The Journal of Mixed Methods Research Starts a New Decade: Perspectives of Past Editors on the Current State of the Field and Future Directions

1. What Do You Consider the Most Important Developments in Mixed Methods in the Past Decade?

John Creswell: I would say that the field has advanced methodologically. My thinking about this topic has emerged in the past 2 to 3 years as I reflected on a comment made to me by Abbas Tashakkori about 5 years ago. He said essentially, “people are presenting the same old ideas when they speak about mixed methods.” While I agreed with his assessment, I did feel that innovations in the methodology were now occurring at a rapid pace. In our Michigan Mixed Methods Program over the past 2 years, we have focused on introducing into our workshops some of the “latest” ideas that have surfaced in the mixed methods journal articles, books, and conferences. And I have found myself seeking out new ideas about mixed methods wherever they can be found. What are these new ideas? They have been captured in my presentations and writings about “advances” in mixed method. Certainly this list is not complete, but I would highlight the concept of a joint display to represent and analyze both quantitative and qualitative findings together, the mixed method research question that makes explicit the question to be answered by integrating the data, the implementation matrix that found its way into tables presented in the National Institutes of Health “Mixed Methods Research Best Practices” (Creswell, Klassen, Plano Clark, & Smith, 2011) recommendations in Mixed Methods Research Program in the Health Sciences, and the parsing we have done in our workshops at Michigan to take apart the integration idea into its language, its scripts, its presentation, and its essential “insight” for mixed methods.

Abbas Tashakkori: I consider as most important the emergence of a multidisciplinary and transnational community of scholars with (more or less!) defined worldviews (paradigms, at least one meta-paradigm) and methodology. The JMMR and the Mixed Methods International Research Association (MMIRA; and others) are prime examples of such a defined community. I would include emergence of computer programs that allow multiple data analysis frameworks to connect the results of numerical and narrative data for analysis. This and the broad access to text mining and big data for interdisciplinary integrated studies is moving mixed methods research in ways not possible before.

Donna Mertens: The most important developments in mixed methods of the past decade include both organizational and conceptual advances. Organizationally, the launch of the MMIRA provides a professional home for those who want to contribute to and learn about advancements in mixed methods. This was a huge accomplishment and benefits will be felt for many years to come. Conceptually, the field is filled with a creative energy that supports divergent thinking about the philosophy, methodology, design, and preparation of new mixed methods researchers. Advances in understanding of complexity theory have been coupled with advances in the design of mixed methods studies that are needed to respond to this complexity (Mertens, 2018). Mixed methods researchers have moved far beyond the use of a survey and a focus group when the demands of the context demand a more sophisticated design.

Dawn Freshwater: As an academic and a health professional, the most important developments have been in collaborative mixed methods teams, applications in practice, and recognition of the value of mixed methods research approaches by funding agencies. In my field, these relate to the recognition of the interdependency of research, achieving excellence in practice, and this in turn generating new knowledge and further enhancing practice. This has led to a concomitant expansion in the range of approaches adopted by health researchers and practitioners alike, and as importantly a parallel increase in the funding of these approaches by the research councils. In the field of health, mixed methods research has not only grown, but it has gained significant credibility and popularity. The fact that mixed methods researchers have now become more reciprocal in their approach is also a key development.

Current editors’ reflections: In these perspectives, we find as themes development of the field organizationally, incorporation of new developments, the evolution of teams in mixed methods research, the advent of big data and advances in software, advances in methodological techniques for integration, the applications of mixed methods research for addressing practical and real-world challenges, and recognition by policy makers of the value of mixed methods research approaches through the provision of funding to support applied mixed methods research investigations.

2. What Do You Consider to Be the Most Important Current Controversies in Mixed Methods Research?

John Creswell: One topic that continually gets debated is whether mixed methods research is a “method” or a “methodology.” That means to me one’s central understanding of mixed methods comes through viewing it as a “method” of data collection, analysis, and interpretation, or as a “methodology” that encompasses the full array of research steps starting with philosophical assumptions, research questions, and extending through the methods. I am not inclined toward “either or thinking,” but I do feel that scholars enter the field of mixed methods based on different perspectives. All perspectives are valuable, whether one focuses on methods (as I tend to do), or on philosophy, or on ethics, or on the research question. Mixed methods is a large field where we need voices representing different aspects of research. Although I treasure my philosophical colleagues and value the importance of choosing a method based on the research question, I have chosen to focus on the “methods” of data collection, especially as I introduce the field to new scholars in the health sciences unfamiliar with all the tenets of methodology.

Abbas Tashakkori: I think the most important controversies in mixed methods research include the multiplicity of definitions, designs, and quality audits. This even includes the definition of mixed methods itself! How to interpret and integrate multiple conclusions that are made on the basis of the findings of different strands of a study remains controversial. Another controversy is the continued emphasis on identifying and committing to a qual–quan priority in designing a mixed methods study (e.g., a qual–QUAN design) based on the scope of the study or amount of data (rather than information value of final inferences). Conclusions made on the basis of the results of a seemingly small and limited strand might have greater information value that is far greater than those of the more extended strand.

Donna Mertens: The mixed methods community has been quite respectful of diverse positions, hence the term controversy may not be the most appropriate way to describe differences of opinion. Differences of opinion exist in terms of the preparation of mixed methods researchers and the role of the mixed methods researcher in society. The preparation of mixed methods researchers is complicated by the methodological preparation of the professors in the academy and the methodological stances that exist in specific disciplines. These issues can provide opportunities for advancement if the respectful nature of conversations about mixed methods continues. Controversies about the role of mixed methods researchers reflect controversies associated with single method researchers because of the politics that surround methodological decisions. However, discussions about appropriate methodologies are intensified because decisions about methods are not made strictly on the basis of philosophical stance and definitions of rigor. Rather, decisions about methods are influenced by policies and politics; hence, mixed methods researchers need to examine their role within this context. Should mixed methods researchers adopt an advocacy stance to support the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods? Should they work with policy makers to develop legislation that is inclusive of mixed methods approaches? Should they advocate for mixed methods research that prioritizes addressing social and political problems by inclusion of community and action-based designs? These are questions that can provide fertile ground for future advancements in mixed methods.

Dawn Freshwater: The ongoing challenge of data integration, data relating, and combining data sets in mixed methods research will be further troubled (and enhanced) by the advances of big data and data-intensive discovery. This is an opportunity as well as something that will stimulate controversial debate, specifically around application of the data.

Current editors’ reflections: To summarize, these points relate to persisting controversy about a precise definition for mixed methods research and the language for portraying various methodological approaches. We find the comments allude to differences in the mixed methods community relative to focus among some scholars on the philosophical and methodological while others focus on details of methods. Moreover, they indicate the need to advance approaches for integrating qualitative and quantitative data and relating different databases into a coherent whole. Finally, they illustrate the potential role of using mixed methods for advocacy and adapting mixed methods research for the specific social context where the need arises.

3. What Is Your Advice for Someone New to Learning Mixed Methods Research?

John Creswell: I have two major bits of advice for someone learning mixed methods today. (1) Start reading about mixed methods. We now have over 30 books available on the topic, and certainly one or two can provide a foundational knowledge to get a new person started. For our Michigan workshops on mixed methods, for example, we typically assign core mixed methods readings so that participants can not only come to the workshops with a project but also develop a rudimentary knowledge of the language of the field, its core designs, and the essential characteristics that comprise a working definition for it. (2) All too often I hear new researchers (and a surprising number of experienced ones as well) tell me that they are conducting mixed methods research, but on closer inspection I find that they are simply collecting and analyzing quantitative and qualitative data. Such collection and analysis certainly represents the basic starting point for a mixed methods study, but the true value, I believe in mixed methods lies in the integration of the two data sets. This integration is a centerpiece of mixed methods research, and in it we find the “insight” that accrues from combining or mixing the two sets of data. This is why we have written about and explored in some depth the notion of integration and talked about it as the feature that sets mixed methods apart from other methodologies. So for the new researcher (or experienced one) I look for the collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data AND the integration and insight that follows from this integration.

Abbas Tashakkori: I advise you only to use mixed methods if your question clearly requires it! Often a simpler design is sufficient and/or more effective for answering questions. Do not limit/commit yourself to a rigid preplanned and narrow conceptualization of research design. Every mixed methods study can or might lead to a different design than what was expected. Freedom and opportunity to allow your design to emerge is an advantage of mixed methods! Know your limitations and seek help! Not everyone is an expert in every type of approach or method. Collaborative mixed methods studies might be potentially more fruitful. Keep in mind that mixed methodology is an advancement and formalized extension of how we answer questions in everyday life! Travel back and forth between different types of evidence and ask questions about their implications. Postpone making conclusions until you reach a comfortable level of certainty about the meaning of these outcomes.

Donna Mertens: Beginning researchers should be aware of the diverse philosophical positions that are informing the mixed methods community. They should learn the implications of working from different sets of assumptions in terms of methodological choices and engage in critical self-reflection to understand what set of assumptions best reflects their own worldview. Researchers should have a sound foundation in both quantitative and qualitative methods that they can then bring to learning mixed methods. In order to do high-quality mixed methods studies, researchers need to be competent in strategies for conducing rigorous quantitative and qualitative studies. If it is not feasible or possible for an individual researcher to be competent in both qualitative and quantitative methods, then they should develop skills of collaboration so that they can work in a team. Mixed methods researchers need to understand the culture associated with disciplines that have been traditionally mono-method. One of the big challenges is integration of the quantitative and qualitative methods and results. This can be facilitated by developing an understanding of the assumptions that underlie methodological choices.

Manfred Max Bergman: In my experience, the best applications of mixed methods research and designs are those where the researcher or the research team is very strong in qualitative and quantitative research methods and then work from a solid basis to expand the scope and focus by integrating the “other.” In other words, a good way of learning about mixed methods is from a solid mono-methods base. The least convincing applications are from researchers or research teams, who do not know much about research methods, but because of ambition, lack of selection criteria, or a strange sense of wanting to give voice to both approaches, decide on a mixed methods design. While there are good reasons for novice researchers to be attracted to mixed methods, they are quickly overwhelmed by the complexity of qualitative or quantitative research, let alone combining them. It is the curiosity of the more experienced researchers who wonder what lies beyond their methods horizon that makes mixed methods exciting in their applications.

Dawn Freshwater: I advise you immerse yourself deeply in the literature and do nothing quickly! In other words, while learning through experience is important in mixed methods research, much can be drawn by dwelling in the extant evidence base. For the novice researcher in learning, focus attention on the role of the researcher in mixed methods research; this is critical to understand.

Current editors’ reflections: Across these comments, the value and need for working in teams clearly emerges as a recurrent idea. Within this process, the opinion that working from a position of strength by collaborating on teams that have strong qualitative and quantitative skills will be most advantageous. In any case, researchers (or research teams) should have a sound and solid foundation in both qualitative and quantitative methods. For the newcomer to mixed methods research, Frels, Newman, and Newman’s (2015) discussion of mentoring and Guetterman’s (2017) article on distinguishing novice and experts in mixed methods research may be informative. The suggestion of immersing oneself in the literature given the rapid increase in the number of mixed methods books (and a decade of publication in JMMR!) comes through strongly. We find also the suggestion for carefully considering the research question and thoroughly considering the need for a mixed methods approach before embarking down the mixed methods research pathway.

4. What Do You See as the Greatest Challenges to the Field of Mixed Methods Looking Forward?

John Creswell: I think that the challenge we face in the field of mixed methods is that it is still developing. As such, the terms we use may vary, our name for mixed methods (or mixed research) may vary, our perspective about what is important to focus on will vary (the research question or the methods), the books we recommend will vary, our advice to students and new researchers will vary, and, in general, many aspects of the field remain unsettled. For me, this is the evolution of a methodology and a natural progression of thinking about a new approach to research to some common guidelines for its use. To see that 19 scholars would define mixed methods differently does not surprise me in an article by Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, and Turner (2007). To compare the glossaries in several recently leading books on mixed methods shows differing terms and definitions. To hear people innovate new procedures and new terms for mixed methods is also a sign of growing pains. I often think about meta-analysis, which began to surface during the 1970s in books and conference proceedings, but took maybe 15 to 20 years before it really caught on. Methodologies slowly develop, although I must admit that mixed methods has the privilege of becoming popular during this digital era that we are part of (social media for MMIRA, webinars, complete online courses). I personally think that the acceleration of mixed methods occurred in 2003 with the publication of the first handbook on mixed methods research (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Then we experienced the birth of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research (2007), and then the National Institutes of Health “Best Practices” recommendations (Creswell et al., 2011), and now the inclusion of mixed methods standards for writing journal articles to be forthcoming from the American Psychological Association soon. I am sure that others could add milestones to this list. But my point is that the methodology perhaps being given birth during the late 1980s by scholars such as Bryman and Hunter and Brewer has been slowly developing as all methodologies do, and today we continue to face the challenge of a field still in development and growth. For some this will be unsettling and lends an air of ambiguity to our research.

Abbas Tashakkori: I see as the greatest challenge finding ways to conceptualize mixed methods data and develop analysis strategies for them. What is considered “data” are now almost limitless and are expanding (e.g., blogs, GPS location indicators, physical background of selfies posted on Facebook pages, health-related questions searched for on the web, history of searching for a hotel room on the web before making a final decision, etc.). There is a fast pace of expansions in data collection and data analysis technology (moving much faster than we can catch-up, methodologically!). Mixed methods researchers need to demonstrate the utility of the quality of mixed methods (i.e., what is the “yield?”). In what ways are the policy and practice decisions made on the basis of mixed methods studies different and more credible than simpler qualitative or quantitative studies?

Donna Mertens: The greatest challenges for mixed methods looking into the future are connected with the use of technology, big data, and responding to wicked problems that demand understandings of complexity, politics, and ethics. The ubiquity of mobile phones and social media makes more data accessible that was not collected for a specific mixed methods study. Ethical issues arise in terms of privacy and consent that might be impossible to obtain. A similar challenge faces mixed methods researchers who use big data sets that have also been collected for purposes other than a specific study. In addition, such big data sets raise challenges concerning appropriate analysis techniques when data are available from an entire population, “the quality of the data, its relevance, the ability to merge data across data sets, levels of analysis that are possible, integration of quantitative and qualitative and confidentiality issues” (Hesse, Moser, & Riley, 2015, as cited in Mertens et al., 2016, p. 223). For me, the challenge that occupies most of my thinking relates to the role that mixed methods can play in addressing wicked problems, that is, problems that are urgent, have no certainty about their nature or the solutions, and that require multiple interacting systems to make progress. I see a critical challenge for mixed methods researchers is to support improvement in human rights and social and environmental justice.

Dawn Freshwater: Big data is one I have highlighted above. I think remaining on the edge of knowledge both as a methodology and with regard to emerging paradigms will require ongoing scrutiny and close reading of other discourses. Integration of the new and emerging disciplines will also be a challenge. A further challenge is the ability to formally track and evaluate the utility and translation of research findings. This is a particular issue now that governments are keenly focused on end-user outcomes, and the impact of the research and translation into practice. Mixed methods research has the opportunity to really step into this space, given it is very often pragmatic in relation to the practice and use of technologies across a range of disciplines.

Current editors’ reflections: The field of mixed methods is still young and experiencing growing pains. Thus, new methodology continues to emerge and because of the emerging nature of the field, there is agreement that mixed methods research need to be flexible and innovative. Of notable importance is the emergence of big data and making linkages between data that have been collected for purposes different than the topic at hand. Moreover, mixed methods researchers need to continue advancing conceptualizations of data given the growing types of data and data collection opportunities. These comments challenge the mixed methods research community to translate mixed methods research findings, embrace the compelling “wicked” problems of our time and influence policy for change relative to injustices in the world. These comments further challenge mixed methods researchers to demonstrate the quality of results of mixed methods research studies that can surpass mono-method studies by being more diverse and credible.

5. What Do You Think Is the Most Important Role of JMMR for the Field Over the Next Decade?

John Creswell: I would like to see JMMR respond to the issues in the field in several ways. First, the journal needs to continue to attract new scholars who are stretching the envelope of what we have traditionally seen as mixed methods. Mixed methods needs to be intersected with other methodologies, theories, and designs as discussed recently by Plano Clark and Ivankova (2016). This means more studies that talk about the intersection of mixed methods and intervention trials, mixed methods and geocoding, mixed methods and network analysis, mixed methods and program evaluation, mixed methods and social justice theories (e.g., feminist, racial, and intersecting studies), mixed methods topics such as implementation science, and community-based participatory research. I see mixed methods not as a stand-alone methodology, but one that works well in concert with other approaches to research. Second, the journal needs to be a forum for international scholars to publish. Mixed methods research is simply moving around the world at a fast-paced rate. Countries such as China, India, Jamaica, Germany, Netherlands, South Africa, Rwanda, Japan, and many others are having discussions about the use and practice of mixed methods. The journal needs to publish international studies, and comparative studies to actively reach out to these audiences. Perhaps some of the articles should be presented in English and the language of the authors of the article. Perhaps conferences held in other countries should feature JMMR articles and discussions about publishing in JMMR. Third, I would like to see more commentary in JMMR, even rebuttals or counterfactual articles that push the thinking of readers, and that present contrary perspectives on ideas. These commentaries could be presented offline or in follow-up issues of the journal. When an article is accepted for the journal, the editors could send out an e-mail to a few select individuals who can be asked to respond to the article in a timely fashion.

Abbas Tashakkori: JMMR provides a “safe” environment for scholars to discuss creative methodological approaches, designs, and strategies that do not fit in approaches encouraged by traditional academic outlets. It also provides the emerging scholars (and the established ones) templates to incorporate designing and implementing new studies.

Donna Mertens: JMMR has fulfilled a critically important role in sharing advances in the development of this approach to research. The journal reflects advances in philosophy, theory, and practice, and it should continue to do so. JMMR has been inclusive of the work of researchers across the globe; however, this can be strengthened perhaps by capitalizing on the international MMIRA conferences and the regional conferences. These conferences attract people from different parts of the world and thus provide an opportunity for inclusion of a wider representation of mixed methods researchers in the journal. Perhaps the journal can consider a bilingual issue to be more internationally inclusive.

Manfred Max Bergman: The speed at which geopolitical, technological, and ideological systems are changing globally is currently much faster than the development of academic scholarship. While we are regularly clamoring for more inter-, multi-, cross-, and transdisciplinarity, action research, systems approaches, stakeholder engagement, and so on, to make more significant research contributions toward global issues such as sustainability and the United Nation’s sustainable development goals, academic research is struggling to step up, due among other reasons to well-established theoretical and methodological frameworks, which are well guarded by academic associations, disciplines, and journals. JMMR can make at least three contributions in this regard: first, to encourage associating complexity in research methods and design with the complexity of the substantive issues that are addressed with mixed methods; second, to invest in efforts such as special issues or manuscript acquisitions that associate mixed methods with the great shifts that are taking place in society; and third, by encouraging mixed methods theorizing to go beyond a simple combination of QUAL + QUAN to “get the best of both worlds.” A more courageous stab at new substantive realities with a thinking about mixed methods beyond QUAL + QUAN may threaten the status quo but, ultimately, would greatly benefit mixed methods research, mono-method research, and empirical research more generally in the long run. As I have argued elsewhere, mixed methods research and design is in a great position not only to contribute to new ways of doing research but, possibly more importantly, to liberate qualitative and quantitative research from a theoretical and application-related narrowness that researchers have been suffering from since the 1980s. And where else to do this than the best journal on mixed methods, JMMR.

Dawn Freshwater: The most important role of JMMR is remaining contemporary and challenging the dominant ways of viewing the world, including those held by many of the mixed methods research establishment. We need to have our opinions tickled and interrogated.

Current editors’ reflections: These comments provoke the editors, associate editors, editorial board, reviewers, and readers to continue to embrace differences and be open to the potential advances in the field. We find that view that JMMR should not only continue its path for considering comprehensively philosophical, theoretical, and practical advances in the conduct of mixed methods research but also provide models for scholars to emulate from empirical work. These comments encourage JMMR and the mixed methods research community to continue to confront siloed and inflexible thinking about methodology that can often be found in traditional academic thinking. By embracing theory, and intersecting with approaches and techniques from a variety of fields, mixed methods research is seen as having a role infusing into and changing a variety of research communities and disciplines. These comments exhort JMMR to help facilitate diffusion and embrace of mixed methods research internationally. We find support for JMMR to facilitate dialogue not just through the traditional hard copy publications, but through commentaries and online communities.

We find in these comments from our senior colleagues a mandate to continue to be open, creative, and assertive for tearing down artificial academic bulwarks, and to further embrace the community and facilitate diffusion of the field across disciplines and across the globe. We hope the four editorials of JMMR volume 11 celebrating a decade of publication that were written to stimulate reflection about the field have achieved their intended purpose.