Exploring Limitations in Mixed Methods Research (MMR): Domains,Functions,and Specificity

Abstract

There has been a scarcity of research and a huge oversight to acknowledge limitations. This inquiry comprehensively bridges this gap by investigating limitations as pivotal micro-genres in mixed methods research articles within Journal of Mixed Methods Research. We adopted a qualitatively driven method to examine 215 empirical articles from 2007 to 2023. Six major domains (methodological, conceptual, procedural, logistical, cultural/linguistic, and ethical), four functions (dismissal, confession, offset, and reflection) and specificities (attribution to quantitative, qualitative, both phases, or exclusively MMR) were disclosed, which impact the rigor, transparency, corroboration, and robustness of one’s study. This study contributes to the rapid growth of MMR by investigating the rhetorical features of its limitations that are proliferating for mixed methodologists to have a critical view of these elements.

Keywords

mixed methods research limitations domain function specificity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amini Farsani

Jamali

H. R.

Beikmohammadi

Ghorbani

B. D.

Soleimani

(2021). Methodological orientations, academic citations, and scientific collaboration in applied linguistics: What do research synthesis and bibliometrics indicate? System, 100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102547

Amini Farsani

Saedi

(2025). How to integrate qualitative and quantitative data in mixed methods research. Sage Publications Ltd eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781036223335

Bazerman

(1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. The University of Wisconsin Press.

Bazerman

(2012). Genre as social action. In Handford

Paul Gee

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 226–238). Routledge.

Bhatia

V. K.

(1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. Routledge.

Boonyuen

Tangkiengsirisin

(2018). The investigation of the textual organization of research article discussion sections in the field of second language writing. Arab World English Journal, 9(3), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3258782

Brutus

Aguinis

Wassmer

(2012). Self-reported limitations and future directions in scholarly reports. Journal of Management, 39(1), 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312455245

Brutus

Duniewicz

(2011). The many heels of Achilles: An analysis of self-reported limitations in leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.015

Brutus

Gill

Duniewicz

(2010). State of science in industrial and organizational psychology: A reviewed of self-reported limitations. Personnel Psychology, 63(4), 907–936. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01192.x

10.

Campion

M. A.

(1993). Article review checklist: A criterion checklist for reviewing research articles in applied psychology. Personnel Psychology, 46(3), 705–718. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00896.x

11.

Charman

A. J. E.

Petersen

L. M.

Piper

L. E.

Liedeman

Legg

(2015). Small area census approach to measure the township informal economy in South Africa. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(1), 36–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815572024

12.

Clarke

Alley

L. J.

Ghai

Flake

J. K.

Rohrer

J. M.

Simmons

J. P.

Schiavone

S. R.

Vazire

(2024). Looking our limitations in the eye: A call for more thorough and honest reporting of study limitations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 18(7), e12979. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12979

13.

Clarke

Schiavone

Vazire

(2023). What limitations are reported in short articles in social and personality psychology? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(4), 874–901. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000458

14.

Collins

C. C.

Dressler

W. W.

(2008). Cultural consensus and cultural diversity: A mixed methods investigation of human service providers' models of domestic violence. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(4), 362–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689808322766

15.

Creswell

Poth

(2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.

16.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.

17.

Creswell

J. W.

Clark

V. L. P.

(2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.

18.

Creswell

J. W.

Tashakkori

(2007). Differing perspectives on mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(4), 303–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807306132

19.

Dujsik

(2013). A genre analysis of RA discussions in applied linguistics. Language Research, 49(2), 453–477.

20.

Fetters

M. D.

Freshwater

(2015). Publishing a methodological mixed methods RA. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(3), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815594687

21.

Fetters

M. D.

Molina-Azorin

J. F.

(2017). The journal of mixed methods research starts a new decade: Perspectives of past editors on the current state of the field and future directions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(4), 423–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817729476

22.

Flowerdew

(2023). Genre analysis. In Wei

Hua

Simpson

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 258–269). Routledge.

23.

Freshwater

(2007). Reading mixed methods research: Contexts for criticism. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 134–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298578

24.

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

25.

Greene

J. C.

(2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. John Wiley & Sons.

26.

Greene

J. C.

Caracelli

V. J.

(1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 1997(74), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1068

27.

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

28.

Guba

E. G.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191–215). Sage Publications.

29.

Guetterman

T. C.

Fetters

M. D.

Creswell

J. W.

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

30.

Guetterman

T. C.

Haggins

Montas

Black

Harney

Fetters

M. D.

Silbergleit

Dickert

N. W.

(2024). Institutional review boards’ assessment of local context: A mixed methods study. Ethics & Human Research, 46(1), 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500195

31.

Guetterman

T. C.

Molina-Azorin

J. F.

Fàbregues

(2022). The need to rigorously develop common quality guidelines for reporting mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(1), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221143561

32.

Guetterman

T. C.

Plano

V. L.

Molina-Azorín

J. F.

(2023). Terminology and mixed methods research: A persistent challenge. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 18(1), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898231217855

33.

Hashemi

M. R.

Gohari Moghaddam

(2019). A mixed methods genre analysis of the discussion section of MMR articles in applied linguistics. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(2), 242–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816674626

34.

Hesse-Biber

(2016). Gender differences in psychosocial and medical outcomes stemming from testing positive for the BRCA1/2 genetic mutation for breast cancer: An explanatory sequential mixed methods study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 280–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816655257

35.

Hilton

Fawson

P. R.

Sullivan

T. J.

(2019). Applied social research: A tool for the human services. Springer Publishing Company.

36.

Hyland

(2012). Genre and Discourse Analysis in Language for Specific Purposes. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0452

37.

Hyland

(2015). Genre, discipline and identity. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19, 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.02.005

38.

Ioannidis

J. P.

(2007). Limitations are not properly acknowledged in the scientific literature. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(4), 324–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.09.011

39.

Issa

Faraj

AbiGhannam

(2024). Exploring ChatGPT’s ability to classify the structure of literature reviews in engineering RAs. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 17, 1859–1868. https://doi.org/10.1109/tlt.2024.3409514

40.

Jang

E. E.

McDougall

D. E.

Pollon

Herbert

Russell

(2008). Integrative mixed methods data analytic strategies in research on school success in challenging circumstances. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 221–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689808315323

41.

Kanoksilapatham

(2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry RAs. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.08.003

42.

Kawase

(2021). How do applied linguistics researchers structure coherence relations in the process of establishing a niche for their research? Text & Talk, 42(2), 233–254. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-0302

43.

Knaggs

C. M.

Sondergeld

T. A.

Schardt

(2013). Overcoming barriers to college enrollment, persistence, and perceptions for urban high school students in a college preparatory program. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(1), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689813497260

44.

Kuckartz

(2014). Qualitative text analysis: A guide to methods, practice & using software. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288719

45.

Kutscher

E. L.

Howard

L. C.

(2021). Integration as a process: Applying iterative multiple correspondence analysis to surface dynamic findings. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 16(3), 328–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898211021669

46.

Lee

Y.-J.

Greene

(2007). The predictive validity of an ESL placement test. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(4), 366–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807306148

47.

Leech

N. L.

Leech

D. J.

(2024). A framework for determining research topics and problems in mixed methods studies: A call for transparency. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 18(3), 360–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898241251506

48.

Lillo-Fuentes

Venegas

López-Ferrero

(2021). Computer engineering final degree project: Rhetorical-discursive organization of the results section. Logos Revista De Lingüística Filosofía Y Literatura, 31(2), 317–337. https://doi.org/10.15443/rl3119

49.

Lingard

Watling

(2016). It’s a story, not a study: Writing an effective research paper. Academic Medicine, 91(12), Article e12. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001389

50.

Molina-Azorin

J. F.

Guetterman

T. C.

(2024). In this issue: Artificial intelligence, bridging methodological divides through mixed methods, literature reviews, integration of structural equation modeling and autoethnography, and research problems in mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 18(4), 419–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898241287305

51.

Montgomery

D. P.

(2023). “This study is not without its limitations”: Acknowledging limitations and recommending future research in applied linguistics RAs. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 65(2), Article 101291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101291

52.

Moorkens

(2013). Consistency in translation memory corpora. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689813508226

53.

Morgan

D. L.

(2019). Commentary—After triangulation, what next? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(1), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818780596

54.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Forzani

Corrigan

J. A.

(2023). A fully integrated systematic review of mixed methods design-based research. Journal of Mixed Methods Studies, 8(8), 24–51. https://doi.org/10.59455/jomes.34

55.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Johnson

R. B.

(2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48–63.

56.

Paltridge

(2014). Genre and second-language academic writing. Language Teaching, 47(3), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444814000068

57.

Plonsky

(2013). Study quality in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(4), 655–687. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263113000399

58.

Poth

C. N.

(2023). The SAGE handbook of mixed methods research design. Sage Publications Limited.

59.

Poth

C. N.

Bulut

Aquilina

A. M.

Otto

S. J. G.

(2021). Using data mining for rapid complex case study descriptions: Example of public health briefings during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 15(3), 348–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898211013925

60.

Price

J. H.

Murnan

(2004). Research limitations and the necessity of reporting them. American Journal of Health Education, 35(2), 66–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2004.10603611

61.

Puigvert

Valls

Garcia Yeste

Aguilar

Merrill

(2017). Resistance to and transformations of gender-based violence in Spanish universities: A communicative evaluation of social impact. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(3), 361–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817731170

62.

Rau

(2021). Rediscovery of developmental RAs in electrical engineering and description of their macrostructure. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 64(4), 427–443. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpc.2021.3110618

63.

Riazi

A. M.

Amini Farsani

(2024). Mixed-methods research in applied linguistics: Charting the progress through the second decade of the twenty-first century. Language Teaching, 57(2), 143–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444823000332

64.

Ross

P. T.

Zaidi

N. L. B.

(2019). Limited by our limitations. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(4), 261–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-00530-x

65.

Schoonenboom

(2023). The fundamental difference between qualitative and quantitative data in mixed methods research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 24(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-24.1.3986

66.

Spector

A. Y.

Pinto

R. M.

(2015). Partnership matters in health services research: A mixed methods study of practitioners’ involvement in research and subsequent use of evidence-based interventions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(3), 374–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815619823

67.

Swales

J. M.

(2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.

68.

Tashakkori

Johnson

Teddlie

(2020). Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage.

69.

Teddlie

C. B.

Tashakkori

(2008). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage Publications.

70.

Thanajirawat

Chuea-Nongthon

(2022). Move and text analysis of the discussion section in humanities and social sciences RAs. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911531

71.

Theofanidis

Fountouki

(2018). Limitations and delimitations in the research process. Online Official Journal of GORNA, 7(3), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2552022

72.

Van Ness

P. H.

Murphy

T. E.

Ali

(2016). Attention to individuals: Mixed methods for n-of-1 health care interventions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(3), 342–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815623685

73.

Wesely

P. M.

(2010). Language learning motivation in early adolescents: Using mixed methods research to explore contradiction. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689810375816

74.

Whatley

Stich

A. E.

(2021). Pushing the integration envelope: A network analysis of study abroad website content. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 16(3), 350–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898211015450

75.

(2011). Improving the writing of research papers: IMRAD and beyond. Landscape Ecology, 26(10), 1345–1349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9674-3

76.

Zhou

Jiang

F. K.

(2023). ‘The study has clear limitations’: Presentation of limitations in conclusion sections of PhD dissertations and RAs in applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes, 71, 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.02.001