With the interest in advancing integration in the field of mixed methods research (MMR), researchers need powerful metaphors for conceiving and implementing mixing strategies. This article contributes to the field of MMR by showing how Abbott’s “fractal distinctions” provide a valuable heuristic for the application of method combinations as well as the methodological reflection of MMR. Based on its core notion, the “self-similarity” of methods approaches, I propose three heuristic guidelines: (a) deliberately seek out qualitative aspects in quantitative methods (and vice versa); (b) assume a nonessentialist, theory-oriented approach toward method integration; and (c) aim to reconcile rigor and innovation in empirical research. I discuss similarities between fractal heuristics and other conceptualizations of difference-within, including dialectical and feminist approaches to MMR.
AbbottA. (2001). Chaos of disciplines. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AbbottA. (2004). Methods of discovery: Heuristics for the social sciences. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
3.
BaradK. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. London, England: Duke University Press.
4.
BaurN.HeringL. (2017). Die Kombination von ethnografischer Beobachtung und standardisierter Befragung. Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie [Combining Ethnography and Surveys. Mixed methods research designs beyond combining qualitative interviews with quantitative surveys], 69(S2), 387-414. doi:10.1007/s11577-017-0468-8
5.
BazeleyP.KempL. (2012). Mosaics, triangles, and DNA: Metaphors for integrated analysis in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(1), 55-72. doi:10.1177/1558689811419514
BrownT. L. (2008). Making truth: Metaphor in science. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
8.
ByrneD.UprichardE. (2012). Useful complex causality. In KincaidH. (Ed.), Oxford handbooks: The Oxford handbook of philosophy of social science (pp. 109-129). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
9.
CaracelliV. J.GreeneJ. C. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. In GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J. (Eds.), Advances in mixed method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (pp. 19-32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
10.
CarpenterJ. (2008). Metaphors in qualitative research: shedding light or casting shadows?Research in Nursing & Health, 31, 274-282. doi:10.1002/nur.20253
11.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
ErzbergerC.KelleU. (2003). Making inferences in mixed methods: The rules of integration. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 457-489). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
FeldmanD. P. (2012). Chaos and fractals: An elementary introduction. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
14.
FettersM. D.Molina-AzorinJ. F. (2019). A call for expanding philosophical perspectives to create a more “worldly” field of mixed methods: The example of Yinyang philosophy. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(1), 15-18. doi:10.1177/1558689818816886
15.
GoboG. (2016). Why “merged” methods realize a higher integration than “mixed” methods: A reply. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 11, 199-208.
16.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
17.
GreeneJ. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology?Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7-22.
18.
HammersleyM. (2002). The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: Paradigm loyalty versus methodological eclecticism. In RichardsonJ. (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences (pp. 159-174). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
19.
HeldD. (1980). Introduction to critical theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. Auckland, New Zealand: Hutchinson.
20.
Hesse-BiberS. (2010). Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21.
Hesse-BiberS. (2015). Introduction: Navigating a turbulent research landscape: Working the boundaries, tensions, diversity, and contradictions of multimethod and mixed methods inquiry. In Hesse-BiberS.JohnsonR. B. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. xxxiii-liii). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
22.
HoweK. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 42-61.
23.
JohnsonR. B. (2017). Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has come. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 156-173. doi:10.1177/1558689815607692
24.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
25.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J.TurnerL. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 112-133. doi: 10.1177/1558689806298224
26.
KeatingA. (2013). Transformation now! Toward a post-oppositional politics of change. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
27.
KelleU. (2006). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in research practice: Purposes and advantages. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 293-311.
28.
MaasenS. (1995). Who is afraid of metaphors? InS. Maasen, E. Mendelsohn, & P. Weingart (Eds.), Biology as society, society as biology: Metaphors (Vol. 18, pp. 11-36). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
29.
MasonJ. (2006). Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research, 6, 9-25.
30.
MaxwellJ. A. (2011). Paradigms or toolkits? Philosophical and methodological positions as heuristics for mixed methods research. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 24(2), 25-30.
31.
MaxwellJ. A. (2018). The “Silo problem” in mixed methods research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 10(1), 317-327.
32.
MaxwellJ. A.BashookP. G.SandlowL. J. (1986). Combining ethnographic and experimental methods in educational evaluation: A case study. In FettermanD. M.PitmanM. A. (Eds.), Educational evaluation: Ethnography in theory, practice, and politics (pp. 121-144). London, England: Sage.
33.
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.
34.
MenkeC. (2006). Reflections of Equality. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
NewmanI.BenzC. R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology. Exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
37.
PaternosterR.BachmanR. (2001). Introduction: Labeling or social reaction theories of crime. In PaternosterR.BachmanR. (Eds.), Explaining criminals and crime: Essays in contemporary criminological theory (pp. 211-222). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
38.
PeitgenH.-O.JürgensH.SaupeD. (2004). Chaos and fractals: New frontiers of science. New York, NY: Springer.
39.
PlummerK. (1979). Misunderstanding labelling perspectives. In DownesD. M.RockP. E. (Eds.), Deviant interpretations (pp. 85-120). New York, NY: Barnes & Noble.
40.
ReichardtC. S.CookT. D. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In CookT. D.ReichardtC. S. (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp. 7-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
41.
Sánchez-CasalS.MacdonaldA. A. (2002). Introduction: Feminist reflections on the pedagogical relevance of identity. In MacdonaldA. A.Sánchez-CasalS. (Eds.), Comparative feminist studies series: Twenty-first-century feminist classrooms: Pedagogies of identity and difference (1st ed., pp. 1-28). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
42.
SchwandtT. A.LichtyL. (2015). What problem are we trying to solve? Practical and innovative uses of multimethod and mixed methods research. In Hesse-BiberS.JohnsonR. B. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 587-593). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
43.
StolzJ. (2017). Milieus and mixed methods. Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie, 69(S2), 361-386. doi:10.1007/s11577-017-0463-0
44.
StoryW. T.TalebF.AhasanS. M. M.AliN. A. (2015). Validating the measurement of social capital in Bangladesh: A cognitive approach. Qualitative Health Research, 25, 806-819. doi:10.1177/1049732315580106
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47.
UprichardE.DawneyL. (2019). Data diffraction: Challenging data integration in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(1), 19-32. doi:10.1177/1558689816674650
