BartlamB.WaterfieldJ.BishopA.HoldenM. A.BarlasP.IsmailK. M.. . . FosterN. E. (2018). The role of qualitative research in clinical trial development: The EASE Back study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 325-343. doi:10.1177/1558689816656740
2.
BrannenJ. (2018). In memoriam: Alan Bryman. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 254-255. doi:10.1177/1558689818779434
3.
BrymanA. (1988) Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London, England: Routledge.
4.
CoyleC. E.Schulman-GreenD.FederS.ToramanS.PrustM. L.Plano ClarkV. L.CurryL. (2018). Federal funding for mixed methods research in the health sciences in the United States: Recent trends. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 305-324. doi:10.1177/1558689816662578
5.
FettersM. D. (2018). Six equations to help conceptualize the field of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 262-267. doi:10.1177/1558689818779433
6.
GorardS. (2001). Quantitative methods in educational research: The role of numbers made easy. London, England: Continuum.
7.
HammersleyM. (2018). On the “indistinguishability thesis”: A response to Morgan. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 256-259. doi:10.1177/1558689818772764
8.
Hesse-BiberS. (2018). Gender differences in psychosocial and medical outcomes stemming from testing positive for the BRCA 1/2 genetic mutation for breast cancer: An explanatory sequential mixed methods study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 280-304. doi:10.1177/1558689816655257
9.
MorganD. L. (2018a). Living within blurry boundaries: The value of distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 268-279. doi:10.1177/1558689816686433
10.
MorganD. L. (2018b). Response from David Morgan. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 260-261. doi:10.1177/1558689818772764
11.
ZhouX.HallJ. N. (2018). Mixed methods papers in first-person and third-person: Writing voices in dialogue. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 344-357. doi:10.1177/1558689816652755
