Mixed methods, cross-cultural designs are a special case of the more general,
mixed methods between-groups designs. The defining feature of mixed methods is
the principled integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches, and
cross-cultural comparison is premised on the systematic collection and analysis
of data from two or more cultural settings for the explicit purpose of
between-groups comparisons. This article explores the interaction of mixed
methods integration and cross-cultural between-groups comparison to develop
cross-cultural versions of five prototypical mixed methods designs: sequential
(exploratory and explanatory), parallel, conversion, fully integrated, and
multilevel. Each is exemplified by published studies. Final reflections explore
possible additional contributions that mixed methods might make to issues of
cross-cultural equivalence in data collection and analysis.
AltmeyerS.KleinC.KellerB.SilverC. F.HoodR. W.StreibH. (2015). Subjective definitions of
spirituality and religion: An explorative study in Germany and the
USA. International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics, 20,
526-552.
2.
ArcherM. S. (2000). Being human: The problem of
agency. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University
Press.
3.
AxinnW. G.PearceL. D. (2006). Mixed method data collection
strategies. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University
Press.
4.
BazeleyP. (2012). Integrative analysis
strategies for mixed data sources. American
Behavioral Scientist, 56,
814-828.
BourdieuP. (1984). Distinction.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
8.
BreugelmansS. M. (2011). The relationship between
individual and culture. In van de VijverF. J.
R.ChasiotisA.BreugelmansS. M. (Eds.), Fundamental questions in cross-cultural
psychology (pp. 135-162).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
9.
CreswellJ. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed
methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
10.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L.GutmannM. L.HansonW. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods
research designs. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social &
behavioral research (pp. 209-240).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
11.
FechnerM. J. (2010). Culture and comorbidity in
East and West berliners. Qualitative Health
Research, 20,
400-408.
12.
FettersM. D.CurryL. A.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in
mixed methods designs: Principles and practices.
Health Services Research, 48,
2134-2156.
13.
FriesC. J. (2009). Bourdieu’s reflexive
sociology as a theoretical basis for mixed methods research: An application
to complementary and alternative medicine. Journal
of Mixed Methods Research, 3(4),
326-348.
14.
GrabeS.Grace GroseR.DuttA. (2015). Women’s land ownership and
relationship power: A mixed methods approach to understanding structural
inequities and violence against women. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 39,
7-19.
15.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J.GrahamW. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual
framework for mixed-method evaluation designs.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
11, 255-274.
16.
GuettermanT. C.FettersM. D.CreswellJ. W. (2015). Integrating quantitative and
qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint
displays. Annals of Family Medicine,
13, 554-561.
17.
HambletonR. K.MerendaP. F.SpielbergerC. D. (2005). Adapting educational and
psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
18.
HarritsG. S. (2011). More than a method? A
discussion of paradigm differences within mixed methods
research. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 5(2),
150-166.
19.
HunterS. B.BarberB. K.OlsenJ. A.McNeelyC. A.BoseK. (2011). Adolescents’ self-disclosure
to parents across cultures: Who discloses and why.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 26,
447-478.
20.
KahmaN.ToikkaA. (2012). Cultural map of Finland
2007: Analyzing cultural differences using multiple correspondence
analysis. Cultural Trends,
21, 113-131.
21.
MatsumotoD.van de VijverF. J.
R. (2011). Cross-cultural research methods in
psychology. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University
Press.
22.
MeehanC. L.RouletteJ. W. (2013). Early supplementary feeding
among Central African foragers and farmers: A biocultural
approach. Social Science & Medicine,
96, 112-120.
23.
MorganD. L. (2014). Integrating qualitative and
quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. Thousand
Oaks, CA:
Sage.
24.
MorseJ. M. (1991). Approaches to
qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation.
Nursing Research, 40,
120-123.
25.
MorseJ. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods
and multimethod research design. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social &
behavioral research (pp. 189-208).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
26.
MorseJ. M. (2006). Principles and procedures of
maintaining validity for mixed methods designs. In
CurryL.ShieldR.WetleT. (Eds.), Improving aging and public health research:
Qualitative and mixed methods (pp.
65-78). Washington,
DC: American Public Health
Association.
27.
NastasiB. K.HitchcockJ. H. (2016). Mixed methods research and
culture-specific interventions: Program design and evaluation.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
28.
NastasiB. K.HitchcockJ.SarkarS.BurkholderG.VarjasK.JayasenaA. (2007). Theory to
adaptation. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 1(2),
164-182.
29.
O’CathainA.MurphyE.NichollJ. (2010). Three techniques for
integrating data in mixed methods studies. British
Medical Journal, 341, c4587.
Retrieved from http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c4587
30.
OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2012). Putting the MIXED back into
quantitative and qualitative research and beyond: Moving toward the radical
middle. International Journal of Multiple Research
Approaches, 6,
192-219.
31.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.CollinsK. M. (2007). A typology of mixed methods
sampling designs in social science research.
Qualitative Report, 12,
474-498.
32.
PearceL. D. (2015). Thinking outside the Q
boxes: Further motivating a mixed research perspective. In
Hesse-BiberS.JohnsonR. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed
methods research inquiry (pp. 42-56).
Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
33.
PurhonenS.GronowJ.RhakonenK. (2011). Highbrow culture in Finland:
Knowledge and participation. Acta
Sociologica, 54,
385-402.
34.
PurhonenS.WrightD. (2013). Methodological issues in
national-comparative research on cultural tastes: The case of cultural
capital in the UK and Finland. Cultural
Sociology, 7,
257-273.
35.
SandelowskiM. (2000). Focus on research methods:
Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and
analysis techniques in mixed-method studies.
Research in Nursing & Health, 23,
246-255.
36.
SchensulJ. J.LeCompteM. D. (Eds.). (2012). Specialized ethnographic
methods: A mixed methods approach. Lanham,
MD: AltaMira
Press.
37.
SchensulJ. J.LeCompteM. D. (2013). Essential ethnographic methods: A
mixed methods approach (2nd ed.).
Lanham, MD: AltaMira
Press.
38.
SchraufR. W. (2016). Mixed methods: Interviews,
surveys, and cross-cultural comparisons.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
39.
SilvaE.WardeA.WrightD. (2009). Using mixed methods for
analysing culture: The Cultural Capital and Social Exclusion
Project. Cultural Sociology,
3, 299-316.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (2009). Integrating qualitative and
quantitative approaches to research. In BickmanL.RogD. J. (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research
methods (pp. 283-317).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
42.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2006). A general typology of
research designs featuring mixed methods. Research
in the Schools, 13(1),
12-28.
43.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods
research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social
and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
44.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA.JohnsonB. (2008). Emergent techniques in the
gathering and analysis of mixed methods data. In
BiberH.NagyS. (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp.
389-413). New York,
NY: Guilford
Press.
45.
UngarM.LiebenbergL. (2011). Assessing resilience across
cultures using mixed methods: Construction of the child and youth resilience
measure. Journal of Mixed Methods Research,
5(2),
126-149.
46.
van de
VijverF.J.R.LeungK. (1997). Methods and data analysis for
cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
47.
WellerS.BaerR. D. (2002). Measuring within- and
between-group agreement: Identifying the proportion of shared and unique
beliefs across samples. Field Methods,
14, 6-25.
48.
XiaoL. D.WangJ.HeG.-P.De BellisA.VerbeeckJ.KyriazopoulosH. (2014). Family caregiver challenges
in dementia care in Australia and China: A critical
perspective. BMC Geriatrics,
14, 6. doi:10.1186/1471-2318-14-6
49.
ZeidlerD. L.HermanB. C.RuzekM.LinderA.LinS. S. (2013). Cross-cultural
epistemological orientations to socioscientific issues.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
50, 251-283.
