A new line of research has emerged that examines the prevalence rates of mixed methods within disciplines in the social/behavioral sciences. Research presented in this article is unique in that it examines prevalence rates across multiple disciplines using an established cross-disciplinary classification scheme. Results indicate that there are significant differences in the methods employed (quantitative, mixed, qualitative) in pure (psychology, sociology) as opposed to applied (education, nursing) disciplines. The prevalence rate for mixed methods research is higher in applied (16%) compared with pure disciplines (6%). Quantitative methods and the underlying postpositivistic paradigm are prevalent in articles from ‘‘elite’’ journals from pure disciplines, especially psychology. Methodological issues are discussed, including the importance of the sampling procedures employed in prevalence rates studies.
Alise, M.A. ( 2008). Disciplinary differences in preferred research methods: A comparison of groups in the Biglan classification scheme. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.
2.
Babbie, E. ( 2002). The basics of social research (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth .
3.
Becher, T. ( 1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
4.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P.R. ( 2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual inquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
5.
Biglan, A. ( 1973a). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 195-203.
6.
Biglan, A. ( 1973b). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 204-213.
7.
Braxton, J.M., & Hargens, L.L. ( 1996). Variations among academic disciplines: Analytical frameworks and research. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 11, pp. 1-46). New York: Agathon Press.
8.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ( 2005). Reproductive health: Glossary. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved January 7, 2010, from http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/EpiGlossary/glossary.htm
9.
Creswell, J.W. ( 2007a). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education .
10.
Creswell, J.W. ( 2007b). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
11.
Creswell, J.W. ( 2009). Mapping the field of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 95-108.
12.
Creswell, J.W., & Bean, J.P. ( 1981). Research output, socialization, and the Biglan model . Research in Higher Education, 15(1), 69-91.
13.
Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
14.
Del Favero, M. ( 2006). An examination of the relationship between academic discipline and cognitive complexity in academic deans’ administrative behavior . Research in Higher Education, 47, 281-315.
15.
Dellinger, A.B., & Leech, N.L. ( 2007). Toward a unified validation framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(4), 309-332.
16.
Denzin, N.K. ( 1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological method (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
17.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005a). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
18.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005b). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
19.
Fidel, R. ( 2008). Are we there yet? Mixed methods research in library and information science. Library & Information Science Research , 30, 265-272.
20.
Gage, N.L. ( 1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A ‘‘historical’’ sketch of research and teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher , 18(7), 4-10.
21.
Geertz, C. ( 1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.
22.
Geertz, C. ( 1980). Blurred genres: The refiguration of social thought. American Scholar, 42, 165-179. Greene, J.C. (2007). Mixing methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
Guba, E.G. ( 1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
24.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. ( 1988). Do inquiry paradigms imply inquiry methodologies? In Fetterman, D. M. (Ed.), Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education (pp. 89-115). New York: Praeger.
25.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. ( 2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
26.
Hagstrom, W.O. ( 1964). Traditional and modern forms of scientific teamwork. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 241-263.
27.
Hagstrom, W.O. ( 1965). The scientific community. New York : Basic Books.
28.
Hart, L.C., Smith, S.Z., Swars, S.L., & Smith, M.E. ( 2009). An examination of research methods in mathematics education (1995-2005). Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(1), 26-41.
29.
Hargens, L.L. ( 1975). Patterns of scientific research (American Sociological Association Rose Monograph Series). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
30.
Hargens, L.L. ( 1996, November). Interpreting Biglan’s ‘‘hard-soft’’ dimension of disciplinary variation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education , Memphis, TN.
31.
Hayes, N. (Ed.). (1997). Doing qualitative analysis in psychology. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
32.
Hothersall, D. ( 1995). History of psychology (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.
33.
Howe, K.R. ( 1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17(8), 10-16.
34.
Hurmerinta-Peltomaki, L., & Nummela, N. ( 2006). Mixed methods in international business research: A value-added perspective. Management International Review, 46, 439-459.
35.
Hutchinson, S.R., & Lovell, C.D. ( 2004). A review of methodological characteristics of research published in key journals in higher education: Implications for graduate research teaching. Research in Higher Education, 45, 383-403.
36.
Ivankova, K., & Kawamura, K. (in press). Emerging trends in the utilization of integrated designs in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
37.
Johnson, R.B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
38.
Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher33(7), 14-26.
39.
Johnson, R.B., & Turner, L. ( 2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research . In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 297-320). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
40.
Journal Citation Reports. (2005). Social sciences edition. New York: Thompson ISI.
41.
Klein, J.T. ( 2004). Interdisciplinary approaches in social science research . In W. Outhwaite & S. P. Turner (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social science methodology (pp. 32-49). London: SAGE.
42.
Krathwohl, D.R. ( 1998). Methods of educational and social research: An integrated approach (2nd ed.). New York : Addison-Wesley Longman.
43.
Kuhn, T.S. ( 1970). The nature of scientific revolutions (2nd ed., enlarged). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. ( 1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
45.
Lodahl, J.B., & Gordon, G. ( 1972). The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments. American Sociological Review, 37(1), 57-72.
46.
Malaney, G.D. ( 1986). Differentiation in graduate education. Research in Higher Education, 25(1), 82-96.
47.
Mertens, D.M. ( 2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice . Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212-225.
Morse, J.M. ( 2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
50.
Niglas, K. ( 2004). The combined use of qualitative and quantitative methods in educational research. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tallinn Pedagogical University, Tallinn, Estonia.
51.
O’Cathain, A. (in press). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Towards a comprehensive framework. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
52.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Johnson, R.B. ( 2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.
53.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Teddlie, C. ( 2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research . In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 351-383). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
54.
Patton, M.Q. ( 2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
55.
Paulsen, M., & Wells, C.T. ( 1998). Domain differences in the epistemological beliefs of college students. Research in Higher Education, 39, 365-384.
56.
Rossman, G., & Wilson, B. ( 1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9, 627-643.
57.
Schommer-Aikins, M., Duell, O.K., & Barker, S. ( 2003). Epistemological beliefs across domains using Biglan’s classification of academic disciplines. Research in Higher Education44, 347-366.
58.
Scott, P.S., & Briggs, J.S. ( 2009). A pragmatist argument for mixed methods in medical informatics . Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 223-241.
59.
Sinclair, A., & Muffo, J. ( 2002, June). The uses of Biglan categories in assessing general education courses. Paper presented at the annual forum for the Association for Institutional Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
60.
Smith, J.A. ( 2008). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide (2nd ed.). London: SAGE .
61.
Song, M., Sandelowski, M., & Happ, M.B. (in press). Current practices and emerging trends in conducting mixed methods intervention studies. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
62.
Stoecker, J.L. ( 1993). The Biglan classification revisited. Research in Higher Education, 34, 451-464.
63.
Storer, N.W. ( 1967). The hard sciences and the soft: Some sociological observations . Bulletin of the American Medical Association, 55(1), 75-84.
64.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. ( 1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
65.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE.
66.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. ( 2008). Quality of inference in mixed methods research: Calling for an integrative framework. In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research: Theories and applications (pp. 101-119). London: SAGE.
67.
Teddlie, C., & Johnson, B. ( 2009). Methodological thought since the twentieth century. In C. Teddlie & A. Tashakkori (Eds.), The foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative techniques in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 62-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
68.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the behavioral and social sciences. In A. Tashakkor & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
69.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). The foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative techniques in the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
70.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. ( 2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.
71.
Todd, Z., Nerlich, B. , McKeown, S., & Clarke, D. D. (Eds.). (2004). Mixing methods in psychology. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
72.
Truscott, D., Swars, S., Smith, S., Thornton-Reid, F., Zhao, Y., & Dooley, C. (in press). A cross-disciplinary examination of the prevalence of mixed methods in educational research: 1995-2005. International Journal of Social Research Methodology.
73.
Waszak, C., & Sines, M. ( 2003). Mixed methods in psychological research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 557-576). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
74.
Whitmire, E. ( 2002). Disciplinary differences and undergraduates’ information-seeking behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53, 631-638.
75.
Willig, C. ( 2001). Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory and method. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
76.
Yoshikawa, H., Weisner, T.D., Kalil, A., & Way, N. ( 2008). Mixing qualitative and quantitative research in developmental science: Uses and methodological choices. Developmental Psychology , 33, 344-354.
