This article has two purposes: to examine why mixed methods is a legitimate approach particularly well suited to health psychology; and to describe the challenges inherent in conducting mixed methods research. First, arguments justifying the status of mixed methods as a third paradigm alongside solely quantitative and qualitative frameworks are discussed. Second, a qualitatively driven model of mixed methods is illustrated using examples from a research programme exploring the psychosocial impact of a rare, genetic skin disorder. The flexibility of a mixed methods approach enables the researcher to be responsive to a range of issues, but it is important the approach is used thoughtfully and appropriately.
Barbour, R.S. ( 1999). The case for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 4, 39-43.
2.
Brannen, J. ( 2004). Working qualitatively and quantitatively. In C. Seale, G. Gobo , J. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 312-324). London: SAGE.
3.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. ( 2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
4.
Bryman, A. ( 2006). Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9, 111-126.
5.
Burke Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher , 33(7), 14-26.
6.
Burke Johnson, R., Onwuegbuzie, A., & Turner, L. ( 2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 112-133.
7.
Carr, T., Moss, T., & Harris, D. ( 2005). The DAS24: A short form of the Derriford Appearance Scale DAS59 to measure individual responses to living with problems of appearance . British Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 285-298.
8.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. London: SAGE.
9.
Creswell, J., & Tashakkori, A. (2007). Editorial: Differing perspectives on mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research , 1, 303-308.
10.
Croninger, R., & Valli, L. ( 2009). Mixing it up about methods. Educational Researcher, 38, 541-545.
11.
Crossley, M. (2000). Rethinking health psychology. Buckingham: Open University Press.
12.
Dellinger, A., & Leech, N. ( 2007). Toward a unified framework in mixed methods research . Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 309-332.
13.
Denscombe, M. ( 2008). Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research , 2, 270-283.
14.
Dures, E. (2009). An exploration of the psychosocial impact of epidermolysis bullosa on the daily lives of affected adults and identification of associated support needs . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of the West of England, Bristol.
15.
Dures, E., Morris, M., Gleeson, K., & Rumsey, N. (in press a). The psychosocial impact of epidermolysis bullosa. Qualitative Health Research.
16.
Dures, E., Morris, M., Gleeson, K., & Rumsey, N. (in press b). ‘You’re whatever the patient needs at the time’: The impact on health and social care professionals of supporting people with epidermolysis bullosa. Chronic Illness.
17.
Engel, G. ( 1977). The need of a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine . Science, 196, 129-136.
18.
Goldberg, D. ( 1978). Manual of the General Health Questionnaire. Windsor: NFER Publishing.
19.
Greene, J. ( 2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology ? Journal of Mixed Methods, 2, 7-22.
20.
Guba, E. ( 1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17-21). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
21.
Hammersley, M. ( 1992). What’s wrong with ethnography?London: Routledge.
22.
Hayes, N. ( 2000). Doing psychological research. Buckingham : Open University Press.
23.
Marks, D. ( 2006). The case for a pluralist health psychology. Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 367-372; author reply 401-408.
24.
Mason, J. ( 2006). Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research, 6, 9-25.
25.
Maxcy, S. ( 2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In A. Tashakorri & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 51-90). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
26.
Moran-Ellis, J., Alexander, V., Cronin, A., Dickinson, M., Fielding, J., Sleney, J., & Thomas, H. ( 2006). Triangulation and integration: Processes, claims and implications. Qualitative Research, 6, 45-59.
27.
Morgan, D. ( 2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods, 1, 48-76.
28.
Morse, J. ( 2007). Ethics in action: Ethical principles for doing qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 1003-1005.
29.
Murray, M., & Poland, B. ( 2006). Health psychology and social action. Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 379-384; author reply 401-408.
30.
O’Cathain, A. ( 2009). Editorial: Mixed methods research in the health sciences-a quiet revolution. Journal of Mixed Methods, 3, 1-6.
31.
O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. ( 2007). Integration and publications as indicators of ‘yield’ from mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research , 1, 147-163.
32.
O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. ( 2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 13, 92-98.
33.
Onwuegbuzie, A., & Leech, N. ( 2006). Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures. The Qualitative Report, 11, 474-498.
34.
Patton, M. ( 1980). Strategic themes in qualitative inquiry. In M. Patton (Ed.), Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd edn, pp. 35-60). London : SAGE.
35.
Robson, C. ( 2002). Approaches to social research. In C. Robson, Real world research (pp. 3-15). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
36.
Rozin, P. ( 2001). Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon Asch. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 2-14.
37.
Schwandt, T. ( 2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry . In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd edn, pp. 189-214). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
38.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. ( 1995). Generalized self efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor: NFER-NELSON .
39.
Silverman, D. ( 1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. London: SAGE.
40.
Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. ( 2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods, 1, 207-211.
41.
Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. ( 2008). Editorial: Mixed methodology across disciplines. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, 3-6.
42.
Wallston, K., Stein, M., & Smith, C. ( 1994). Form C of the MHLC scales: A condition-specific measure of locus of control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 534-553.
43.
Yardley, L., & Bishop, F. ( 2007). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 352-367). London: SAGE.
