Acknowledging and navigating “mess” are clear priorities in the mixed methods literature. Mess enters the mixed methods process in two interrelated ways. The first is empirically, where quantitative and qualitative findings diverge or contrast rather than cohere; the second is through design, where research contexts demand unplanned adaptation. This article outlines three practices that help mixed methods researchers recognize and navigate both kinds of mess, collectively called the “craft attitude.” The craft attitude consists of comfort with uncertainty, a nonlinear/recursive approach to research, and understanding research as storytelling. I further argue these components can orient researchers to mess in both structured and flexible ways by fostering three intellectual activities: science, craft/art, and ethical value judgment. This article contributes to the field of mixed methods by offering a practice-oriented concept facilitating the collective acknowledgement and engagement of mess, rather than concealing it in our research.
Aristotle. (2009). The Nichomachean ethics (RossD., Trans.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1980)
2.
AttiaM.EdgeJ. (2017). Be(com)ing a reflexive researcher: A developmental approach to research methodology. Open Review of Educational Research, 4(1), 33-45. doi:10.1080/23265507.2017 .1300068
3.
BrannenJ. (2005). Mixing methods: The entry of qualitative and quantitative approaches into the research process. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 173-184. doi:10.1080/13645570500154642
4.
ChristT. W. (2009). Designing, teaching, and evaluating two complementary mixed methods research courses. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(4), 292-325. doi:10.1177/1558689809341796
5.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
DaftR. L. (1983). Learning the craft of organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 8, 539-546.
7.
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
FitzpatrickK. R. (2016). Points of convergence in music education: The use of data labels as a strategy for mixed methods integration. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(3), 273-291. doi:10.1177/1558689814560264
10.
FlyvbjergB. (2001). Making social science matter. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11.
FreshwaterD. (2007). Reading mixed methods research: Contexts for criticism. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 134-146. doi:10.1177/1558689806298578
12.
FreshwaterD.FisherP. (2014). (Con)fusing commerce and science. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8(2), 111-114. doi:10.1177/1558689814526804
13.
GuestG. (2012). Describing mixed methods research: An alternative to typologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 141-151. doi:10.1177/1558689812461179
14.
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:10.1177/1558689811402506
15.
Hesse-BiberS. N. (2015a). Mixed methods research: The “thing-ness” problem. Qualitative Health Research, 25, 775-788. doi:10.1177/1049732315580558
16.
Hesse-BiberS. N. (2015b). The problems and prospects in the teaching of mixed methods research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18, 463-477. doi:10.1080/13645579.2015 .1062622
17.
HunterA.BrewerJ. (2015). Designing multimethod research. In Hesse-BiberS.JohnsonR. B. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 185-205). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
JohnsonR. B. (2011). Do we need paradigms? A mixed methods perspective. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 24(2), 31-40.
19.
JohnsonR. B. (2017). Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has come. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 156-173. doi:10.1177/1558689815607692
20.
LawJ. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. New York, NY: Routledge.
21.
LieberE.WeisnerT. S. (2010). Meeting the practical challenges of mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 559-580). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
MaxwellJ. A. (2012). A realist approach for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
MaxwellJ. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
MaxwellJ. A. (2016). Expanding the history and range of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 12-27. doi:10.1177/155868981557113
25.
MaxwellJ. A.ChmielM.RogersS. (2015). Designing integration in mixed method and multi-method research. In Hesse-BiberS.JohnsonB. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 223-239). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
26.
MaxwellJ. A.LoomisD. M. (2003). Mixed methods design: An alternative approach. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 241-272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.FrelsR. K. (2013). Toward a new research philosophy for addressing social justice issues: Critical dialectical pluralism 1.0. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 7(1), 9-26.
29.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.SlateJ. R.LeechN. L.CollinsK. M. (2009). Mixed data analysis: Advanced integration techniques. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3(1), 13-33.
30.
PearceL. D. (2015). Thinking outside the Q boxes: Further motivating a mixed research perspective. In Hesse-BiberS.JohnsonR. B. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 42-57). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31.
Plano ClarkV. L.IvankovaN. V. (2016). Mixed methods research: A guide to the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
RobsonC. (2011). Real world research (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
33.
SanscartierM. (2017). Burying the mantle and taking up the craft: A reply to Dr. Lisa Given. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1-3.
34.
SchoonenboomJ.JohnsonR. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed methods research design. Kolner Z Soz Sozpsychol, 69(Suppl. 2), 107-131. doi:10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1
35.
Seltzer-KellyD.WestwoodS. J.Peña-GuzmanD. M. (2012). A methodological self-study of quantitizing: Negotiating meaning and revealing multiplicity. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(4), 258-274. doi:10.1177/1558689811425798
36.
SymondsJ. E.GorardS. (2010). Death of mixed methods? Or the rebirth of research as a craft. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23, 121-136. doi:10.1080/09500790.2010.483514
37.
UprichardE.DawneyL. (2016). Data diffraction: Challenging data integration in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1558689816674650
38.
WalkerS.ReadS.PriestH. (2013). Use of reflexivity in a mixed methods study. Nurse Researcher, 20, 38-43. doi:10.7748/nr2013.01.20.3.38.c9496
