Who Is on the Bandwagon? Core and Periphery in Mixed Methods Research

Abstract

The rapid growth of mixed methods research over the past two decades matches what Fujimura (1989) called a “bandwagon effect.” This study compares articles from the Journal of Mixed Methods Research, representing the core of the field, to a more peripheral set of randomly drawn articles. A content analysis of the two sets of articles shows strong differences, with the random sample dominated by convergent designs and lower integration between the qualitative and quantitative results. This research contributes to the field of mixed methods by showing systematic differences between articles published in its flagship journal versus a broad sample of articles from outside this core set. In addition, it offers recommendations for how to reduce this disparity.

Keywords

integration research design prevalence mixed methods as a field of research

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Psychological Association (2018). Journal article reporting standards (JARS). American Psychological Association.

Creswell

Plano Clark

(2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.

Elo

Kyngäs

(2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

Fabregues

Pare

M. H.

Meneses

(2019). Operationalizing and conceptualizing quality in mixed methods research: A multiple case study of the disciplines of education, nursing, psychology, and sociology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4), 424–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817751774

Fereday, Jennifer and Muir-Cochrane, Eimear. (2006). Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.

Fetters

(2020). The mixed methods research workbook: Activities for designing, implementing, and publishing projects. Sage.

Fujimura

(1996). Crafting science: A socio-history of the quest for the genetics of cancer. Harvard University Press.

Fujimura

J. H.

(1988). The molecular biological bandwagon in cancer research: Where social worlds meet. Social Problems, 35(3), 261–283. https://doi.org/10.2307/800622

Greene

J. C.

Caracelli

V. J.

Graham

W. F.

(1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255

10.

Guetterman

T. C.

Fetters

M. D.

Creswell

J. W.

(2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Annals of Family Medicine, 13(6), 554–561. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1865

11.

Howell Smith

M. C.

Shanahan Bazis

(2021). Conducting mixed methods research systematic methodological reviews: A review of practice and recommendations. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 15(4), 546–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689820967626

12.

Morgan

D. L.

Hoffman

(2021). Searching for qualitatively driven mixed methods research:A citation analysis. Quality and Quantity, 55(2), 731–740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-01025-2

13.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2019). Meaningful integration within mixed methods studies: Identifying why, what, when, and how. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 57, 106–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.01.007