Mixed methods research (MMR) can serve to bridge fields of study disconnected by differences in content, epistemologies, and methods. Such bridging can benefit fields that are interconnected in practice but generally separated in research, such as educational research with its silos of “general” and “special” education in addition to various topic area foci. We explored the extent to which MMR has bridged education research silos by examining the prevalence of MMR studying a single topic (disability) across three subfields: general education, special education, and disability studies in education. We found differences in the prevalence of MMR between subfields and journals within subfields. We discuss patterns in ways MMR may both reflect silos and be employed to bridge long-standing divides.
AliseM. A.TeddlieC. (2010). A continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809360805
2.
ArtilesA. J. (2003). Special education’s changing identity: Paradoxes and dilemmas in view of culture and space. Harvard Educational Review, 73(2), 164–202. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.73.2.j78t573x377j7106
3.
BaglieriS.ValleJ. W.ConnorD. J.GallagherD. J. (2011). Disability studies in education: The need for a plurality of perspectives on disability. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510362200
4.
BovedaM.ReyesG.AronsonB. (2019). Disciplined to access the general education curriculum: Girls of color, disabilities, and specialized education programming. Curriculum Inquiry, 49(4), 405–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2019.1652543
5.
BrantlingerE. (1997). Using ideology: Cases of nonrecognition of the politics of research and practice in special education. Review of Educational Research, 67(4), 425–459. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067004425
6.
CoatesA. (2021). The prevalence of philosophical assumptions described in mixed methods research in education. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 15(2), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689820958210
7.
ConnorD. J. (2019). Why is special education so afraid of disability studies? Analyzing attacks of disdain and distortion from leaders in the field. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 34(1), 10–23. https://journal.jctonline.org/index.php/jct/article/view/763
8.
CorrC.SnodgrassM. R.LoveH.ScottI. M.KimJ.AndrewsL. (2021). Exploring the landscape of published mixed methods research in special education: A systematic review. Remedial and Special Education, 42(5), 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932520924030
9.
CosierM.PearsonH. (2016). Can we talk? The underdeveloped dialogue between teacher education and disability studies. Sage Open, 6(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015626766
10.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods for social inquiry. Jossey-Bass.
13.
Howell SmithM. C.BazisP. S. (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
14.
IvankovaN. V.KawamuraY. (2010). Emerging trends in the utilization of integrated designs in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds), Handbook of mixed methods research (2nd ed., pp. 581–612). Sage.
15.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014
16.
Journal Citation Reports. (2016). Journal title ranked by impact factor. Report.
17.
KlingnerJ. A.BoardmanA. G. (2011). Addressing the “research gap” in special education through mixed methods. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 34(3), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948711417559
18.
KozleskiE. B. (2017). The uses of qualitative research: Powerful methods to inform evidence based practice in education. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 42(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916683710
19.
MacfarlaneB. (2006). Talking among ourselves? A personal journey across the silos of educational research. Higher education research & Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA) conference.
20.
Molina-AzorinJ. F.FettersM. D. (2016). Mixed methods research prevalence studies: Field-specific studies on the state of the art of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(2), 123–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816636707
21.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.CorriganJ. A. (2018). What is happening now? An overview of mixed methods applications in special education. Research in the Schools, 25(2), 1–22.
22.
PugachM. C.BlantonL. P.MickelsonA. M.BovedaM. (2020). Curriculum theory: The missing perspective in teacher education for inclusion. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(1), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419883665
23.
PugachM. C.MatewosA. M.Gomez-NejarroJ. (2021). Disability and the meaning of social justice in teacher education research: A precarious guest at the table?Journal of Teacher Education, 72(2), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120929623
SkrticT. M. (1995). The special education knowledge tradition: Crisis and opportunity. In MeyenE. L.SkrticT. M. (Eds), Special education and student disability: An introduction. Traditional, emerging, and alternative perspectives (4th ed., pp. 609–674). Love.
26.
StozS. (2021). Time for critical reimagining and breaking of silos in teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 48, 97–100.
27.
SwansonE.WanzekJ.HaringC.CiulloS.McCulleyL. (2013). Intervention fidelity in special and general education research journals. The Journal of Special Education, 47(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466911419516
28.
TruscottD. M.SwarsS.SmithS.Thornton-ReidF.ZhaoY.DooleyC.WilliamsB.HartL.MatthewsM. (2010). A cross-disciplinary examination of the prevalence of mixed methods in educational research: 1995-2005. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(4), 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570903097950
29.
WaitollerF. R.King ThoriusK. A. (2016). Cross-pollinating culturally sustaining pedagogy and universal design for learning: Toward an inclusive pedagogy that accounts for dis/ability. Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 366–389. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-86.3.366
30.
WilliamsonP.HoppeyD.McLeskeyJ.BergmannE.MooreH. (2020). Trends in LRE placement rates over the past 25 years. The Journal of Special Education, 53(4), 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246691985505
