Mixed methods research is viewed as the third methodological movement and as an approach it has much to offer health and social science research. Its emergence was in response to the limitations of the sole use of quantitative or qualitative methods and is now considered by many a legitimate alternative to these two traditions. Purists’ view of the dichotomy between positivist and non-positivist philosophies is prevalent; however, mixed methods afford researchers an opportunity to overcome this ‘false dichotomy’. The philosophical underpinning of pragmatism allows and guides mixed methods researchers to use a variety of approaches to answer research questions that cannot be addressed using a singular method. In particular, healthcare researchers may benefit from the opportunity to use such a dynamic approach to address the complex and multi-faceted research problems often encountered in the health care sector.
Appleton JV King L (2002) Journeying from the philosophical contemplation of constructivism to the methodological pragmatics of health service research . J Adv Nurs40: 641 – 648 .
2.
Bryman A (2006) Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done . Qual Res6: 97 – 113 .
3.
Bryman A (2007) Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research . J Mixed Methods Res1: 8 – 22 .
4.
Caracelli VJ Greene JC (1997) Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs . New Dir Program Eval1997: 19 – 32 .
5.
Creswell JW (1994) Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative approaches.Thousand Oaks CA : Sage .
6.
Creswell JW Plano Clark VL (2007) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research.Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .
7.
Creswell JW Plano Clark VL Gutman ML Hanson WE (2003) Advanced mixed methods research designs. In: A Tashakkori C Teddlie (eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research.Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage . 209–240
8.
Firestone WA (1987) Meaning in method: the rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research . Educ Res16: 16 – 21 .
9.
Giddings LS (2006) Mixed-methods research. Positivism dressed in drag . J Res Nurs11: 195 – 203 .
10.
Greene JC (2005) The generative potential of mixed methods inquiry . Int J Res Method Educ28: 207 – 211 .
11.
Greene JC; Caracelli VJ; (1997) Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. New Dir Program Eval 3: 5–17.
12.
Greene JC Caracelli VJ Graham WF (1989) Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs . Educ Eval Policy Anal11: 255 – 274 .
13.
Guba E (1987) What have we learned about naturalistic evaluation . Eval Pract8: 23 – 43 .
14.
Guba EG Lincoln YS (1988) Do inquiry paradigms imply inquiry methodologies? In: DM Fetterman (ed), Qualitative Approaches to Evaluation in Education: The Silent Scientific Revolution.London : Prager . 89–115
15.
Hanson WE Creswell J Plano Clark V Creswell D (2005) Mixed method design in counselling psychology . J Couns Psychol52: 224 – 235 .
16.
Howe K (1985) Two dogmas of educational research . Educ Res14: 10 – 18 .
17.
Howe KR; (1988) Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educ Res 17: 10–16.
18.
Ivankova NV Creswell JW Stick SL (2006) Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: from theory to practice . Field Methods18: 3 – 20 .
19.
Johnson RB Onwuegbuzie AJ (2004) Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come . Educ Res33: 14 – 26 .
20.
Johnson RB Onwuegbuzie AJ Turner LA (2007) Toward a definition of mixed methods research . J Mixed Methods Res1: 112 – 133 .
21.
Leech NL Onwuegbuzie AJ (2007) A typology of mixed methods research designs . Qual Quant (in press).
22.
Maxcy SJ (2003) Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: the search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In: A Tashakkori C Teddlie (eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research.Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage . 51–89
23.
Mertens DM (2003) Mixed methods and the politics of human research: the transformative-emancipatory perspective. In: A Tashakkori C Teddlie (eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research.Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage . 135–164
24.
Morgan DL (2007) Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods . J Mixed Methods Res1: 48 – 76 .
25.
O'Cathain A Murphy E Nicholl J (2007) Integration and publications as indicators of “yield” from mixed methods studies . J Mixed Methods Res1: 147 – 163 .
26.
Onwuegbuzie AJ (2002) Why can’t we all get along? Towards a framework for unifying research paradigms . Education122: 518 – 530 .
27.
Sale JEM Lohfeld LH Brazil K (2002) Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: implications for mixed-methods research . Qual Quant36: 43 – 53 .
28.
Sandelowski M (2001) Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection and analysis techniques in mixed method studies research . Nurs Health23: 246 – 255 .
29.
Sandelowski M (2003) Tables or tableaux? The challenges of writing and reading mixed methods studies. In: A Tashakkori C Teddlie (eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research.Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage . 321–350
30.
Schwandt TA (2000) Three epistemological stances for qualitative research. In: N Denzin YS Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, second ed.Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage . 189–213
31.
Smith JK Heshusius L (1986) Closing down the conversation: the end of the quantitative-qualitative debate among educational inquirers . Educ Res1: 4 – 12 .
32.
Stevenson C (2005) Practical inquiry/theory in nursing . Journal of Advanced Nursing50: 196 – 203 .
33.
Tashakkori A Creswell JW (2007) Editorial: the new era of mixed methods . J Mixed Methods Res1: 3 – 7 .
34.
Tashakkori A Teddlie C (2003) The past and future of mixed methods research: from data triangulation to mixed model designs. In: A Tashakkori C Teddlie (eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research.Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage . 671–701
35.
Teddlie C Tashakkorri A (2006) A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods . Res Sch13: 12 – 18 .
36.
Twinn S (2003) Status of mixed methods research in nursing. In: A Tashakkori C Teddlie (eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research.Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage . 541–556
37.
Yanchar SC; Williams DD; (2006) Reconsidering the compatibility thesis and eclecticism: five proposed guidelines for method use. Educ Res 35: 3–12.
