We advance the idea that with the commitment to the intentional engagement of multiple sources of data or analytical procedures to explore complex problems as its core defining feature, the field of mixed methods may now be at a point that we can consider it as an inquiry logic that has the potential to spawn the construction of new methodologies. The special issue invites further conversation that builds on the challenge of mixing at the methodological level.
CreamerE. G. (2018). An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.
3.
CreswellJ. W.ShopeR.Plano ClarkV. L.GreenD. O. (2006). How interpretive qualitative research extends mixed methods research. Research in Schools, 13(1), 1-11.
4.
FettersM. D.FreshwaterD. (2015). Editorial: The 1 + 1 integration challenge. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9, 115-117.
5.
FettersM. D.Molina-AzorinJ. F. (2017). Editorial: The Journal of Mixed Methods starts a new decade: The mixed methods research integration trilogy and its dimensions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11, 291-307.
6.
GiddingsL. S.GrantB. M. (2007). A Trojan horse for positivism? A critique of mixed methods research. Advances in Nursing Science, 30(1), 52-60.
7.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
8.
GreeneJ. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology?Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, 7-22.
9.
GreeneJ. C. (2015). Preserving distinctions within the multimethod and mixed methods research merger. In Hesse-BiberS.JohnsonR. B. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 606-615). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
10.
GreeneJ. C.HallJ. N. (2010). Dialectics and pragmatism: Being of consequence. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 119-144). Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.
11.
Hesse-BiberS. (2010). Emerging methodologies and methods practices in the field of mixed method research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 415-418.
12.
JohnsonR. B. (2012). Guest editor’s editorial: Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has come. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 751-754.
13.
MaxwellJ. A.MittapalliK. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 145-168). Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.
14.
OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2012). Introduction: Putting the MIXED back into quantitative and qualitative research in educational research and beyond: Moving toward the radical middle. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 6, 192-219.
15.
SchoonenboomJ. (2017). A performative paradigm for mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1558689817722889
16.
WalshI. (2015). Using quantitative data in mixed-design grounded theory studies: An enhanced path formal grounded theory in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 24, 531-557.
