Conceptualizing Mixed-Methods Educational Research: Ongoing Questions About Questions and Designs

• In Event: The Current State of Mixed-Methods Research: A Systematic Review and Panel Discussion

Abstract

Objectives
The systematic review examined how the researchers conveyed the conceptualization of their mixed methods studies within the study reports. The review research questions included: Do mixed methods publications include research questions, and if they do, are specific mixed methods questions presented? Additionally, are researchers naming a specific mixed methods design when framing their studies? Are scholars presenting a figure to display the phases of their research?

Perspectives
Research questions are at the heart of empirical studies, tethering the components of a study (e.g., participant sampling, data collection) to a clear purpose. Creswell and Plano Clark (2018) explain the utility of constructing three research questions (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods) to frame the two phases of data collection followed by the integration. Teddlie and Tashakkori (2012) argue for “complex, interrelated research questions” (p. 778) while Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2006) emphasize the need to ensure that all research questions are explicitly tied to data analysis.

Creswell and Plano Clark (2018) identify three core mixed methods designs (explanatory sequential, exploratory sequential, and convergent) that differ in terms of the timing of the qualitative and quantitative strands, the points of integration, and the intent of the integration. Variations of these designs reflect relative emphasis of the strands, the extent and type of integration, and combined approaches that form complex/hybrid approaches (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Plano Clark & Ivankova, 2016; Tashakkori et al., 2021). Some authors choose to use a typology-based name to describe a specific design, while some authors simply label their studies as mixed methods.

An element of a mixed methods design is the inclusion of a figure that depicts the procedures and outcomes of the study (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Given the complexity of mixed methods research, such figures can clearly reveal the details of the study.

Methodology and Data Sources
Within the Mixed Methods Educational Research Review, the analysts applied several categories to capture how authors conveyed the conceptualization of their mixed methods studies within the publications. These categories included: (a) the presence and structure of a mixed methods research question, (b) the naming of a specific mixed methods research design, and (c) the inclusion of a research design figure.

Initial Results
Initial review results highlight (a) variations in how authors state research questions within published mixed methods studies; (b) extensive use of design names within published mixed methods study reports; and (c) limited presence of procedural diagrams.

Scholarly Significance
The reflection commentary will discuss the complexity of providing guidelines for writing research questions in mixed methods studies and emphasize the need for mixed methods studies to be driven by the substantive objectives, while supporting the need for integrative methods. It will argue both the value and limitations of typology-based frameworks for mixed methods designs and suggest the need for using typology-based designs within interactive design thinking. It will advocate for increased inclusion of procedural diagrams in response to the complexity of mixed methods designs alongside with the practicalities of publishing.

Author

• Vicki L. Plano Clark, University of Cincinnati