Describing Mixed Methods Research: An Alternative to Typologies
Abstract
Scholars have created a variety of typologies to describe and simplify mixed methods research designs. In this article, I review the rationale for using these typologies and discuss some shortcomings of the existing methods of classification. I argue that current systems of classification, although useful for simple and less fluid types of mixed methods research, are not capable of capturing the complexity and iterative nature of larger, more intricate research projects. I suggest an alternative way of viewing and describing mixed methods research for studies that resist simple classification. This alternative perspective shifts the unit of reference to the point of interface—where QUAL and QUAN data are integrated—and reduces the number of descriptive dimensions to two—the timing and the purpose of data integration.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Timing has two aspects: simultaneity and dependence.
“Timing has two aspects: simultaneity and dependence (Guest 2013).”
From How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design (2017) · cites this paper as Guest 2013
Each true mixed methods study has at least one point of integration, at which the qualitative and quantitative components are brought together.
“Each true mixed methods study has at least one “point of integration” – called the “point of interface” by Morse and Niehaus (2009) and Guest (2013) –, at which the qualitative and quantitative components are brought together.”
From How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design (2017) · cites this paper as Guest (2013)
A common distinction is between simple investigations with a single point of integration versus complex investigations with multiple points of integration.
“A common distinction is between simple investigations with a single point of integration versus complex investigations with multiple points of integration (Guest 2013).”
From How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design (2017) · cites this paper as Guest 2013
The authors do not consider common mixed methods research designs as a feature of a whole study, but rather as a feature of one part of a design in which one qualitative and one quantitative component are combined.
“Contrary to other authors, however, we do not consider these designs as a feature of a whole study, but rather, in line with Guest (2013), as a feature of one part of a design in which one qualitative and one quantitative component are combined.”
From How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design (2017) · cites this paper as Guest (2013)
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 23 · Cited by 283
- Authors
- Guest, G.
- Affiliations
- Family Health International 360 (US)
- Corresponding author
- Guest, Greg
- Venue
- Journal of Mixed Methods Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-10-04
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 141-151
- ISSN
- 1558-6898 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-6901
- OpenAlex
- W2148551788
- Semantic Scholar
- 8fe70b7688468aeffc2e6e02011d1a6b60872a6a
- Cited by
- 283
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 49.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Mixed Methods Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Business Strategies and Management Research
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
- Keywords
- mixed methods, qualitative-quantitative integration
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
