greene 2007 ). Greene et al. ( 1989 , p. 259) distinguished the following five purposes for mixing in mixed methods research:

1.  Triangulation seeks convergence, corroboration, correspondence of results from different methods; 2.  Complementarity seeks elaboration, enhancement, illustration, clarification of the results from one method with the results from the other method; 3.  Development seeks to use the results from one method to help develop or inform the other method, where development is broadly construed to include sampling and implementation, as well as measurement decisions; 4.  Initiation seeks the discovery of paradox and contradiction, new perspectives of frameworks, the recasting of questions or results from one method with questions or results from the other method; 5.  Expansion seeks to extend the breadth and range of inquiry by using different methods for different inquiry components.

In the past 28 years, this classification has been supplemented by several others. On the basis of a review of the reasons for combining qualitative and quantitative research mentioned by the authors of mixed methods studies, Bryman ( 2006 ) formulated a list of more concrete rationales for performing mixed methods research (see Appendix). Bryman’s classification breaks down Greene et al.’s ( 1989 ) categories into several aspects, and he adds a number of additional aspects, such as the following:

(a)  Credibility – refers to suggestions that employing both approaches enhances the integrity of findings. (b)  Context – refers to cases in which the combination is justified in terms of qualitative research providing contextual understanding coupled with either generalizable, externally valid findings or broad relationships among variables uncovered through a survey. (c)  Illustration – refers to the use of qualitative data to illustrate quantitative findings, often referred to as putting “meat on the bones” of “dry” quantitative findings. (d)  Utility or improving the usefulness of findings – refers to a suggestion, which is more likely to be prominent among articles with an applied focus, that combining the two approaches will be more useful to practitioners and others. (e)  Confirm and discover – this entails using qualitative data to generate hypotheses and using quantitative research to test them within a single project. (f)  Diversity of views – this includes two slightly different rationales – namely, combining researchers’ and participants’ perspectives through quantitative and qualitative research respectively, and uncovering relationships between variables through quantitative research while also revealing meanings among research participants through qualitative research. (Bryman, p. 106)

Views can be diverse (f) in various ways. Some examples of mixed methods design that include a diversity of views are:

• Iteratively/sequentially connecting local/idiographic knowledge with national/general/nomothetic knowledge;
• Learning from different perspectives on teams and in the field and literature;
• Achieving multiple participation, social justice, and action;
• Determining what works for whom and the relevance/importance of context;
• Producing interdisciplinary substantive theory, including/comparing multiple perspectives and data regarding a phenomenon;
• Juxtaposition-dialogue/comparison-synthesis;
• Breaking down binaries/dualisms (some of both);
• Explaining interaction between/among natural and human systems;
• Explaining complexity.

The number of possible purposes for mixing is very large and is increasing; hence, it is not possible to provide an exhaustive list. Greene et al.’s ( 1989 ) purposes, Bryman’s ( 2006 ) rationales, and our examples of a diversity of views were formulated as classifications on the basis of examination of many existing research studies. They indicate how the qualitative and quantitative research components of a study relate to each other. These purposes can be used post hoc to classify research or a priori in the design of a new study. When designing a mixed methods study, it is sometimes helpful to list the purpose in the title of the study design.

The key point of this section is for the researcher to begin a study with at least one research question and then carefully consider what the purposes for mixing are. One can use mixed methods to examine different aspects of a single research question, or one can use separate but related qualitative and quantitative research questions. In all cases, the mixing of methods, methodologies, and/or paradigms will help answer the research questions and make improvements over a more basic study design. Fuller and richer information will be obtained in the mixed methods study.

Theoretical drive

In addition to a mixing purpose, a mixed methods research study might have an overall “theoretical drive” (Morse and Niehaus 2009 ). When designing a mixed methods study, it is occasionally helpful to list the theoretical drive in the title of the study design. An investigation, in Morse and Niehaus’s ( 2009 ) view, is focused primarily on either exploration-and-description or on testing-and-prediction. In the first case, the theoretical drive is called “inductive” or “qualitative”; in the second case, it is called “deductive” or “quantitative”. In the case of mixed methods, the component that corresponds to the theoretical drive is referred to as the “core” component (“Kernkomponente”), and the other component is called the “supplemental” component (“ergänzende Komponente”). In Morse’s notation system, the core component is written in capitals and the supplemental component is written in lowercase letters. For example, in a QUAL → quan design, more weight is attached to the data coming from the core qualitative component. Due to the decisive character of the core component, the core component must be able to stand on its own, and should be implemented rigorously. The supplemental component does not have to stand on its own.

Although this distinction is useful in some circumstances, we do not advise to apply it to every mixed methods design. First, Morse and Niehaus contend that the supplemental component can be done “less rigorously” but do not explain which aspects of rigor can be dropped. In addition, the idea of decreased rigor is in conflict with one key theme of the present article, namely that mixed methods designs should always meet the criterion of multiple validities legitimation (Onwuegbuzie and Johnson 2006 ).

The idea of theoretical drive as explicated by Morse and Niehaus has been criticized. For example, we view a theoretical drive as a feature not of a whole study, but of a research question, or, more precisely, of an interpretation of a research question. For example, if one study includes multiple research questions, it might include several theoretical drives (Schoonenboom 2016 ).

Another criticism of Morse and Niehaus’ conceptualization of theoretical drive is that it does not allow for equal-status mixed methods research (“Mixed Methods Forschung, bei der qualitative und quantitative Methoden die gleiche Bedeutung haben” or “gleichrangige Mixed Methods-Designs”), in which both the qualitative and quantitative component are of equal value and weight; this same criticism applies to Morgan’s ( 2014 ) set of designs. We agree with Greene ( 2015 ) that mixed methods research can be integrated at the levels of method, methodology, and paradigm. In this view, equal-status mixed methods research designs are possible, and they result when both the qualitative and the quantitative components, approaches, and thinking are of equal value, they take control over the research process in alternation, they are in constant interaction, and the outcomes they produce are integrated during and at the end of the research process. Therefore, equal-status mixed methods research (that we often advocate) is also called “interactive mixed methods research”.

Mixed methods research can have three different drives, as formulated by Johnson et al. ( 2007 , p. 123):

Qualitative dominant [or qualitatively driven] mixed methods research is the type of mixed research in which one relies on a qualitative, constructivist-poststructuralist-critical view of the research process, while concurrently recognizing that the addition of quantitative data and approaches are likely to benefit most research projects. Quantitative dominant [or quantitatively driven] mixed methods research is the type of mixed research in which one relies on a quantitative, postpositivist view of the research process, while concurrently recognizing that the addition of qualitative data and approaches are likely to benefit most research projects. (p. 124) The area around the center of the [qualitative-quantitative] continuum, equal status , is the home for the person that self-identifies as a mixed methods researcher. This researcher takes as his or her starting point the logic and philosophy of mixed methods research. These mixed methods researchers are likely to believe that qualitative and quantitative data and approaches will add insights as one considers most, if not all, research questions.

We leave it to the reader to decide if he or she desires to conduct a qualitatively driven study, a quantitatively driven study, or an equal-status/“interactive” study. According to the philosophies of pragmatism (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004 ) and dialectical pluralism (Johnson 2017 ), interactive mixed methods research is very much a possibility. By successfully conducting an equal-status study, the pragmatist researcher shows that paradigms can be mixed or combined, and that the incompatibility thesis does not always apply to research practice. Equal status research is most easily conducted when a research team is composed of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed researchers, interacts continually, and conducts a study to address one superordinate goal.

Timing: simultaneity and dependence

Another important distinction when designing a mixed methods study relates to the timing of the two (or more) components. When designing a mixed methods study, it is usually helpful to include the word “concurrent” (“parallel”) or “sequential” (“sequenziell”) in the title of the study design; a complex design can be partially concurrent and partially sequential. Timing has two aspects: simultaneity and dependence (Guest 2013 ).

Simultaneity (“Simultanität”) forms the basis of the distinction between concurrent and sequential designs. In a  sequential design , the quantitative component precedes the qualitative component, or vice versa. In a  concurrent design , both components are executed (almost) simultaneously. In the notation of Morse ( 1991 ), concurrence is indicated by a “+” between components (e. g., QUAL + quan), while sequentiality is indicated with a “→” (QUAL → quan). Note that the use of capital letters for one component and lower case letters for another component in the same design suggest that one component is primary and the other is secondary or supplemental.

Some designs are sequential by nature. For example, in a  conversion design, qualitative categories and themes might be first obtained by collection and analysis of qualitative data, and then subsequently quantitized (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2009 ). Likewise, with Greene et al.’s ( 1989 ) initiation purpose, the initiation strand follows the unexpected results that it is supposed to explain. In other cases, the researcher has a choice. It is possible, e. g., to collect interview data and survey data of one inquiry simultaneously; in that case, the research activities would be concurrent. It is also possible to conduct the interviews after the survey data have been collected (or vice versa); in that case, research activities are performed sequentially. Similarly, a study with the purpose of expansion can be designed in which data on an effect and the intervention process are collected simultaneously, or they can be collected sequentially.

A second aspect of timing is dependence (“Abhängigkeit”) . We call two research components dependent if the implementation of the second component depends on the results of data analysis in the first component. Two research components are independent , if their implementation does not depend on the results of data analysis in the other component. Often, a researcher has a choice to perform data analysis independently or not. A researcher could analyze interview data and questionnaire data of one inquiry independently; in that case, the research activities would be independent. It is also possible to let the interview questions depend upon the outcomes of the analysis of the questionnaire data (or vice versa); in that case, research activities are performed dependently. Similarly, the empirical outcome/effect and process in a study with the purpose of expansion might be investigated independently, or the process study might take the effect/outcome as given (dependent).

In the mixed methods literature, the distinction between sequential and concurrent usually refers to the combination of concurrent/independent and sequential/dependent, and to the combination of data collection and data analysis. It is said that in a concurrent design, the data collection and data analysis of both components occurs (almost) simultaneously and independently, while in a sequential design, the data collection and data analysis of one component take place after the data collection and data analysis of the other component and depends on the outcomes of the other component.

In our opinion, simultaneity and dependence are two separate dimensions. Simultaneity indicates whether data collection is done concurrent or sequentially. Dependence indicates whether the implementation of one component depends upon the results of data analysis of the other component. As we will see in the example case studies, a concurrent design could include dependent data analysis, and a sequential design could include independent data analysis. It is conceivable that one simultaneously conducts interviews and collects questionnaire data (concurrent), while allowing the analysis focus of the interviews to depend on what emerges from the survey data (dependence).

Dependent research activities include a redirection of subsequent research inquiry. Using the outcomes of the first research component, the researcher decides what to do in the second component. Depending on the outcomes of the first research component, the researcher will do something else in the second component. If this is so, the research activities involved are said to be sequential-dependent, and any component preceded by another component should appropriately build on the previous component (see sequential validity legitimation ; Johnson and Christensen 2017 ; Onwuegbuzie and Johnson 2006 ).

It is under the purposive discretion of the researcher to determine whether a concurrent-dependent design, a concurrent-independent design, a sequential-dependent design, or a sequential-dependent design is needed to answer a particular research question or set of research questions in a given situation.

Point of integration

Each true mixed methods study has at least one “point of integration” – called the “point of interface” by Morse and Niehaus ( 2009 ) and Guest ( 2013 ) –, at which the qualitative and quantitative components are brought together. Having one or more points of integration is the distinguishing feature of a design based on multiple components. It is at this point that the components are “mixed”, hence the label “mixed methods designs”. The term “mixing”, however, is misleading, as the components are not simply mixed, but have to be integrated very carefully.

Determining where the point of integration will be, and how the results will be integrated, is an important, if not the most important, decision in the design of mixed methods research. Morse and Niehaus ( 2009 ) identify two possible points of integration: the results point of integration and the analytical point of integration.

Most commonly, integration takes place in the results point of integration . At some point in writing down the results of the first component, the results of the second component are added and integrated. A  joint display (listing the qualitative and quantitative findings and an integrative statement) might be used to facilitate this process.

In the case of an analytical point of integration , a first analytical stage of a qualitative component is followed by a second analytical stage, in which the topics identified in the first analytical stage are quantitized. The results of the qualitative component ultimately, and before writing down the results of the analytical phase as a whole, become quantitative; qualitizing also is a possible strategy, which would be the converse of this.

Other authors assume more than two possible points of integration. Teddlie and Tashakkori ( 2009 ) distinguish four different stages of an investigation: the conceptualization stage, the methodological experimental stage (data collection), the analytical experimental stage (data analysis), and the inferential stage. According to these authors, in all four stages, mixing is possible, and thus all four stages are potential points or integration.

However, the four possible points of integration used by Teddlie and Tashakkori ( 2009 ) are still too coarse to distinguish some types of mixing. Mixing in the experiential stage can take many different forms, for example the use of cognitive interviews to improve a questionnaire (tool development), or selecting people for an interview on the basis of the results of a questionnaire (sampling). Extending the definition by Guest ( 2013 ), we define the point of integration as “any point in a study where two or more research components are mixed or connected in some way”. Then, the point of integration in the two examples of this paragraph can be defined more accurately as “instrument development”, and “development of the sample”.

It is at the point of integration that qualitative and quantitative components are integrated. Some primary ways that the components can be connected to each other are as follows:

(1) merging the two data sets, (2) connecting from the analysis of one set of data to the collection of a second set of data, (3) embedding of one form of data within a larger design or procedure, and (4) using a framework (theoretical or program) to bind together the data sets (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011 , p. 76).

More generally, one can consider mixing at any or all of the following research components: purposes, research questions, theoretical drive, methods, methodology, paradigm, data, analysis, and results. One can also include mixing views of different researchers, participants, or stakeholders. The creativity of the mixed methods researcher designing a study is extensive.

Substantively, it can be useful to think of integration or mixing as comparing and bringing together two (or more) components on the basis of one or more of the purposes set out in the first section of this article. For example, it is possible to use qualitative data to illustrate a quantitative effect, or to determine whether the qualitative and the quantitative component yield convergent results ( triangulation ). An integrated result could also consist of a combination of a quantitatively established effect and a qualitative description of the underlying process . In the case of development, integration consists of an adjustment of an, often quantitative, for example, instrument or model or interpretation, based on qualitative assessments by members of the target group.

A special case is the integration of divergent results. The power of mixed methods research is its ability to deal with diversity and divergence. In the literature, we find two kinds of strategies for dealing with divergent results. A first set of strategies takes the detected divergence as the starting point for further analysis, with the aim to resolve the divergence. One possibility is to carry out further research (Cook 1985 ; Greene and Hall 2010 ). Further research is not always necessary. One can also look for a more comprehensive theory, which is able to account for both the results of the first component and the deviating results of the second component. This is a form of abduction (Erzberger and Prein 1997 ).

A fruitful starting point in trying to resolve divergence through abduction is to determine which component has resulted in a finding that is somehow expected, logical, and/or in line with existing research. The results of this research component, called the “sense” (“Lesart”), are subsequently compared to the results of the other component, called the “anti-sense” (“alternative Lesart”), which are considered dissonant, unexpected, and/or contrary to what had been found in the literature. The aim is to develop an overall explanation that fits both the sense and the anti-sense (Bazeley and Kemp 2012 ; Mendlinger and Cwikel 2008 ). Finally, a reanalysis of the data can sometimes lead to resolving divergence (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011 ).

Alternatively, one can question the existence of the encountered divergence. In this regard, Mathison ( 1988 ) recommends determining whether deviating results shown by the data can be explained by knowledge about the research and/or knowledge of the social world. Differences between results from different data sources could also be the result of properties of the methods involved, rather than reflect differences in reality (Yanchar and Williams 2006 ). In general, the conclusions of the individual components can be subjected to an inference quality audit (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2009 ), in which the researcher investigates the strength of each of the divergent conclusions. We recommend that researchers first determine whether there is “real” divergence, according to the strategies mentioned in the last paragraph. Next, an attempt can be made to resolve cases of “true” divergence, using one or more of the methods mentioned in this paragraph.

Design typology utilization

As already mentioned in Sect. 1, mixed methods designs can be classified into a mixed methods typology or taxonomy. A typology serves several purposes, including the following: guiding practice, legitimizing the field, generating new possibilities, and serving as a useful pedagogical tool (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2009 ). Note, however, that not all types of typologies are equally suitable for all purposes. For generating new possibilities, one will need a more exhaustive typology, while a useful pedagogical tool might be better served by a non-exhaustive overview of the most common mixed methods designs. Although some of the current MM design typologies include more designs than others, none of the current typologies is fully exhaustive. When designing a mixed methods study, it is often useful to borrow its name from an existing typology, or to construct a superior and nuanced clear name when your design is based on a modification of one or more of the designs.

Various typologies of mixed methods designs have been proposed. Creswell and Plano Clark’s ( 2011 ) typology of some “commonly used designs” includes six “major mixed methods designs”. Our summary of these designs runs as follows:

• Convergent parallel design (“paralleles Design”) (the quantitative and qualitative strands of the research are performed independently, and their results are brought together in the overall interpretation),
• Explanatory sequential design (“explanatives Design”) (a first phase of quantitative data collection and analysis is followed by the collection of qualitative data, which are used to explain the initial quantitative results),
• Exploratory sequential design (“exploratives Design”) (a first phase of qualitative data collection and analysis is followed by the collection of quantitative data to test or generalize the initial qualitative results),
• Embedded design (“Einbettungs-Design”) (in a traditional qualitative or quantitative design, a strand of the other type is added to enhance the overall design),
• Transformative design (“politisch-transformatives Design”) (a transformative theoretical framework, e. g. feminism or critical race theory, shapes the interaction, priority, timing and mixing of the qualitative and quantitative strand),
• Multiphase design (“Mehrphasen-Design”) (more than two phases or both sequential and concurrent strands are combined over a period of time within a program of study addressing an overall program objective).

Most of their designs presuppose a specific juxtaposition of the qualitative and quantitative component. Note that the last design is a complex type that is required in many mixed methods studies.

The following are our adapted definitions of Teddlie and Tashakkori’s ( 2009 ) five sets of mixed methods research designs (adapted from Teddlie and Tashakkori 2009 , p. 151):

• Parallel mixed designs (“paralleles Mixed-Methods-Design”) – In these designs, one has two or more parallel quantitative and qualitative strands, either with some minimal time lapse or simultaneously; the strand results are integrated into meta-inferences after separate analysis are conducted; related QUAN and QUAL research questions are answered or aspects of the same mixed research question is addressed.
• Sequential mixed designs (“sequenzielles Mixed-Methods-Design”) – In these designs, QUAL and QUAN strands occur across chronological phases, and the procedures/questions from the later strand emerge/depend/build on on the previous strand; the research questions are interrelated and sometimes evolve during the study.
• Conversion mixed designs (“Transfer-Design” or “Konversionsdesign”) – In these parallel designs, mixing occurs when one type of data is transformed to the other type and then analyzed, and the additional findings are added to the results; this design answers related aspects of the same research question,
• Multilevel mixed designs (“Mehrebenen-Mixed-Methods-Design”) – In these parallel or sequential designs, mixing occurs across multiple levels of analysis, as QUAN and QUAL data are analyzed and integrated to answer related aspects of the same research question or related questions.
• Fully integrated mixed designs (“voll integriertes Mixed-Methods-Design”) – In these designs, mixing occurs in an interactive manner at all stages of the study. At each stage, one approach affects the formulation of the other, and multiple types of implementation processes can occur. For example, rather than including integration only at the findings/results stage, or only across phases in a sequential design, mixing might occur at the conceptualization stage, the methodological stage, the analysis stage, and the inferential stage.

We recommend adding to Teddlie and Tashakkori’s typology a sixth design type, specifically, a  “hybrid” design type to include complex combinations of two or more of the other design types. We expect that many published MM designs will fall into the hybrid design type.

Morse and Niehaus ( 2009 ) listed eight mixed methods designs in their book (and suggested that authors create more complex combinations when needed). Our shorthand labels and descriptions (adapted from Morse and Niehaus 2009 , p. 25) run as follows:

• QUAL + quan (inductive-simultaneous design where, the core component is qualitative and the supplemental component is quantitative)
• QUAL → quan (inductive-sequential design, where the core component is qualitative and the supplemental component is quantitative)
• QUAN + qual (deductive-simultaneous design where, the core component is quantitative and the supplemental component is qualitative)
• QUAN → qual (deductive-sequential design, where the core component is quantitative and the supplemental component is qualitative)
• QUAL + qual (inductive-simultaneous design, where both components are qualitative; this is a multimethod design rather than a mixed methods design)
• QUAL → qual (inductive-sequential design, where both components are qualitative; this is a multimethod design rather than a mixed methods design)
• QUAN + quan (deductive-simultaneous design, where both components are quantitative; this is a multimethod design rather than a mixed methods design)
• QUAN → quan (deductive-sequential design, where both components are quantitative; this is a multimethod design rather than a mixed methods design).

Notice that Morse and Niehaus ( 2009 ) included four mixed methods designs (the first four designs shown above) and four multimethod designs (the second set of four designs shown above) in their typology. The reader can, therefore, see that the design notation also works quite well for multimethod research designs. Notably absent from Morse and Niehaus’s book are equal-status or interactive designs. In addition, they assume that the core component should always be performed either concurrent with or before the supplemental component.

Johnson, Christensen, and Onwuegbuzie constructed a set of mixed methods designs without these limitations. The resulting mixed methods design matrix (see Johnson and Christensen 2017 , p. 478) contains nine designs, which we can label as follows (adapted from Johnson and Christensen 2017 , p. 478):

• QUAL + QUAN (equal-status concurrent design),
• QUAL + quan (qualitatively driven concurrent design),
• QUAN + qual (quantitatively driven concurrent design),
• QUAL → QUAN (equal-status sequential design),
• QUAN → QUAL (equal-status sequential design),
• QUAL → quan (qualitatively driven sequential design),
• qual → QUAN (quantitatively driven sequential design),
• QUAN → qual (quantitatively driven sequential design), and
• quan → QUAL (qualitatively driven sequential design).

The above set of nine designs assumed only one qualitative and one quantitative component. However, this simplistic assumption can be relaxed in practice, allowing the reader to construct more complex designs. The Morse notation system is very powerful. For example, here is a three-stage equal-status concurrent-sequential design:

The key point here is that the Morse notation provides researchers with a powerful language for depicting and communicating the design constructed for a specific research study.

When designing a mixed methods study, it is sometimes helpful to include the mixing purpose (or characteristic on one of the other dimensions shown in Table  1 ) in the title of the study design (e. g., an explanatory sequential MM design, an exploratory-confirmatory MM design, a developmental MM design). Much more important, however, than a design name is for the author to provide an accurate description of what was done in the research study, so the reader will know exactly how the study was conducted. A design classification label can never replace such a description.

The common complexity of mixed methods design poses a problem to the above typologies of mixed methods research. The typologies were designed to classify whole mixed methods studies, and they are basically based on a classification of simple designs. In practice, many/most designs are complex. Complex designs are sometimes labeled “complex design”, “multiphase design”, “fully integrated design”, “hybrid design” and the like. Because complex designs occur very often in practice, the above typologies are not able to classify a large part of existing mixed methods research any further than by labeling them “complex”, which in itself is not very informative about the particular design. This problem does not fully apply to Morse’s notation system, which can be used to symbolize some more complex designs.

Something similar applies to the classification of the purposes of mixed methods research. The classifications of purposes mentioned in the “Purpose”-section, again, are basically meant for the classification of whole mixed methods studies. In practice, however, one single study often serves more than one purpose (Schoonenboom et al. 2017 ). The more purposes that are included in one study, the more difficult it becomes to select a design on the basis of the purpose of the investigation, as advised by Greene ( 2007 ). Of all purposes involved, then, which one should be the primary basis for the design? Or should the design be based upon all purposes included? And if so, how? For more information on how to articulate design complexity based on multiple purposes of mixing, see Schoonenboom et al. ( 2017 ).

It should be clear to the reader that, although much progress has been made in the area of mixed methods design typologies, the problem remains in developing a single typology that is effective in comprehensively listing a set of designs for mixed methods research. This is why we emphasize in this article the importance of learning to build on simple designs and construct one’s own design for one’s research questions. This will often result in a combination or “hybrid” design that goes beyond basic designs found in typologies, and a methodology section that provides much more information than a design name.

Typological versus interactive approaches to design

In the introduction, we made a distinction between design as a product and design as a process. Related to this, two different approaches to design can be distinguished: typological/taxonomic approaches (“systematische Ansätze”), such as those in the previous section, and interactive approaches (“interaktive Ansätze”) (the latter were called “dynamic” approaches by Creswell and Plano Clark 2011 ). Whereas typological/taxonomic approaches view designs as a sort of mold, in which the inquiry can be fit, interactive approaches (Maxwell 2013 ) view design as a process, in which a certain design-as-a-product might be the outcome of the process, but not its input.

The most frequently mentioned interactive approach to mixed methods research is the approach by Maxwell and Loomis ( 2003 ). Maxwell and Loomis distinguish the following components of a design: goals, conceptual framework, research question, methods, and validity. They argue convincingly that the most important task of the researcher is to deliver as the end product of the design process a design in which these five components fit together properly. During the design process, the researcher works alternately on the individual components, and as a result, their initial fit, if it existed, tends to get lost. The researcher should therefore regularly check during the research and continuing design process whether the components still fit together, and, if not, should adapt one or the other component to restore the fit between them. In an interactive approach, unlike the typological approach, design is viewed as an interactive process in which the components are continually compared during the research study to each other and adapted to each other.

Typological and interactive approaches to mixed methods research have been presented as mutually exclusive alternatives. In our view, however, they are not mutually exclusive. The interactive approach of Maxwell is a very powerful tool for conducting research, yet this approach is not specific to mixed methods research. Maxwell’s interactive approach emphasizes that the researcher should keep and monitor a close fit between the five components of research design. However, it does not indicate how one should combine qualitative and quantitative subcomponents within one of Maxwell’s five components (e. g., how one should combine a qualitative and a quantitative method, or a qualitative and a quantitative research question). Essential elements of the design process, such as timing and the point of integration are not covered by Maxwell’s approach. This is not a shortcoming of Maxwell’s approach, but it indicates that to support the design of mixed methods research, more is needed than Maxwell’s model currently has to offer.

Some authors state that design typologies are particularly useful for beginning researchers and interactive approaches are suited for experienced researchers (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011 ). However, like an experienced researcher, a research novice needs to align the components of his or her design properly with each other, and, like a beginning researcher, an advanced researcher should indicate how qualitative and quantitative components are combined with each other. This makes an interactive approach desirable, also for beginning researchers.

We see two merits of the typological/taxonomic approach . We agree with Greene ( 2007 ), who states that the value of the typological approach mainly lies in the different dimensions of mixed methods that result from its classifications. In this article, the primary dimensions include purpose, theoretical drive, timing, point of integration, typological vs. interactive approaches, planned vs. emergent designs, and complexity (also see secondary dimensions in Table  1 ). Unfortunately, all of these dimensions are not reflected in any single design typology reviewed here. A second merit of the typological approach is the provision of common mixed methods research designs, of common ways in which qualitative and quantitative research can be combined, as is done for example in the major designs of Creswell and Plano Clark ( 2011 ). Contrary to other authors, however, we do not consider these designs as a feature of a whole study, but rather, in line with Guest ( 2013 ), as a feature of one part of a design in which one qualitative and one quantitative component are combined. Although one study could have only one purpose, one point of integration, et cetera, we believe that combining “designs” is the rule and not the exception. Therefore, complex designs need to be constructed and modified as needed, and during the writing phase the design should be described in detail and perhaps given a creative and descriptive name.

Planned versus emergent designs

A mixed methods design can be thought out in advance, but can also arise during the course of the conduct of the study; the latter is called an “emergent” design (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011 ). Emergent designs arise, for example, when the researcher discovers during the study that one of the components is inadequate (Morse and Niehaus 2009 ). Addition of a component of the other type can sometimes remedy such an inadequacy. Some designs contain an emergent component by their nature. Initiation, for example, is the further exploration of unexpected outcomes. Unexpected outcomes are by definition not foreseen, and therefore cannot be included in the design in advance.

The question arises whether researchers should plan all these decisions beforehand, or whether they can make them during, and depending on the course of, the research process. The answer to this question is twofold. On the one hand, a researcher should decide beforehand which research components to include in the design, such that the conclusion that will be drawn will be robust. On the other hand, developments during research execution will sometimes prompt the researcher to decide to add additional components. In general, the advice is to be prepared for the unexpected. When one is able to plan for emergence, one should not refrain from doing so.

Dimension of complexity

Next, mixed methods designs are characterized by their complexity. In the literature, simple and complex designs are distinguished in various ways. A common distinction is between simple investigations with a single point of integration versus complex investigations with multiple points of integration (Guest 2013 ). When designing a mixed methods study, it can be useful to mention in the title whether the design of the study is simple or complex. The primary message of this section is as follows: It is the responsibility of the researcher to create more complex designs when needed to answer his or her research question(s) .

Teddlie and Tashakkori’s ( 2009 ) multilevel mixed designs and fully integrated mixed designs are both complex designs, but for different reasons. A multilevel mixed design is more complex ontologically, because it involves multiple levels of reality. For example, data might be collected both at the levels of schools and students, neighborhood and households, companies and employees, communities and inhabitants, or medical practices and patients (Yin 2013 ). Integration of these data does not only involve the integration of qualitative and quantitative data, but also the integration of data originating from different sources and existing at different levels. Little if any published research has discussed the possible ways of integrating data obtained in a multilevel mixed design (see Schoonenboom 2016 ). This is an area in need of additional research.

The fully-integrated mixed design is more complex because it contains multiple points of integration. As formulated by Teddlie and Tashakkori ( 2009 , p. 151):

In these designs, mixing occurs in an interactive manner at all stages of the study. At each stage, one approach affects the formulation of the other, and multiple types of implementation processes can occur.

Complexity, then, not only depends on the number of components, but also on the extent to which they depend on each other (e. g., “one approach affects the formulation of the other”).

Many of our design dimensions ultimately refer to different ways in which the qualitative and quantitative research components are interdependent. Different purposes of mixing ultimately differ in the way one component relates to, and depends upon, the other component. For example, these purposes include dependencies, such as “x illustrates y” and “x explains y”. Dependencies in the implementation of x and y occur to the extent that the design of y depends on the results of x (sequentiality). The theoretical drive creates dependencies, because the supplemental component y is performed and interpreted within the context and the theoretical drive of core component x. As a general rule in designing mixed methods research, one should examine and plan carefully the ways in which and the extent to which the various components depend on each other.

The dependence among components, which may or may not be present, has been summarized by Greene ( 2007 ). It is seen in the distinction between component designs (“Komponenten-Designs”), in which the components are independent of each other, and integrated designs (“integrierte Designs”), in which the components are interdependent. Of these two design categories, integrated designs are the more complex designs.

Secondary design considerations

The primary design dimensions explained above have been the focus of this article. There are a number of secondary considerations for researchers to also think about when they design their studies (Johnson and Christensen 2017 ). Now we list some secondary design issues and questions that should be thoughtfully considered during the construction of a strong mixed methods research design.

• Phenomenon: Will the study be addressing (a) the same part or different parts of one phenomenon? (b) different phenomena?, or (c) the phenomenon/phenomena from different perspectives? Is the phenomenon (a) expected to be unique (e. g., historical event, particular group)?, (b) something expected to be part of a more regular and predictable phenomenon, or (c) a complex mixture of these?
• Social scientific theory: Will the study generate a new substantive theory, test an already constructed theory, or achieve both in a sequential arrangement? Or is the researcher not interested in substantive theory based on empirical data?
• Ideological drive: Will the study have an explicitly articulated ideological drive (e. g., feminism, critical race paradigm, transformative paradigm)?
• Combination of sampling methods: What specific quantitative sampling method(s) will be used? What specific qualitative sampling methods(s) will be used? How will these be combined or related?
• Degree to which the research participants will be similar or different: For example, participants or stakeholders with known differences of perspective would provide participants that are quite different.
• Degree to which the researchers on the research team will be similar or different: For example, an experiment conducted by one researcher would be high on similarity, but the use of a heterogeneous and participatory research team would include many differences.
• Implementation setting: Will the phenomenon be studied naturalistically, experimentally, or through a combination of these?
• Degree to which the methods similar or different: For example, a structured interview and questionnaire are fairly similar but administration of a standardized test and participant observation in the field are quite different.
• Validity criteria and strategies: What validity criteria and strategies will be used to address the defensibility of the study and the conclusions that will be drawn from it (see Chapter 11 in Johnson and Christensen 2017 )?
• Full study: Will there be essentially one research study or more than one? How will the research report be structured?

Two case studies

The above design dimensions are now illustrated by examples. A nice collection of examples of mixed methods studies can be found in Hesse-Biber ( 2010 ), from which the following examples are taken. The description of the first case example is shown in Box 1.

Box 1

Summary of Roth ( 2006 ), research regarding the gender-wage gap within Wall Street securities firms. Adapted from Hesse-Biber ( 2010 , pp. 457–458)

Louise Marie Roth’s research, Selling Women Short: Gender and Money on Wall Street ( 2006 ), tackles gender inequality in the workplace. She was interested in understanding the gender-wage gap among highly performing Wall Street MBAs, who on the surface appeared to have the same “human capital” qualifications and were placed in high-ranking Wall Street securities firms as their first jobs. In addition, Roth wanted to understand the “structural factors” within the workplace setting that may contribute to the gender-wage gap and its persistence over time. […] Roth conducted semistructured interviews, nesting quantitative closed-ended questions into primarily qualitative in-depth interviews […] In analyzing the quantitative data from her sample, she statistically considered all those factors that might legitimately account for gendered differences such as number of hours worked, any human capital differences, and so on. Her analysis of the quantitative data revealed the presence of a significant gender gap in wages that remained unexplained after controlling for any legitimate factors that might otherwise make a difference. […] Quantitative findings showed the extent of the wage gap while providing numerical understanding of the disparity but did not provide her with an understanding of the specific processes within the workplace that might have contributed to the gender gap in wages. […] Her respondents’ lived experiences over time revealed the hidden inner structures of the workplace that consist of discriminatory organizational practices with regard to decision making in performance evaluations that are tightly tied to wage increases and promotion.

This example nicely illustrates the distinction we made between simultaneity and dependency. On the two aspects of the timing dimension, this study was a concurrent-dependent design answering a set of related research questions. The data collection in this example was conducted simultaneously, and was thus concurrent – the quantitative closed-ended questions were embedded into the qualitative in-depth interviews. In contrast, the analysis was dependent, as explained in the next paragraph.

One of the purposes of this study was explanation: The qualitative data were used to understand the processes underlying the quantitative outcomes. It is therefore an explanatory design, and might be labelled an “explanatory concurrent design”. Conceptually, explanatory designs are often dependent: The qualitative component is used to explain and clarify the outcomes of the quantitative component. In that sense, the qualitative analysis in the case study took the outcomes of the quantitative component (“the existence of the gender-wage gap” and “numerical understanding of the disparity”), and aimed at providing an explanation for that result of the quantitative data analysis , by relating it to the contextual circumstances in which the quantitative outcomes were produced. This purpose of mixing in the example corresponds to Bryman’s ( 2006 ) “contextual understanding”. On the other primary dimensions, (a) the design was ongoing over a three-year period but was not emergent, (b) the point of integration was results, and (c) the design was not complex with respect to the point of integration, as it had only one point of integration. Yet, it was complex in the sense of involving multiple levels; both the level of the individual and the organization were included. According to the approach of Johnson and Christensen ( 2017 ), this was a QUAL + quan design (that was qualitatively driven, explanatory, and concurrent). If we give this study design a name, perhaps it should focus on what was done in the study: “explaining an effect from the process by which it is produced”. Having said this, the name “explanatory concurrent design” could also be used.

The description of the second case example is shown in Box 2.

Box 2

Summary of McMahon’s ( 2007 ) explorative study of the meaning, role, and salience of rape myths within the subculture of college student athletes. Adapted from Hesse-Biber ( 2010 , pp. 461–462)

Sarah McMahon ( 2007 ) wanted to explore the subculture of college student athletes and specifically the meaning, role, and salience of rape myths within that culture. […] While she was looking for confirmation between the quantitative ([structured] survey) and qualitative (focus groups and individual interviews) findings, she entered this study skeptical of whether or not her quantitative and qualitative findings would mesh with one another. McMahon […] first administered a survey [instrument] to 205 sophomore and junior student athletes at one Northeast public university. […] The quantitative data revealed a very low acceptance of rape myths among this student population but revealed a higher acceptance of violence among men and individuals who did not know a survivor of sexual assault. In the second qualitative (QUAL) phase, “focus groups were conducted as semi-structured interviews” and facilitated by someone of the same gender as the participants (p. 360). […] She followed this up with a third qualitative component (QUAL), individual interviews, which were conducted to elaborate on themes discovered in the focus groups and determine any differences in students’ responses between situations (i. e., group setting vs. individual). The interview guide was designed specifically to address focus group topics that needed “more in-depth exploration” or clarification (p. 361). The qualitative findings from the focus groups and individual qualitative interviews revealed “subtle yet pervasive rape myths” that fell into four major themes: “the misunderstanding of consent, the belief in ‘accidental’ and fabricated rape, the contention that some women provoke rape, and the invulnerability of female athletes” (p. 363). She found that the survey’s finding of a “low acceptance of rape myths … was contradicted by the findings of the focus groups and individual interviews, which indicated the presence of subtle rape myths” (p. 362).

On the timing dimension, this is an example of a sequential-independent design. It is sequential, because the qualitative focus groups were conducted after the survey was administered. The analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data was independent: Both were analyzed independently, to see whether they yielded the same results (which they did not). This purpose, therefore, was triangulation. On the other primary dimensions, (a) the design was planned, (b) the point of integration was results, and (c) the design was not complex as it had only one point of integration, and involved only the level of the individual. The author called this a “sequential explanatory” design. We doubt, however, whether this is the most appropriate label, because the qualitative component did not provide an explanation for quantitative results that were taken as given. On the contrary, the qualitative results contradicted the quantitative results. Thus, a “sequential-independent” design, or a “sequential-triangulation” design or a “sequential-comparative” design would probably be a better name.

Notice further that the second case study had the same point of integration as the first case study. The two components were brought together in the results. Thus, although the case studies are very dissimilar in many respects, this does not become visible in their point of integration. It can therefore be helpful to determine whether their point of extension is different. A  point of extension is the point in the research process at which the second (or later) component comes into play. In the first case study, two related, but different research questions were answered, namely the quantitative question “How large is the gender-wage gap among highly performing Wall Street MBAs after controlling for any legitimate factors that might otherwise make a difference?”, and the qualitative research question “How do structural factors within the workplace setting contribute to the gender-wage gap and its persistence over time?” This case study contains one qualitative research question and one quantitative research question. Therefore, the point of extension is the research question. In the second case study, both components answered the same research question. They differed in their data collection (and subsequently in their data analysis): qualitative focus groups and individual interviews versus a quantitative questionnaire. In this case study, the point of extension was data collection. Thus, the point of extension can be used to distinguish between the two case studies.

Summary and conclusions

The purpose of this article is to help researchers to understand how to design a mixed methods research study. Perhaps the simplest approach is to design is to look at a single book and select one from the few designs included in that book. We believe that is only useful as a starting point. Here we have shown that one often needs to construct a research design to fit one’s unique research situation and questions.

First, we showed that there are there are many purposes for which qualitative and quantitative methods, methodologies, and paradigms can be mixed. This must be determined in interaction with the research questions. Inclusion of a purpose in the design name can sometimes provide readers with useful information about the study design, as in, e. g., an “explanatory sequential design” or an “exploratory-confirmatory design”.

The second dimension is theoretical drive in the sense that Morse and Niehaus ( 2009 ) use this term. That is, will the study have an inductive or a deductive drive, or, we added, a combination of these. Related to this idea is whether one will conduct a qualitatively driven, a quantitatively driven, or an equal-status mixed methods study. This language is sometimes included in the design name to communicate this characteristic of the study design (e. g., a “quantitatively driven sequential mixed methods design”).

The third dimension is timing , which has two aspects: simultaneity and dependence. Simultaneity refers to whether the components are to be implemented concurrently, sequentially, or a combination of these in a multiphase design. Simultaneity is commonly used in the naming of a mixed methods design because it communicates key information. The second aspect of timing, dependence , refers to whether a later component depends on the results of an earlier component, e. g., Did phase two specifically build on phase one in the research study? The fourth design dimension is the point of integration, which is where the qualitative and quantitative components are brought together and integrated. This is an essential dimension, but it usually does not need to be incorporated into the design name.

The fifth design dimension is that of typological vs. interactive design approaches . That is, will one select a design from a typology or use a more interactive approach to construct one’s own design? There are many typologies of designs currently in the literature. Our recommendation is that readers examine multiple design typologies to better understand the design process in mixed methods research and to understand what designs have been identified as popular in the field. However, when a design that would follow from one’s research questions is not available, the researcher can and should (a) combine designs into new designs or (b) simply construct a new and unique design. One can go a long way in depicting a complex design with Morse’s ( 1991 ) notation when used to its full potential. We also recommend that researchers understand the process approach to design from Maxwell and Loomis ( 2003 ), and realize that research design is a process and it needs, oftentimes, to be flexible and interactive.

The sixth design dimension or consideration is whether a design will be fully specified during the planning of the research study or if the design (or part of the design) will be allowed to emerge during the research process, or a combination of these. The seventh design dimension is called complexity . One sort of complexity mentioned was multilevel designs, but there are many complexities that can enter designs. The key point is that good research often requires the use of complex designs to answer one’s research questions. This is not something to avoid. It is the responsibility of the researcher to learn how to construct and describe and name mixed methods research designs. Always remember that designs should follow from one’s research questions and purposes, rather than questions and purposes following from a few currently named designs.

In addition to the six primary design dimensions or considerations, we provided a set of additional or secondary dimensions/considerations or questions to ask when constructing a mixed methods study design. Our purpose throughout this article has been to show what factors must be considered to design a high quality mixed methods research study. The more one knows and thinks about the primary and secondary dimensions of mixed methods design the better equipped one will be to pursue mixed methods research.

Acknowledgments

Open access funding provided by University of Vienna.

Biographies

1965, Dr., Professor of Empirical Pedagogy at University of Vienna, Austria. Research Areas: Mixed Methods Design, Philosophy of Mixed Methods Research, Innovation in Higher Education, Design and Evaluation of Intervention Studies, Educational Technology. Publications: Mixed methods in early childhood education. In: M. Fleer & B. v. Oers (Eds.), International handbook on early childhood education (Vol. 1). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer 2017; The multilevel mixed intact group analysis: A mixed method to seek, detect, describe and explain differences between intact groups. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 10, 2016; The realist survey: How respondents’ voices can be used to test and revise correlational models. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2015. Advance online publication.

1957, PhD, Professor of Professional Studies at University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama USA. Research Areas: Methods of Social Research, Program Evaluation, Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methods, Philosophy of Social Science. Publications: Research methods, design and analysis. Boston, MA 2014 (with L. Christensen and L. Turner); Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches. Los Angeles, CA 2017 (with L. Christensen); The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry. New York, NY 2015 (with S. Hesse-Biber).

Bryman’s ( 2006 ) scheme of rationales for combining quantitative and qualitative research 1

• Triangulation or greater validity – refers to the traditional view that quantitative and qualitative research might be combined to triangulate findings in order that they may be mutually corroborated. If the term was used as a synonym for integrating quantitative and qualitative research, it was not coded as triangulation.
• Offset – refers to the suggestion that the research methods associated with both quantitative and qualitative research have their own strengths and weaknesses so that combining them allows the researcher to offset their weaknesses to draw on the strengths of both.
• Completeness – refers to the notion that the researcher can bring together a more comprehensive account of the area of enquiry in which he or she is interested if both quantitative and qualitative research are employed.
• Process – quantitative research provides an account of structures in social life but qualitative research provides sense of process.
• Different research questions – this is the argument that quantitative and qualitative research can each answer different research questions but this item was coded only if authors explicitly stated that they were doing this.
• Explanation – one is used to help explain findings generated by the other.
• Unexpected results – refers to the suggestion that quantitative and qualitative research can be fruitfully combined when one generates surprising results that can be understood by employing the other.
• Instrument development – refers to contexts in which qualitative research is employed to develop questionnaire and scale items – for example, so that better wording or more comprehensive closed answers can be generated.
• Sampling – refers to situations in which one approach is used to facilitate the sampling of respondents or cases.
• Credibility – refer s to suggestions that employing both approaches enhances the integrity of findings.
• Context – refers to cases in which the combination is rationalized in terms of qualitative research providing contextual understanding coupled with either generalizable, externally valid findings or broad relationships among variables uncovered through a survey.
• Illustration – refers to the use of qualitative data to illustrate quantitative findings, often referred to as putting “meat on the bones” of “dry” quantitative findings.
• Utility or improving the usefulness of findings – refers to a suggestion, which is more likely to be prominent among articles with an applied focus, that combining the two approaches will be more useful to practitioners and others.
• Confirm and discover – this entails using qualitative data to generate hypotheses and using quantitative research to test them within a single project.
• Diversity of views – this includes two slightly different rationales – namely, combining researchers’ and participants’ perspectives through quantitative and qualitative research respectively, and uncovering relationships between variables through quantitative research while also revealing meanings among research participants through qualitative research.
• Enhancement or building upon quantitative/qualitative findings – this entails a reference to making more of or augmenting either quantitative or qualitative findings by gathering data using a qualitative or quantitative research approach.
• Other/unclear.
• Not stated.

1 Reprinted with permission from “Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done?” by Alan Bryman ( 2006 ), Qualitative Research, 6, pp. 105–107.

Contributor Information

Judith Schoonenboom, Email: [email protected] .

R. Burke Johnson, Email: ude.amabalahtuos@nosnhojb .

• Bazeley, Pat, Lynn Kemp Mosaics, triangles, and DNA: Metaphors for integrated analysis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2012; 6 :55–72. doi: 10.1177/1558689811419514. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryman A. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qualitative Research. 2006; 6 :97–113. doi: 10.1177/1468794106058877. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cook TD. Postpositivist critical multiplism. In: Shotland RL, Mark MM, editors. Social science and social policy. Beverly Hills: SAGE; 1985. pp. 21–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 2. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Erzberger C, Prein G. Triangulation: Validity and empirically-based hypothesis construction. Quality and Quantity. 1997; 31 :141–154. doi: 10.1023/A:1004249313062. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greene JC. Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greene JC. Preserving distinctions within the multimethod and mixed methods research merger. Sharlene Hesse-Biber and R. Burke Johnson. New York: Oxford University Press; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greene JC, Valerie J, Caracelli, Graham WF. Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 1989; 11 :255–274. doi: 10.3102/01623737011003255. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greene JC, Hall JN. Dialectics and pragmatism. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. 2. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2010. pp. 119–167. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guest, Greg Describing mixed methods research: An alternative to typologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2013; 7 :141–151. doi: 10.1177/1558689812461179. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hesse-Biber S. Qualitative approaches to mixed methods practice. Qualitative Inquiry. 2010; 16 :455–468. doi: 10.1177/1077800410364611. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson BR. Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has come. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2017; 11 :156–173. doi: 10.1177/1558689815607692. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson BR, Christensen LB. Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. 6. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson BR, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher. 2004; 33 (7):14–26. doi: 10.3102/0013189X033007014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson BR, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2007; 1 :112–133. doi: 10.1177/1558689806298224. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mathison S. Why triangulate? Educational Researcher. 1988; 17 :13–17. doi: 10.3102/0013189X017002013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maxwell JA. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. 3. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maxwell, Joseph A., and Diane M. Loomis. 2003. Mixed methods design: An alternative approach. In Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research , Eds. Abbas Tashakkori and Charles Teddlie, 241–271. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• McMahon S. Understanding community-specific rape myths: Exploring student athlete culture. Affilia. 2007; 22 :357–370. doi: 10.1177/0886109907306331. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mendlinger S, Cwikel J. Spiraling between qualitative and quantitative data on women’s health behaviors: A double helix model for mixed methods. Qualitative Health Research. 2008; 18 :280–293. doi: 10.1177/1049732307312392. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan DL. Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: a pragmatic approach. Los Angeles: Sage; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morse JM. Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research. 1991; 40 :120–123. doi: 10.1097/00006199-199103000-00014. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morse JM, Niehaus L. Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Onwuegbuzie AJ, Burke Johnson R. The “validity” issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools. 2006; 13 :48–63. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roth LM. Selling women short: Gender and money on Wall Street. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schoonenboom J. The multilevel mixed intact group analysis: a mixed method to seek, detect, describe and explain differences between intact groups. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2016; 10 :129–146. doi: 10.1177/1558689814536283. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schoonenboom, Judith, R. Burke Johnson, and Dominik E. Froehlich. 2017, in press. Combining multiple purposes of mixing within a mixed methods research design. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches .
• Teddlie CB, Tashakkori A. Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Los Angeles: Sage; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yanchar SC, Williams DD. Reconsidering the compatibility thesis and eclecticism: Five proposed guidelines for method use. Educational Researcher. 2006; 35 (9):3–12. doi: 10.3102/0013189X035009003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. 5. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]

Designing a PhD Proposal in Mixed Method Research

This chapter reviews the challenges and advantages of writing a mixed method research (MMR) proposal. The argument put forward is that a mixed method approach overcomes the shortcomings of the commonly used qualitative and quantitative methods. A brief definition of a research proposal is followed by a discussion on the different interpretations of a mixed method and what makes mixed methods ideal in the proposal example that follows. A mixed method can be either one that utilizes qualitative and quantitative methods to different degrees or it can be regarded as a distinct method by itself. A mixed method is suitable where both different types of data can be collected, when the data adds value to what would be achieved using one approach and where cost also justifies it. A hypothetical case example where an application is being made to conduct an evaluation of an anti-truancy program is presented.

• Related Documents

The Effect of Communication and Immigration Activities in 7th Grade Social Studies Course on the Empathy Skills of Students

The feeling of empathy is as old as the humankind. Empathy is an attempt to perceive the emotions and to understand the thoughts of other individuals and discern their point of view. Due to such aspects, empathy presents “a focus on other individuals”. In general terms, empathy was defined as “adopting a sensitive attitude towards correctly understanding the emotions and thoughts of another individual, encountering any event, through placing oneself in the place of that individual during the process of communication.”The present study was intended to determine the effects of the communication and immigration subjects in the 7th grade social studies course on the empathy skills of students through employing the didactic approach, which is one of the techniques for empathy development.Concurrent nested (embedded) design, a mixed research method, was employed in the present study. Mixed-method research is defined as the approach through which the researcher draws conclusions by using the advantage of integrating qualitative and quantitative methods, approaches and concepts in a study or consecutive studies with the aim to understand diverse research models. The quantitative data in the present study were obtained via the “Index of Empathy for Children and Adolescents”, whereas the qualitative data were collected through interview forms.Almost all students emphasized the significance of empathy and understanding the feelings of the migrants for understanding the causes and consequences of immigration throughout the activities related to immigration.

A Critical Consideration of Environmental Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Competencies

This study is based on a Delphi study on environmental literacy which is an important part of science education. The main goal is to clarify the framework, including concepts, contexts, and competencies of environmental literacy, and to reach consensus on this framework in accordance with expert opinions. This study used a mixed method research design, which included both qualitative and quantitative methods, to reveal expert opinions. The exploratory sequential design, one type of mixed method research, was used in this Delphi study and performed in three consecutive steps. The sample consisted of 45 experts who initially agreed to participate in this study, with 20 of the 45 participating in the first step Delphi. The numbers of participants in the second and third Delphi steps are 44 and 31, respectively. This study concluded there was a consensus about the definition, sub-dimensions, and competencies of environmental literacy and the institutions, social groups, and people responsible for the development of qualified environmentally-literate individuals. Additionally, there was agreement concerning what to do to support the development of environmental literacy, topics that should be included in the curriculum and textbooks, and teaching methods and extra-curriculum activities for the development of environmental literacy.

A Critical Review on the Study of Threatening in English

Despite the fact that threatening in languages is common in ordinary verbal communication, it has not received much attention from academic studies because of its “negative” nature. Muschalik’s monograph Threatening in English: A Mixed Method Approach, mainly based on the theory of Face Threatening Speech Act by Brown and Levinson (1987), takes 301 categories of threatening expressions in judicial proceedings as the corpus with qualitative and quantitative methods, brings a new perspective for pragmatic research, especially speech act research, and deepens people’s understanding of relevant issues. Initiated by Muschalik’s book Threatening in English: A Mixed Method Approach, the paper is to make a critical review on the studies of threatening in English and propose some new directions for the study of threatening in languages.

Framing a Phenomenological Mixed Method: From Inspiration to Guidance

Despite a long history of researchers who combine phenomenology with qualitative or quantitative methods, there are only few examples of working with a phenomenological mixed method—a method where phenomenology informs both qualitative and quantitative data generation, analysis, and interpretation. Researchers have argued that in working with a phenomenological mixed method, there should be mutual constraint and enlightenment between the qualitative (first-person, subjective) and quantitative (third-person, objective) methods for studying consciousness. In this article, we discuss what a framework for phenomenological mixed methods could look like and we aim to provide guidance of how to work within such framework. We are inspired by resources coming from research in mixed methods and existing examples of phenomenological mixed-method research. We also present three cases of phenomenological mixed methods where we study complex social phenomena and discuss the process of how we conducted the studies. From both the research inspiration and our own studies, we depict the landscape of possibilities available for those interested in mixing phenomenology with qualitative and quantitative methods, as well as the challenges and common pitfalls that researchers face. To navigate in this landscape, we develop a three-fold structure, focusing on (1) the phenomenological frame, (2) the phenomenologically informed generation of qualitative and quantitative data (tier one), and (3) the phenomenologically informed analysis and interpretation of data (tier two).

IMPACT OF QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS ON THE EVALUATION OF STREET LIGHTING UNIFORMITY

Uniformity of lighting for pedestrians is often assumed to have been achieved in mixed traffic environments when the lighting uniformity requirements for vehicular traffic have been fulfilled. Uniformity of lighting for drivers is commonly evaluated based on quan-titative data on parameters such as overall luminance uniformity. However, methods for evaluating uniformity from the perspective of other road users are currently somewhat lacking. This study discusses qualitative and quantitative methods of assessing street lighting uniformity, and the potential implications for lighting design and the road us-ers. We used convergence design and imbedded design based on two field studies. The research purpose is twofold: first, to study if, and how, measured lighting uni-formity corresponds with visual perception. Secondly, to identify and explain the addi-tional value that a combined method approach can contribute. The study considers ex-amples of when the measured uniformity corresponds to visually perceived uniformity and when they do not correspond.

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: AN ESSENTIAL PART OF STATISTICAL COGNITION RESEARCH

Our research in statistical cognition uses both qualitative and quantitative methods. A mixed method approach makes our research more comprehensive, and provides us with new directions, unexpected insights, and alternative explanations for previously established concepts. In this paper, we review four statistical cognition studies that used mixed methods and explain the contributions of both the quantitative and qualitative components. The four studies investigated concern statistical reporting practices in medical journals, an intervention aimed at improving psychologists’ interpretations of statistical tests, the extent to which interpretations improve when results are presented with confidence intervals (CIs) rather than p-values, and graduate students’ misconceptions about CIs. Finally, we discuss the concept of scientific rigour and outline guidelines for maintaining rigour that should apply equally to qualitative and quantitative research. First published November 2010 at Statistics Education Research Journal: Archives

Qualitative and Quantitative Methods as Complementary Assessment Tools

The purpose of this chapter is to address epistemological and methodological approaches to assessing assessment. The authors’ intent is to show how moving beyond paradigm wars and using multiple methods makes for good assessment. The authors explore ways qualitative and quantitative methods are complementary, as opposed to competing concepts, arguing that these methodologies in collaboration provide a much richer form of higher education assessment. The chapter begins with a review of the literature on qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method designs, which includes an overview of the history and contemporary landscape of the qualitative-quantitative debate. The chapter also highlights successful examples of mixed-method assessment at a mid-sized, private university, presented in general frameworks which can be used on any campus. The chapter concludes with recommendations for practitioners and future trends.

The Complexity of Human Social Interactions Calls for Mixed Methods in HRI

In this research note, we offer a comment on the “A Primer for Conducting Experiments in Human-robot Interaction,” by G. Hoffman and X. Zhao, suggesting that due to the complexity of human social reality quantitative methods should be integrated into a mixed method approach.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP TRAINING PROGRAMS TOWARDS THE BUMIPUTERA ENTREPRENEURIAL PERFORMANCE IN JOHOR

The study aimed to assess the effectiveness of entrepreneurship training towards the level of Bumiputera entrepreneurial performances in Johor. Action research was applied in the study and intervention plan was designed to examine the changes of Bumiputera entrepreneurial performances. The study used a mixed-method for data collection which consists of qualitative and quantitative methods. 4 respondents for the qualitative method and a number of 217 from a total population of 500 Bumiputera entrepreneurs will be used as respondents for the study. The data collected from the mixed-method will be analysed using Miles and Huberman Technique and SPSS version 25.

Export Citation Format

Share document.

• What is mixed methods research?

Last updated

20 February 2023

Reviewed by

Miroslav Damyanov

By blending both quantitative and qualitative data, mixed methods research allows for a more thorough exploration of a research question. It can answer complex research queries that cannot be solved with either qualitative or quantitative research .

Analyze your mixed methods research

Dovetail streamlines analysis to help you uncover and share actionable insights

Mixed methods research combines the elements of two types of research: quantitative and qualitative.

Quantitative data is collected through the use of surveys and experiments, for example, containing numerical measures such as ages, scores, and percentages. 

Qualitative data involves non-numerical measures like beliefs, motivations, attitudes, and experiences, often derived through interviews and focus group research to gain a deeper understanding of a research question or phenomenon.

Mixed methods research is often used in the behavioral, health, and social sciences, as it allows for the collection of numerical and non-numerical data.

• When to use mixed methods research

Mixed methods research is a great choice when quantitative or qualitative data alone will not sufficiently answer a research question. By collecting and analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data in the same study, you can draw more meaningful conclusions. 

There are several reasons why mixed methods research can be beneficial, including generalizability, contextualization, and credibility. 

For example, let's say you are conducting a survey about consumer preferences for a certain product. You could collect only quantitative data, such as how many people prefer each product and their demographics. Or you could supplement your quantitative data with qualitative data, such as interviews and focus groups , to get a better sense of why people prefer one product over another.

It is important to note that mixed methods research does not only mean collecting both types of data. Rather, it also requires carefully considering the relationship between the two and method flexibility.

You may find differing or even conflicting results by combining quantitative and qualitative data . It is up to the researcher to then carefully analyze the results and consider them in the context of the research question to draw meaningful conclusions.

When designing a mixed methods study, it is important to consider your research approach, research questions, and available data. Think about how you can use different techniques to integrate the data to provide an answer to your research question.

• Mixed methods research design

A mixed methods research design  is   an approach to collecting and analyzing both qualitative and quantitative data in a single study.

Mixed methods designs allow for method flexibility and can provide differing and even conflicting results. Examples of mixed methods research designs include convergent parallel, explanatory sequential, and exploratory sequential.

By integrating data from both quantitative and qualitative sources, researchers can gain valuable insights into their research topic . For example, a study looking into the impact of technology on learning could use surveys to measure quantitative data on students' use of technology in the classroom. At the same time, interviews or focus groups can provide qualitative data on students' experiences and opinions.

• Types of mixed method research designs

Researchers often struggle to put mixed methods research into practice, as it is challenging and can lead to research bias. Although mixed methods research can reveal differences or conflicting results between studies, it can also offer method flexibility.

Designing a mixed methods study can be broken down into four types: convergent parallel, embedded, explanatory sequential, and exploratory sequential.

Convergent parallel

The convergent parallel design is when data collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data occur simultaneously and are analyzed separately. This design aims to create mutually exclusive sets of data that inform each other. 

For example, you might interview people who live in a certain neighborhood while also conducting a survey of the same people to determine their satisfaction with the area.

Embedded design

The embedded design is when the quantitative and qualitative data are collected simultaneously, but the qualitative data is embedded within the quantitative data. This design is best used when you want to focus on the quantitative data but still need to understand how the qualitative data further explains it.

For instance, you may survey students about their opinions of an online learning platform and conduct individual interviews to gain further insight into their responses.

Explanatory sequential design

In an explanatory sequential design, quantitative data is collected first, followed by qualitative data. This design is used when you want to further explain a set of quantitative data with additional qualitative information.

An example of this would be if you surveyed employees at a company about their satisfaction with their job and then conducted interviews to gain more information about why they responded the way they did.

Exploratory sequential design

The exploratory sequential design collects qualitative data first, followed by quantitative data. This type of mixed methods research is used when the goal is to explore a topic before collecting any quantitative data.

An example of this could be studying how parents interact with their children by conducting interviews and then using a survey to further explore and measure these interactions.

Integrating data in mixed methods studies can be challenging, but it can be done successfully with careful planning.

No matter which type of design you choose, understanding and applying these principles can help you draw meaningful conclusions from your research.

• Strengths of mixed methods research

Mixed methods research designs combine the strengths of qualitative and quantitative data, deepening and enriching qualitative results with quantitative data and validating quantitative findings with qualitative data. This method offers more flexibility in designing research, combining theory generation and hypothesis testing, and being less tied to disciplines and established research paradigms.

Take the example of a study examining the impact of exercise on mental health. Mixed methods research would allow for a comprehensive look at the issue from different angles. 

Researchers could begin by collecting quantitative data through surveys to get an overall view of the participants' levels of physical activity and mental health. Qualitative interviews would follow this to explore the underlying dynamics of participants' experiences of exercise, physical activity, and mental health in greater detail.

Through a mixed methods approach, researchers could more easily compare and contrast their results to better understand the phenomenon as a whole.  

Additionally, mixed methods research is useful when there are conflicting or differing results in different studies. By combining both quantitative and qualitative data, mixed methods research can offer insights into why those differences exist.

For example, if a quantitative survey yields one result while a qualitative interview yields another, mixed methods research can help identify what factors influence these differences by integrating data from both sources.

Overall, mixed methods research designs offer a range of advantages for studying complex phenomena. They can provide insight into different elements of a phenomenon in ways that are not possible with either qualitative or quantitative data alone. Additionally, they allow researchers to integrate data from multiple sources to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon in question.  

• Challenges of mixed methods research

Mixed methods research is labor-intensive and often requires interdisciplinary teams of researchers to collaborate. It also has the potential to cost more than conducting a stand alone qualitative or quantitative study . 

Interpreting the results of mixed methods research can be tricky, as it can involve conflicting or differing results. Researchers must find ways to systematically compare the results from different sources and methods to avoid bias.

For example, imagine a situation where a team of researchers has employed an explanatory sequential design for their mixed methods study. After collecting data from both the quantitative and qualitative stages, the team finds that the two sets of data provide differing results. This could be challenging for the team, as they must now decide how to effectively integrate the two types of data in order to reach meaningful conclusions. The team would need to identify method flexibility and be strategic when integrating data in order to draw meaningful conclusions from the conflicting results.

• Advanced frameworks in mixed methods research

Mixed methods research offers powerful tools for investigating complex processes and systems, such as in health and healthcare.

Besides the three basic mixed method designs—exploratory sequential, explanatory sequential, and convergent parallel—you can use one of the four advanced frameworks to extend mixed methods research designs. These include multistage, intervention, case study , and participatory. 

This framework mixes qualitative and quantitative data collection methods in stages to gather a more nuanced view of the research question. An example of this is a study that first has an online survey to collect initial data and is followed by in-depth interviews to gain further insights.

Intervention

This design involves collecting quantitative data and then taking action, usually in the form of an intervention or intervention program. An example of this could be a research team who collects data from a group of participants, evaluates it, and then implements an intervention program based on their findings .

This utilizes both qualitative and quantitative research methods to analyze a single case. The researcher will examine the specific case in detail to understand the factors influencing it. An example of this could be a study of a specific business organization to understand the organizational dynamics and culture within the organization.

Participatory

This type of research focuses on the involvement of participants in the research process. It involves the active participation of participants in formulating and developing research questions, data collection, and analysis.

An example of this could be a study that involves forming focus groups with participants who actively develop the research questions and then provide feedback during the data collection and analysis stages.

The flexibility of mixed methods research designs means that researchers can choose any combination of the four frameworks outlined above and other methodologies , such as convergent parallel, explanatory sequential, and exploratory sequential, to suit their particular needs.

Through this method's flexibility, researchers can gain multiple perspectives and uncover differing or even conflicting results when integrating data.

When it comes to integration at the methods level, there are four approaches.

Connecting involves collecting both qualitative and quantitative data during different phases of the research.

Building involves the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data within a single phase.

Merging involves the concurrent collection of both qualitative and quantitative data.

Embedding involves including qualitative data within a quantitative study or vice versa.

• Techniques for integrating data in mixed method studies

Integrating data is an important step in mixed methods research designs. It allows researchers to gain further understanding from their research and gives credibility to the integration process. There are three main techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies: triangulation protocol, following a thread, and the mixed methods matrix.

Triangulation protocol

This integration method combines different methods with differing or conflicting results to generate one unified answer.

For example, if a researcher wanted to know what type of music teenagers enjoy listening to, they might employ a survey of 1,000 teenagers as well as five focus group interviews to investigate this. The results might differ; the survey may find that rap is the most popular genre, whereas the focus groups may suggest rock music is more widely listened to. 

The researcher can then use the triangulation protocol to come up with a unified answer—such as that both rap and rock music are popular genres for teenage listeners. 

Following a thread

This is another method of integration where the researcher follows the same theme or idea from one method of data collection to the next. 

A research design that follows a thread starts by collecting quantitative data on a specific issue, followed by collecting qualitative data to explain the results. This allows whoever is conducting the research to detect any conflicting information and further look into the conflicting information to understand what is really going on.

For example, a researcher who used this research method might collect quantitative data about how satisfied employees are with their jobs at a certain company, followed by qualitative interviews to investigate why job satisfaction levels are low. They could then use the results to explore any conflicting or differing results, allowing them to gain a deeper understanding of job satisfaction at the company. 

By following a thread, the researcher can explore various research topics related to the original issue and gain a more comprehensive view of the issue.

Mixed methods matrix

This technique is a visual representation of the different types of mixed methods research designs and the order in which they should be implemented. It enables researchers to quickly assess their research design and adjust it as needed. 

The matrix consists of four boxes with four different types of mixed methods research designs: convergent parallel, explanatory sequential, exploratory sequential, and method flexibility. 

For example, imagine a researcher who wanted to understand why people don't exercise regularly. To answer this question, they could use a convergent parallel design, collecting both quantitative (e.g., survey responses) and qualitative (e.g., interviews) data simultaneously.

If the researcher found conflicting results, they could switch to an explanatory sequential design and collect quantitative data first, then follow up with qualitative data if needed. This way, the researcher can make adjustments based on their findings and integrate their data more effectively.

Mixed methods research is a powerful tool for understanding complex research topics. Using qualitative and quantitative data in one study allows researchers to understand their subject more deeply. 

Mixed methods research designs such as convergent parallel, explanatory sequential, and exploratory sequential provide method flexibility, enabling researchers to collect both types of data while avoiding the limitations of either approach alone.

However, it's important to remember that mixed methods research can produce differing or even conflicting results, so it's important to be aware of the potential pitfalls and take steps to ensure that data is being correctly integrated. If used effectively, mixed methods research can offer valuable insight into topics that would otherwise remain largely unexplored.

What is an example of mixed methods research?

An example of mixed methods research is a study that combines quantitative and qualitative data. This type of research uses surveys, interviews, and observations to collect data from multiple sources.

Which sampling method is best for mixed methods?

It depends on the research objectives, but a few methods are often used in mixed methods research designs. These include snowball sampling, convenience sampling, and purposive sampling. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages.

What is the difference between mixed methods and multiple methods?

Mixed methods research combines quantitative and qualitative data in a single study. Multiple methods involve collecting data from different sources, such as surveys and interviews, but not necessarily combining them into one analysis. Mixed methods offer greater flexibility but can lead to differing or conflicting results when integrating data.

Get started today

Go from raw data to valuable insights with a flexible research platform

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 21 December 2023

Last updated: 16 December 2023

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 12 May 2023

Last updated: 15 February 2024

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 18 May 2023

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Last updated: 20 December 2023

Latest articles

Related topics, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

Designing a PhD proposal in mixed method research

• Social Work and Arts

Research output : Book chapter/Published conference paper › Chapter (peer-reviewed) › peer-review

Publication series

Access to document.

• 10.4018/978-1-5225-7897-0.ch003

Fingerprint

• Mixed Methods Research Keyphrases 100%
• Quantitative Methods Keyphrases 100%
• Mixed Methods Psychology 100%
• Research Psychology 100%
• Mixed-Methods Economics, Econometrics and Finance 100%
• Additional Value Keyphrases 50%
• Mixed Methodology Keyphrases 50%
• Truancy Keyphrases 50%

T1 - Designing a PhD proposal in mixed method research

AU - Mungai, Ndungi

N2 - This chapter reviews the challenges and advantages of writing a mixed method research (MMR) proposal. The argument put forward is that a mixed method approach overcomes the short comings of the commonly used qualitative and quantitative methods. A brief definition of a research proposal is followed by a discussion on the different interpretations of a mixed method and what makes mixed methods ideal in the proposal example that follows. A mixed method can be either one that utilizes qualitative and quantitative methods to different degrees or it can be regarded as a distinct method by itself. A mixed method is suitable where both different types of data can be collected, when the data adds value to what would be achieved using one approach and where cost also justifies it. A hypothetical case example where an application is being made to conduct an evaluation of an anti-truancy program is presented.

AB - This chapter reviews the challenges and advantages of writing a mixed method research (MMR) proposal. The argument put forward is that a mixed method approach overcomes the short comings of the commonly used qualitative and quantitative methods. A brief definition of a research proposal is followed by a discussion on the different interpretations of a mixed method and what makes mixed methods ideal in the proposal example that follows. A mixed method can be either one that utilizes qualitative and quantitative methods to different degrees or it can be regarded as a distinct method by itself. A mixed method is suitable where both different types of data can be collected, when the data adds value to what would be achieved using one approach and where cost also justifies it. A hypothetical case example where an application is being made to conduct an evaluation of an anti-truancy program is presented.

KW - Research question

KW - mixed method research evaluation

KW - research proposal

U2 - 10.4018/978-1-5225-7897-0.ch003

DO - 10.4018/978-1-5225-7897-0.ch003

M3 - Chapter (peer-reviewed)

SN - 9781522578970

T3 - Advances in Religious and Cultural Studies (ARCS) Book Series

BT - Social research methodology and new techniques in analysis, interpretation, and writing

A2 - Islam, M. Rezaul

PB - IGI Global

CY - Hershey, PA

• What Is Mixed Methods Research? Definition, Guide & Examples

As the world continues to evolve, we face increasingly complex problems,  from climate change to global health disparities. These issues are becoming increasingly difficult to address through conventional research methods.

Mixed methods research offers a new way to tackle these challenges, by providing us with a deeper understanding of the underlying causes and effects of complex topics.

In this article, we’ll explore how mixed-method research works, and how it helps us solve real-world problems.

The Foundation of Mixed Methods Research

Mixed methods research is an effective approach to understanding complex phenomena. It combines the strengths of quantitative and qualitative methods to provide a more comprehensive and nuanced perspective.

Here is a breakdown of the pioneers of mixed-method research and how it has evolved over the years:

A. Historical Development of Mixed Methods

Mixed methods research dates back to the early 1900s , but it didn’t become widely adopted until the late 1980s. Before that, people thought that quantitative and qualitative methods were two different concepts.

Quantitative research focuses on numbers and facts, while qualitative research focuses on people’s experiences and meanings. Combining these two using mixed-method research gives you a more accurate understanding of complex concepts.

Today, Mixed methods research is widely used across different industries, such as education, health science, social science, business, etc. This is because it gives a holistic view of research findings, making them easily reproducible and accurate.

Ensure clear and accurate clinical communication with our comprehensive Clinical Report Form Template.

B. Key Figures and Contributions in the Field

• Abbas Tashakkori

Tashakkori is one of the leading experts in mixed-methods research with his work has provided a valuable framework for understanding and conducting mixed-methods research. 

He has published several books and papers on mixed methods research, including the “Foundation of mixed methods” and “Mixed Methodology: combining quantitative and qualitative research approaches.” 

• John W. Creswell

Creswell has established himself as a leading authority on mixed methods research. He has published several books and papers on the subject, including the groundbreaking textbook “Qualitative Inquiry: Choosing Between Five Traditions”. 

Creswell’s work has contributed to the legitimization of mixed-method research as a robust and scientifically sound research approach.

• Charles Teddlie

Another big name in mixed methods research is Charles Teddlie. He’s co-authored several books and journals about mixed methods, including the textbook, “Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.” His work has helped make mixed methods research better understood and practiced across different fields.

C. Paradigms and Philosophies Underlying Mixed Methods Research

Mixed methods research is grounded in several paradigms and philosophies, each of which offers unique insights into why mixed methods should be adopted for research processes. 

Some of the most common paradigms and philosophies underlying mixed methods research include:

• Pragmatism 

Pragmatism on the practical implications of things. This approach focuses on researching concepts to see how they help solve real-world problems.

Mixed methods research is compatible with pragmatism because it gives researchers the freedom to use different methods so they can determine the most effective way to solve research problems.

• Triangulation

Triangulation uses multiple techniques to collect data on the same subject to improve the validity and robustness of the research results. Mixed methods research frequently uses triangulation to gather and analyze data from quantitative and qualitative sources.

• Integration

Integration is the process of combining quantitative and qualitative data to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon. 

The purpose of mixed methods research is to bring quantitative and qualitative information together in a meaningful manner, rather than just combining them. Integration methods such as data transformation, mixed methods convergence analysis, and mixed methods modeling help you do this seamlessly.

Understanding the Components of Mixed Methods Research

The following are the key elements that make up mixed-method research:

• Quantitative Research

Quantitative research focuses on collecting and analyzing numerical data. It helps you to collect numerical data test hypotheses, identify patterns and trends, and make predictions.

It’s like taking a photograph of a crowd: you can see who’s there and how many are there, but you can’t see what they’re thinking or how they feel.

You can perform quantitative research using surveys, questionnaires, experiments, and observations. The most common methods of analyzing quantitative analysis findings are statistical analysis, regression analysis, and factor analysis.

• Qualitative Research

Qualitative research focuses on gathering and analyzing non-structural data, such as text, pictures, and audio. It looks at complex phenomena by focusing on people’s experiences and opinions.

Think of qualitative research as talking to the people in a crowd. It allows you to capture their individual experiences and points of view. 

The most common methods for collecting qualitative data collection methods include interviews, focus groups, ethnography, and document analysis. You can analyze your findings using thematic analysis, discourse analysis, and grounded theory.

The Advantages of Mixed Methods Research

A. comprehensive understanding of research questions.

Quantitative research is good at identifying patterns and trends, while qualitative research is good at providing depth and understanding. Mixed method research combines these features to gain a more complete understanding of the research topic.

For example, a mixed-method study on the impact of a new teaching approach on student learning outcomes would use quantitative methods (academic performance) to measure student improvement. It would also use qualitative data (interviews and questionnaires) to gain insight into why a teaching approach is doing well or poorly.

B. Increased Validity and Reliability

Mixed methods research often employs triangulation which uses multiple methods to collect data on the same phenomenon. This reduces the risk of bias and ensures that the research findings are accurate and reliable.

For example, a mixed-method study on the challenges people with chronic illnesses face would track symptoms and interview their caregivers to get a better idea of what they’re going through and what they’re facing.

C. Enhanced Triangulation

Mixed methods research provides several opportunities for triangulation by combining multiple techniques, sources, and viewpoints to collect and analyze data. This helps improve the accuracy and completeness of research results.

For example, in a study about student performance you can triangulate quantitative and qualitative data, data from different sources (e.g., surveys, interviews, observations), and data from different perspectives (e.g., students, teachers, parents).

D. Addressing Research Bias

Research bias is a potential problem in all types of research, but it can be particularly challenging to address in qualitative research. Mixed methods research can help to address research bias by combining quantitative and qualitative data.

For example, you can use a survey to gather data on demographic factors prone to bias, like race, gender, and income. Then, you for control bias by analyzing the data using qualitative data such as focus groups and interviews.

E. Opportunities for Exploration and Discovery

Mixed-method research allows you to collect and analyze data from various perspectives and methods. This allows you to gain new insights and understandings that would not be possible with either quantitative or qualitative research alone.

For instance, a mixed-method study on the school experience of students with disabilities could collect quantitative data on student performance such as grades, standardized test results, and school attendance. Combining this data with qualitative data from the students, their teachers, and their parents would give you a deeper understanding of the unique challenges and experiences of students with disabilities in school.

Designing a Mixed Methods Study

You need a proper design to successfully execute your mixed-method research. Here is the list of steps that will get you there:

A. Research Questions and Hypotheses

Start by clearly defining your research questions and hypotheses. This will help you to choose the appropriate research design and data collection methods.

Also, ensure the research questions are specific, measurable, and relevant to your research goals.

B. Choosing the Appropriate Research Design

There are three main types of mixed methods research designs: concurrent, sequential, and exploratory.

• Concurrent designs collect and analyze quantitative and qualitative data simultaneously. This helps you explore complex phenomena in detail and to develop new theories.
• Sequential design is all about collecting and analyzing data one after the other, not simultaneously like concurrent design. It’s usually used to test hypotheses and build on existing studies.
• Exploratory design is the process of coming up with new concepts and ideas. This is the most suitable research method if you are working on a new topic that there’s little to no understanding of.

C. Sampling Strategies

Sampling is the process of selecting a subset of a population to represent the entire population. When designing a mixed methods study, you have to sample both quantitatively and qualitatively.

In qualitative sampling, participants are selected based on their likelihood of providing high-quality and meaningful data.  However, in quantitative sampling, participants are randomly selected or stratified to ensure that the sample is representative of the population.

D. Data Collection and Instrumentation

You have to choose your data collection instruments; these are the tools that allow you to collect research data. Quantitative research typically uses surveys, questionnaires, and tests, while qualitative uses interviews, focus groups, and observation guides to collect data.

E. Data Analysis

Data analysis is the process of organizing, summarizing, and interpreting data. 

Statistical and regression analysis are the most common ways of analyzing quantitative data. Qualitative research uses different analysis methods including, thematic analysis, discourse analysis, and grounded theories.

F, Integration of Findings

Integration of findings is the final step in the mixed methods research process. This involves combining the quantitative and qualitative findings in a meaningful way to answer the research questions and hypotheses.

Here are the most common methods of integrating findings in mixed-method research:

• Triangulation matrix : it uses a table to compare and contrast the quantitative and qualitative findings.
• Convergence analysis : this is a statistical analysis method that helps you determine the relationship between quantitative and qualitative results, by looking at their similarities and differences.

Real-World Applications of Mixed Methods Research

Mixed methods research allows you to gain better insights into complex topics across different industries including:

• Education : You can use mixed methods research to study a variety of topics in education, such as the effectiveness of new teaching methods, the impact of school policies on student achievement, or determining the optimal courseload for students.
• Healthcare : Mixed methods also allow you to effectively investigate healthcare topics, such as the effectiveness of new medical treatments, the impact of public health interventions on population health, etc.
• Social sciences: Mixed methods research helps you to explore social science topics like what influences crime rate in different regions, how policies affect social well-being, etc.
• Business and marketing : You can also use mixed-method research to determine the effectiveness of new marketing campaigns, the impact of customer satisfaction on business performance, etc.

Improve your teaching and classroom environment with valuable student feedback using our Student Perception Survey Template.

B. Impact of Mixed Methods Research on Policy Development and Decision-Making

Mixed methods research helps policymakers develop more effective policies and programs by giving them a deeper understanding of different topics.

For example, the findings of the mixed methods study on the effectiveness of the public health intervention on childhood obesity could be used to inform the development of other public health interventions to reduce obesity rates.

Challenges and Limitations of Mixed Methods Research

While mixed-method research is an effective approach to solving complex problems, it’s not without its limitations. Here are common mixed-method research limitations and challenges:

A. Integration Challenges

One of the most difficult aspects of mixed methods research is the integration of qualitative and quantitative data. This is because qualitative and quantitative data are very different in content and format.

You can integrate by using data transformation to convert qualitative data into quantitative data. You could also use convergence analysis to identify patterns and trends in both the quantitative and qualitative data.

B. Resource-Intensive Nature

Mixed methods studies involve collecting and analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data. This requires significant time, money, and personnel resources.

You can overcome this challenge by carefully planning the mixed methods studies by ensuring you have all the resources you need. You could also look for funding from outside sources, like the government or private foundations.

C. Potential for Researcher Bias

All types of research are susceptible to researcher bias, but this can be a particular challenge in mixed-methods research. This is because mixed methods research often involves collecting and analyzing data from multiple perspectives.

You can use strategies such as triangulation, peer review, and member checking to pinpoint your biases and mitigate them.

D. Complexity in Data Interpretation

Mixed methods studies often produce a large amount of data from multiple sources, making it difficult to interpret. 

One of the simplest ways to mitigate this difficulty is to use data visualization techniques such as graphs, maps, charts, and more. This makes it easier for you to identify trends and patterns in the data.

Best Practices for Conducting Mixed Methods Research

Here are some best practices to ensure you have an effective mixed-method research:

A. Establishing a Clear Research Plan

Start your research by outlining your research questions, hypotheses, research design, data collection methods, data analysis methods, and integration strategies.

Also, ensure you are very specific in your research plan. This will help you to stay on track throughout the research process and to ensure that your study is rigorous and well-structured.

B. Collaborative Research Teams

Mixed method research is a very rigorous and resource-intensive research method, so having a team of researchers on board makes sure you’re collecting and analyzing data thoroughly without the same amount of stress if you were doing it alone.  Having a collaborative research team also helps reduce researcher bias and generate stronger results.

C. Ongoing Reflexivity and Transparency

Being reflexive means being aware of your own biases and limitations, while transparency means honestly reporting your research methods and findings.

One way to be more reflexive and transparent is to keep a research journal. This allows you to document your thoughts and feelings about the research process, as well as any challenges or obstacles that you encounter.

You can also seek feedback from others on your research design, data collection methods, data analysis methods, and integration strategies.

D. Reporting Mixed Methods Research Findings

Clearly and honestly document your research by providing detailed descriptions of your data collection methods, data analysis methods, and integration strategies. 

You can do this by using a mixed-methods research reporting template. This ensures you have a structure for reporting your results and avoid leaving out important information.

Dive into Experimental Research Designs: Exploring Types, Examples, and Methods

Mixed method research enables you to get a better grasp on topics that would be hard to understand using just one research method. This allows you to make accurate data-driven decisions, and it works across different fields.

However, like any other research method, mixed-method research is not without its challenges and limitations. Ensure you use the best practices in this guide to get quality data and achieve your mixed-method research goals.

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

• Mixed Methods Research
• qualitative research
• quantitative research
• research design
• Research Plan
• Sampling Strategies
• Moradeke Owa

You may also like:

How to Write An Abstract For Research Papers: Tips & Examples

In this article, we will share some tips for writing an effective abstract, plus samples you can learn from.

What is Field Research: Meaning, Examples, Pros & Cons

Introduction Field research is a method of research that deals with understanding and interpreting the social interactions of groups of...

Desk Research: Definition, Types, Application, Pros & Cons

If you are looking for a way to conduct a research study while optimizing your resources, desk research is a great option. Desk research...

Statistical Analysis Software: A Guide For Social Researchers

Introduction Social research is a complex endeavor. It takes a lot of time, energy, and resources to gather data, analyze and present...

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

• Request new password
• Create a new account

Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches

Student resources, research proposal tools and sample student proposals.

Sample research proposals written by doctoral students in each of the key areas covered in Research Design --quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods—are provided as a useful reference. A Research Proposal checklist also serves to help guide your own proposal-writing.

›   Morales Proposal_Qualitative Study

›   Kottich Proposal_Quantitative Study

›   Guetterman Proposal_Mixed Methods Study

›   Research Proposal Checklist  

Designing a Research Proposal in Mixed-Method Approach

• First Online: 27 October 2022

Cite this chapter

• Lokasundari Vijaya Sankar 4  

2228 Accesses

A research proposal is an important document that outlines a plan for a research study. It should contain pertinent and sufficient information for the application of grants, scholarships, these proposals, and other scientific studies to be examined and approved by a panel of examiners. A research proposal should first introduce the topic of study and its importance to the scientific community. It will further give an argument as to why the study is important and outline the objective and research questions that drive the study. A detailed plan for the study should be arrived at, describing theoretical bases, the sample for the study and the data collection and analysis methods. A plan of execution should also be included.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bulsara, C. (2014). Using A Mixed Methods Approach To Enhance And Validate Your Research . Notre Dame University. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=dr%20caroline%20bulsara%20mixed%20methods

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage.

Google Scholar  

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . Sage.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Communication, Taylor University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia

Lokasundari Vijaya Sankar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lokasundari Vijaya Sankar .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Centre for Family and Child Studies, Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

M. Rezaul Islam

Department of Development Studies, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Niaz Ahmed Khan

Department of Social Work, School of Humanities, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

Rajendra Baikady

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Sankar, L.V. (2022). Designing a Research Proposal in Mixed-Method Approach. In: Islam, M.R., Khan, N.A., Baikady, R. (eds) Principles of Social Research Methodology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_31

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_31

Published : 27 October 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-19-5219-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-19-5441-2

eBook Packages : Social Sciences

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Mixed Methods Research | Definition, Guide, & Examples

Mixed Methods Research | Definition, Guide, & Examples

Published on 4 April 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on 25 October 2022.

Mixed methods research combines elements of quantitative research and qualitative research in order to answer your research question . Mixed methods can help you gain a more complete picture than a standalone quantitative or qualitative study, as it integrates benefits of both methods.

Mixed methods research is often used in the behavioral, health, and social sciences, especially in multidisciplinary settings and complex situational or societal research.

• To what extent does the frequency of traffic accidents ( quantitative ) reflect cyclist perceptions of road safety ( qualitative ) in Amsterdam?
• How do student perceptions of their school environment ( qualitative ) relate to differences in test scores ( quantitative ) ?
• How do interviews about job satisfaction at Company X ( qualitative ) help explain year-over-year sales performance and other KPIs ( quantitative ) ?
• How can voter and non-voter beliefs about democracy ( qualitative ) help explain election turnout patterns ( quantitative ) in Town X?
• How do average hospital salary measurements over time (quantitative) help to explain nurse testimonials about job satisfaction (qualitative) ?

Table of contents

When to use mixed methods research, mixed methods research designs, benefits of mixed methods research, disadvantages of mixed methods research, frequently asked questions about mixed methods research.

Mixed methods research may be the right choice if your research process suggests that quantitative or qualitative data alone will not sufficiently answer your research question. There are several common reasons for using mixed methods research:

• Generalisability : Qualitative research usually has a smaller sample size , and thus is not generalisable . In mixed methods research, this comparative weakness is mitigated by the comparative strength of ‘large N’, externally valid quantitative research.
• Contextualisation: Mixing methods allows you to put findings in context and add richer detail to your conclusions. Using qualitative data to illustrate quantitative findings can help ‘put meat on the bones’ of your analysis.
• Credibility: Using different methods to collect data on the same subject can make your results more credible. If the qualitative and quantitative data converge, this strengthens the validity of your conclusions. This process is called triangulation .

As you formulate your research question , try to directly address how qualitative and quantitative methods will be combined in your study. If your research question can be sufficiently answered via standalone quantitative or qualitative analysis, a mixed methods approach may not be the right fit.

Keep in mind that mixed methods research doesn’t just mean collecting both types of data; you need to carefully consider the relationship between the two and how you’ll integrate them into coherent conclusions. Mixed methods can be very challenging to put into practice, so it’s a less common choice than standalone qualitative or qualitative research.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

There are different types of mixed methods research designs . The differences between them relate to the aim of the research, the timing of the data collection , and the importance given to each data type.

As you design your mixed methods study, also keep in mind:

• Your research approach ( inductive vs deductive )
• Your research questions
• What kind of data is already available for you to use
• What kind of data you’re able to collect yourself.

Here are a few of the most common mixed methods designs.

Convergent parallel

In a convergent parallel design, you collect quantitative and qualitative data at the same time and analyse them separately. After both analyses are complete, compare your results to draw overall conclusions.

• On the qualitative side, you analyse cyclist complaints via the city’s database and on social media to find out which areas are perceived as dangerous and why.
• On the quantitative side, you analyse accident reports in the city’s database to find out how frequently accidents occur in different areas of the city.

In an embedded design, you collect and analyse both types of data at the same time, but within a larger quantitative or qualitative design. One type of data is secondary to the other.

This is a good approach to take if you have limited time or resources. You can use an embedded design to strengthen or supplement your conclusions from the primary type of research design.

Explanatory sequential

In an explanatory sequential design, your quantitative data collection and analysis occurs first, followed by qualitative data collection and analysis.

You should use this design if you think your qualitative data will explain and contextualise your quantitative findings.

Exploratory sequential

In an exploratory sequential design, qualitative data collection and analysis occurs first, followed by quantitative data collection and analysis.

You can use this design to first explore initial questions and develop hypotheses. Then you can use the quantitative data to test or confirm your qualitative findings.

‘Best of both worlds’ analysis

Combining the two types of data means you benefit from both the detailed, contextualised insights of qualitative data and the generalisable, externally valid insights of quantitative data. The strengths of one type of data often mitigate the weaknesses of the other.

For example, solely quantitative studies often struggle to incorporate the lived experiences of your participants, so adding qualitative data deepens and enriches your quantitative results.

Solely qualitative studies are often not very generalisable, only reflecting the experiences of your participants, so adding quantitative data can validate your qualitative findings.

Method flexibility

Mixed methods are less tied to disciplines and established research paradigms. They offer more flexibility in designing your research, allowing you to combine aspects of different types of studies to distill the most informative results.

Mixed methods research can also combine theory generation and hypothesis testing within a single study, which is unusual for standalone qualitative or quantitative studies.

Mixed methods research is very labour-intensive. Collecting, analysing, and synthesising two types of data into one research product takes a lot of time and effort, and often involves interdisciplinary teams of researchers rather than individuals. For this reason, mixed methods research has the potential to cost much more than standalone studies.

Differing or conflicting results

If your analysis yields conflicting results, it can be very challenging to know how to interpret them in a mixed methods study. If the quantitative and qualitative results do not agree or you are concerned you may have confounding variables , it can be unclear how to proceed.

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to test a hypothesis by systematically collecting and analysing data, while qualitative methods allow you to explore ideas and experiences in depth.

In mixed methods research , you use both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods to answer your research question .

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organisations.

Triangulation in research means using multiple datasets, methods, theories and/or investigators to address a research question. It’s a research strategy that can help you enhance the validity and credibility of your findings.

Triangulation is mainly used in qualitative research , but it’s also commonly applied in quantitative research . Mixed methods research always uses triangulation.

These are four of the most common mixed methods designs :

• Convergent parallel: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected at the same time and analysed separately. After both analyses are complete, compare your results to draw overall conclusions. 
• Embedded: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected at the same time, but within a larger quantitative or qualitative design. One type of data is secondary to the other.
• Explanatory sequential: Quantitative data is collected and analysed first, followed by qualitative data. You can use this design if you think your qualitative data will explain and contextualise your quantitative findings.
• Exploratory sequential: Qualitative data is collected and analysed first, followed by quantitative data. You can use this design if you think the quantitative data will confirm or validate your qualitative findings.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

George, T. (2022, October 25). Mixed Methods Research | Definition, Guide, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 29 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/mixed-methods/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

11. A Sample Research Proposal for a Mixed-Methods Investigation of Resilience: The Pathways to Resilience Project

From the book researching resilience.

• Michael Ungar
• X / Twitter

Supplementary Materials

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

Chapters in this book (16)

• Find My Rep

You are here

Developing a Mixed Methods Proposal A Practical Guide for Beginning Researchers

• Jessica T. DeCuir-Gunby - University of Southern California, USA
• Paul A. Schutz - University of Arizona, Tucson, USA
• Description

“This text is one of the most superior texts that I have come across in Mixed Methods Research. This is a gem of a book and a must have for any serious-minded researcher.”

“This book provides the clarity of a proven design approach, so common mistakes or more often oversights don’t happen.”

“The book can serve as a reference for my students’ dissertation writing. Also, from teaching point of view, the book also provides good activities for the instructors to use in their instructions.”

We have all waited a long time for a good book on developing a mixed methods proposal. DeCuir-Gunby and Schutz have delivered this book to us. They write in clear, straight-forward language, they include the latest advances in mixed methods, they incorporate activities, further readings, and sample sessions illustrating the use of each chapter's content. I especially liked the ‘real-world’ sample proposal at the end on racial microaggressions. I will encourage workshop participants and students to study this chapter closely. This is a must-read book in the field of mixed methods .

Well structured book which gets to the heart of its subject matter. Easy to read, and additional thinking points should catalyse the student reader's imagination.

Sample Materials & Chapters

For instructors, select a purchasing option.

• Electronic Order Options VitalSource Amazon Kindle Google Play eBooks.com Kobo

Related Products

SAGE Research Methods is a research methods tool created to help researchers, faculty and students with their research projects. SAGE Research Methods links over 175,000 pages of SAGE’s renowned book, journal and reference content with truly advanced search and discovery tools. Researchers can explore methods concepts to help them design research projects, understand particular methods or identify a new method, conduct their research, and write up their findings. Since SAGE Research Methods focuses on methodology rather than disciplines, it can be used across the social sciences, health sciences, and more.

With SAGE Research Methods, researchers can explore their chosen method across the depth and breadth of content, expanding or refining their search as needed; read online, print, or email full-text content; utilize suggested related methods and links to related authors from SAGE Research Methods' robust library and unique features; and even share their own collections of content through Methods Lists. SAGE Research Methods contains content from over 720 books, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and handbooks, the entire “Little Green Book,” and "Little Blue Book” series, two Major Works collating a selection of journal articles, and specially commissioned videos.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Mixed Methods Research Proposal RSM 811[1]

Related Papers

Carol Ann Blank

Mixed-Methods Research Report

Evelyn Mayes

The mixed-methods approach to research is a hybrid, a cross between qualitative and quantitative research strategies, adjusted and designed to align with the unique needs of the research. Creswell and Creswell (2018, p. 249), in their seminal work examining research design, regarded the mixed-methods approach, its various forms, and attributes, key in academic research. They emphasized the fact that the mixed-methods approach to research does not only involve adopted qualitative and quantitative methodologies of data collection and analysis but also, and mainly, "involves philosophical assumptions," worldviews, and social values and theories.

Journal of Mixed Methods Research

Michael Fetters

Fernanda Carneiro Leão Goncalves

Donna Mertens

Julia Brannen

Patrick Ngulube , Norma Romm

This chapter explores various ways of conceiving what is called mixed methods research (MMR) – mixing quantitative and qualitative traditions. After reading this chapter, you should be able to discuss the debates around what it might mean to “mix” different methods employed in the process of doing MMR; explore the philosophical underpinnings which can be said to underlie the use of different methods in MMR; reflect on whether we should regard mixed methods research as encapsulating a different paradigm from those that are seen as traditionally underpinning quantitatively-directed or qualitatively-directed research traditions; articulate how a “third” paradigmatic stance as an underpinning for MMR can be justified; differentiate between multi-methods and MMR; describe key considerations that should inform the choice of MMR as a methodology to conduct research; outline key MMR designs; and reflect on how to conduct MMR.

Sharlene Hesse-Biber

Journal of Education …

Heather Knight

Using the FraIM model, Plowright starts with the identification of a research question. Subsequent chapters lead the reader through different stages of the research process, drawing on relevant literature and using examples from research studies to illustrate key points. Importantly, ...

Contemporary Nurse

colleen smith

RELATED PAPERS

EMILIA G GARCIA ROMERO

Felix Rotich

Susan Lovelace

Pauline Fenouillas

Claudio Pescatore

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Neeti Agarwal

Journal of Agriculture and Applied Biology

Dr. Shakti Singh Bhati

Kitap Adı: Merhaba STEM: Yenilikçi Bir Öğretim Yaklaşımı, Bölüm Adı: Erken Çocukluk Döneminde STEM, (ss.51-78) (2018) Bölüm Yazarları: YAŞAR-EKİCİ Fatma, BARDAK Musa, YOUSEF ZADEH Mohammad. Eğitim Yayınevi, Editörler: AYDIN Emre, KIRKIÇ Kamil Arif, Sayfa sayısı 141, ISBN: 9752475489

Fatma YAŞAR EKİCİ

andang purnama

Pamukkale University Journal of Social Sciences Institute

Efe Can KILINÇ

Vingtième Siècle. Revue d'histoire

Elisabetta Vezzosi

Asian Journal of Chemistry

Dr. Rabia Rehman

European Scientific Journal, ESJ

Bandama Bogui

Química Nova

Antonio Gilberto Ferreira

Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology

Ahmed yousef

Anadolu Kardiyoloji Dergisi/The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology

Fatma Bozkurt

Procedia Computer Science

Boriss Misnevs

Alessandro Mecocci

QAISER ZAMAN

IOS Press eBooks

Dr.P.Sriramya P

Claudia Peter

Leticia Moro

Michel Desmarais

Preconception Lifestyle Status and Its Predictors in Women Contemplating Pregnancy

Sakineh ghasemi

Materials Science and Engineering: A

Yuanxin Zhou

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024