Methodologists have urged researchers who use mixed methods to justify their methodological choices and provide greater clarity about the philosophical underpinnings and implications of their approaches. This article outlines the reasoning process undertaken in an endeavor to develop philosophical clarity for an applied, interdisciplinary, mixed methods research project about the communication of scientific evidence in the legal system. I used Greene’s domains of methodology for social inquiry as a framework for addressing reflexive questions about assumptions. Flowing from the domains of values and philosophies, the logic of inquiry was developed before the implications for the integration of findings and reporting of research were outlined. Early engagement in reflexive questioning provided a foundation for methodological refinement throughout the ongoing research journey.
AliseM. A.TeddlieC. (2010). A continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 103-126. doi:10.1177/1558689809360805
2.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
3.
BlumenthalJ. A. (2002). Law and social science in the twenty-first century. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 12, 1-53.
4.
BucchiM. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In BucchiM.TrenchB. (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57-76). New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
CamposM. N. (2007). Ecology of meanings: A critical constructivist communication model. Communication Theory, 17, 386-410. doi:10.1111/j1468-2885.2007.00304.x
6.
CraigR. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9, 119-161.
7.
CreswellJ. W. (2011). Controversies in mixed methods research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 269-283). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
CreswellJ. W.ShopeR.Plano ClarkV. L.GreenD. O. (2006). How interpretive qualitative research extends mixed methods research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 1-11.
10.
CrottyM. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
DantzikerM. L.HunterR. D. (2012). Research methods for criminology and criminal justice (3rd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
13.
DixonP.BortolussiM. (2001). Text is not communication: A challenge to a common assumption. Discourse Processes, 31, 1-25. doi:10.1207/S15326950dp3101_1
14.
EllingsonL. L. (2011). Analysis and representation across the continuum. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 595-610). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
FeilzerM. Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 6-16. doi:10.1177/1558689809349691
16.
GarrettB. L.NeufeldP. J. (2009). Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions. Virginia Law Review, 95, 1-97.
17.
GiddingsL. S.GrantB. M. (2006). Mixed methods for the novice researcher. Contemporary Nurse, 23(1), 3-11.
18.
GiddingsL. S.GrantB. M. (2007). A Trojan Horse for positivism? A critique of mixed methods research. Advances in Nursing Science, 30, 52-60.
19.
GreeneJ. C. (2006). Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 93-98.
20.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
21.
GreeneJ. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology?Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7-22. doi:10.1177/1558689807309969
22.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J. (2003). Making paradigmatic sense of mixed methods practice. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 99-110). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). London, England: Sage.
24.
HallidayM. A. K.MartinJ. R. (1993). The model. In Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 22-50). London, England: Falmer Press.
25.
HarritsG. S. (2011). More than method? A discussion of paradigm differences within mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(2), 150-166. doi:10.117/1558689811402506
26.
Hesse-BiberS. N. (2010). Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
27.
HowesL. M. (2015a). A step towards increased understanding by non-scientists of expert reports: Recommendations for readability. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/00450618.2015.1004194
28.
HowesL. M. (2015b). “Sometimes I give up on the report and ring the scientist”: Bridging the gap between what forensic scientists write and what police investigators read. Policing & Society. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/10439463.2015.1089870
29.
HowesL. M. (2015c). The communication of forensic science in the criminal justice system: A review of theory and proposed directions for research. Science & Justice, 55, 145-154. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2014.11.002
30.
HowesL. M.KirkbrideK. P.KeltyS.JulianR.KempN. (2014). The readability of expert reports for non-scientist report-users: Reports of forensic comparison of glass. Forensic Science International, 236, 54-66. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.12.031
31.
HowesL. M.MartireK. A.KeltyS. F. (2014). Response to Recommendation 2 of the 2009 NAS Report—Standards for formatting and reporting expert evaluative opinions: Where do we stand?Forensic Science Policy & Management, 5(1-2), 1-14. doi:10.1080/19409044.2014.880973
32.
JohnsonR. B. (2011). Do we need paradigms? A mixed methods perspective. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 24(2), 31-40.
33.
JohnsonR. B. (2012). Dialectical pluralism and mixed research. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 751-754. doi:10.1177/0002764212442494
34.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. doi:10.3102/0013189X033007014
35.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J.TurnerL. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. doi:10.1177/1558689806298224
36.
KlareG. R. (1963). The measurement of readability. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
37.
LeechN. L. (2012). Writing mixed research reports. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 866-881. doi:10.1177/0002764211433800
38.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 97-128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MaxwellJ. A. (2011). Paradigms or toolkits? Philosophical and methodological positions as heuristics for mixed methods research. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 24(2), 27-30.
41.
MaxwellJ. A.MittapalliK. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 145-167). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MorganD. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76. doi:10.1177/2345678906292462
45.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.JohnsonR. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.
46.
PetrieH. G. (1976). Do you see what I see? The epistemology of interdisciplinary inquiry. Educational Researcher, 5, 9-15. doi:10.3102/001389X005002009
47.
PlaxcoK. W. (2010). The art of writing science. Protein Science, 19, 2261-2266. doi:10.1002/pro.514
48.
PonterottoJ. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 126-136. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126
49.
RolandM.-C. (2009). Quality and integrity in scientific writing: Prerequisites for quality in science communication. Journal of Science Communication, 8(2). Retrieved from http://jcom.sissa.it/archive/08/02/Jcom0802%282009%29A04/
50.
RothwellT. (2010). Presentation of expert forensic evidence. In WhiteP. (Ed.), Crime scene to court: The essentials of forensic science (3rd ed., pp. 507-532). Cambridge, England: Royal Society of Chemistry.
51.
SandelowskiM. (2003). Tables or tableaux? The challenges of writing and reading mixed methods studies. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 321-350). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52.
ShannonC. E.WeaverW. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
53.
SmithL. L.BullR.HollidayR. (2011). Understanding juror perceptions of forensic evidence: Investigating the impact of case context on perceptions of forensic evidence strength. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56, 409-414. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.0167.x
54.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2011). Mixed methods research: Contemporary issues in an emerging field. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 285-299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
