Terminology and Mixed Methods Research: A Persistent Challenge

Research paradigms provide a way of thinking about research, or philosophical perspectives of research. Crotty’s widely used four elements of the research process provide a way of thinking about research. The elements are epistemology, theoretical perspective, methodology, and methods (Crotty, 1998). Authors have extended this framework to another aspect: rhetoric (Creswell, 2013; Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2017a). Fetters and Molina-Azorin (2017a) advanced the rhetorical dimension of integration, defining it as “Creating or adapting terminology intentionally and thoughtfully to reflect the mixed methods paradigm, writing with an integrated structure to illustrate the mixed methods dimension, structuring the findings narrative using contiguous or weaving presentations, using metaphors to write about integration, composing integrated prose to effectively illustrate the added value of mixed methods findings” (p. 295). However, the concept of rhetoric or the language used to write about and report research is often overlooked and underappreciated and too often stands in the way of researchers’ ability to craft persuasive manuscripts about their mixed methods research practices.

Scholars have paid attention to the terminology and nomenclature associated with mixed methods research since the early days of developing the field dedicated to this approach. In the first handbook of mixed methods research, editors Teddlie and Tashakkori (2003) identified the issue of nomenclature and basic definitions as a major issue needing to be addressed in the field. They argued for the field to adopt common terminology, while acknowledging the diversity of perspectives that made up the burgeoning field at that time. Over the 20 years since, this topic has remained salient for the field. Journal of Mixed Methods Research (JMMR) editorials have periodically considered issues of terminology and nomenclature (e.g., Bergman, 2011; Fetters, 2022; Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2017b). Prevalence studies have tracked the increasing use of mixed methods terminology by researchers (e.g., Coyle et al., 2018; Molina-Azorín & Cameron, 2010). Methodologists have reflected on how their mixed methods nomenclature has evolved over time (e.g., Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018, 2023). Researchers have studied individuals’ views about mixed methods terminology (e.g., Fàbregues et al., 2021). Reviewing these many writings highlights how certain challenges related to terminology have persisted within the field over more than two decades.

For a journal devoted to the methodology of mixed methods research, rhetoric and terminology are of utmost importance. Methodological articles provide education and guidance to researchers at all levels, across disciplines and nations, in the use of innovative and state-of-the-art mixed methods concepts. Empirical articles serve a similar role through their methodological aims, but they also provide exemplars for reporting the results of mixed methods research studies. Thus, the articles published in the JMMR serve an important function of modeling how to write about mixed methods. We have served as editors, associate editors, reviewers, and authors for this journal and many others. Through our collective experience, we have identified trends and persistent mistakes that authors make in writing about mixed methods research. The purpose of this editorial is to encourage authors to carefully attend to terminology and language specific to mixed methods research. We first discuss terms for which the JMMR has an editorial preference, explaining our rationale for their usage in writing about mixed methods methodology or reporting mixed methods research. From there, we note additional terms for which there is common confusion or lack of precision and recommend that authors take care when using these terms when developing manuscripts about mixed methods research.

Mixed Methods Research Preferred to Multimethod Research

First is the term mixed methods research. The JMMR defines mixed methods research as the collection and analysis of data, integration of findings, and drawing of inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches (Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007). Mixed methods research is distinguished from multimethod research, which could involve two or more quantitative methods or two or more qualitative methods. The integration of both qualitative and quantitative approaches is the defining characteristic of mixed methods research.

Unhyphenated Preferred to Hyphenated

The JMMR has adopted the term “mixed methods” or “mixed methods research” without hyphen since it debuted in 2007. The Mixed Methods International Research Association also uses the term without a hyphen. Examining mixed methods handbooks and texts across numerous publishers, nearly all books devoted to mixed methods research use the term without a hyphen (Molina-Azorin & Fetters, 2022). Anecdotally, this use of the unhyphenated version stems from the field’s identification of mixed methods research as a formal name for this approach (as opposed to an informal description). Given this widespread usage in the field, we feel comfortable asserting that unhyphenated “mixed methods” has been established as an accepted convention for the field. As an editorial policy, we request that authors remove hyphens from mixed methods within their own submitted manuscripts. An exception is when referencing an article that does include a hyphen, in which the original title should appear in the reference list. We have noted a recent resurgence in the use of the hyphenated form within many journal publications, including a few examples within the JMMR. Although a few hyphenated uses have slipped through over the years, we intend to diligently enforce this editorial policy moving forward and encourage others to do the same.

Integration Preferred to Triangulation

Integration is a central feature of mixed methods research and an important aspect of any writing about mixed methods practice. We have noted that some authors use the term triangulation as a synonym for integration, but the term integration is preferred. An older term, triangulation is no longer a current nor accurate term in describing integration processes, procedures, or strategies. In fact, as early as 2003, Tashakkori and Teddlie advocated that the field of mixed methods refrain from using the term triangulation because of the multitude of meanings associated with this term. Fetters and Molina-Azorin (2017b) agreed to the position. As previously discussed, the term triangulation originates from navigation through finding a true point or path by using at least two other points. It has historically been applied in qualitative research for improving trustworthiness through the use of multiple forms of data, multiple participants who provide different perspectives, multiple researchers, or multiple theories. Triangulation has also been discussed as as an important rationale for using mixed methods research to achieve greater validity of conclusions (Bryman, 2006; Greene et al., 1989), which is different from a process of integration. Mixed methods integration combines quantitative and qualitative aspects of a study and can occur at the level of philosophy, research design, methods, data, or results, among others. The term “triangulation” is too narrow to precisely reflect integration. Moreover, integration is often less concerned with finding a true point, as in the original use of the term. Rather the intent of integration may be to inform sampling decisions, develop instruments, or merge findings and draw meta-inferences that give a more comprehensive understanding.

Joint Display Preferred to Joint Data Display

Writing about integration procedures brings additional opportunities for more precise language. We often see the term “joint data display.” However, this term is problematic because joint displays are rarely limited to including raw data. Integration can occur in many dimensions and levels. More commonly, joint displays integrate results through comparing quantitative and qualitative results, or they integrate methods through showing how one strand of research informs the methods of sampling, data collection, or analysis used in another (Plano Clark & Sanders, 2015). Therefore, including “data” in the term “joint display” is too limiting. We prefer the use of the term joint display for describing visuals (i.e., tables and figures) that explicitly integrate quantitative and qualitative aspects of a mixed methods study.

Additional Terms of Concern

From our experience, there are additional terms that challenge authors writing about mixed methods research. We find that this challenge often arises when individuals confuse specialized terms that are phonetically similar. For example, we have encountered authors that confuse a transformative (Mertens, 2012) approach (associated with social justice perspectives) with a transformation (Fetters et al., 2013) approach (associated with the conversion of one type of data, quantitative or qualitative, into another type of data). Although transformative and transformation seem similar, they have very different meanings and supporting literature within the field of mixed methods. Authors need to choose the correct term carefully.

As another example, we have found several situations where authors and reviewers confuse names of mixed methods designs from existing typologies that have precise meanings with everyday usage of similar terms. For example, authors describing their study as exploratory or explanatory need to carefully distinguish whether they are describing a general study intent (e.g., to explore a research problem), which may apply to a variety of mixed methods designs, or referring to a known type of mixed methods design (i.e., exploratory sequential or explanatory sequential from Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).

As these brief examples try to illustrate, authors benefit from learning about prior uses of terms within the mixed methods literature alongside with carefully describing the meaning that they are ascribing to terms when they use them. We encourage continued dialogue about terms, definitions, and how to achieve consensus. We also recognize there will be differing opinions and exceptions. Clear communication will be essential. Diversity, respect, and tolerance are strengths of the mixed methods field. Yet, setting some conventions in language is important to facilitate dialog between researchers (Fetters, 2022).