Abstract
This April issue of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research (JMMR) features an editorial, four articles, and a media review. In his editorial, Younas (2026) introduces intersectional mixed methods research and explains how this approach allows researchers to shift from a variable-centered approach to one better suited to elucidating complex social realities in which systems of oppression and power overlap. The author begins with an overview of the main features of intersectionality theory and then offers a rationale for integrating intersectionality into mixed methods research. As the literature on mixed methods and intersectionality is still scarce, we hope this editorial will help researchers recognize the importance of this approach in conducting equity-focused mixed methods studies.
In the first article in this issue, Zhang and Browne (2026) report an empirical example of a multiphase mixed methods study to assess and understand scientific argumentation competence (SAC) among Chinese high school students. Using this example, the authors describe several methodological considerations about the theory-guided exchanges between integration and validation approaches that took place in their study. The paper contributes to the field of mixed methods by exploring connections between mixed methods and validation theory and providing concrete examples of innovative uses of joint displays in assessment development and validation. The authors explain the usefulness of validation theories in developing joint displays and suggest guidelines for the practice of mixed methods validation.
In the second article, aimed particularly at researchers interested in conducting mixed methods studies in religious contexts, Donmoyer et al. (2026) present an exemplar exploratory sequential mixed methods study conducted in a Catholic diocese in the United States. This study combines two types of mixed methods studies typically conducted in this area: (a) studies that mix research with religion and (b) participatory studies that intentionally blur the line between the researchers and what is researched. After presenting the study design and findings, the authors engage in a thorough discussion of five challenges encountered during the study, which contribute valuable insights to the mixed methods field.
In the third article, Wang et al. (2026) report an exploratory sequential mixed methods study aimed at developing a methodological model for standardizing good practice recommendations (GPRs) within clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in contexts where evidence is weak or absent. The use of a mixed methods approach to generate these models is particularly important, as previous models have usually relied on literature reviews and expert consultation. This article is valuable in that it represents the first attempt to create a methodological model in CPGs using mixed methods, showing the systematic integration of the quantitative and qualitative approaches in the construction and validation of the model and providing practical guidance for the future development of similar methodological models in CPGs.
In the fourth article, Voulgarides et al. (2026) introduce the Deductive-Inductive Dual Pillar Integration Process (DID-PIP), a structured, theory-centered integration technique specifically devised for studying multilevel systems where effects are rarely linear or fixed. Drawing on sociological and qualitative paradigms, as well as mixed methods reporting standards, the article illustrates the application of the DID-PIP through a brief review of the literature on racial-equity monitoring in special education policy. The article contributes to mixed methods research by providing a replicable, structured method that balances inductive and deductive reasoning to generate meta-inferences combining theory with systems analysis in multilevel mixed methods designs.
The April issue concludes with a media review by Peters (2026) of the recently published book Visual Displays in Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research: A Comprehensive Guide, authored by Creamer (2025). The book, structured in six chapters, describes how joint displays constitute a valuable tool for enhancing methodological rigor and effectively communicating integrated findings. The author highlights the quality of the guidance provided in the book and how it clearly contributes to advancing the emerging literature on joint displays.