a-curs 3,4 opt

8/3/2019 a-curs 3,4 opt

1/9

LWWJ303-14 January 26, 2007 1:23 Char Count= 0

Advances in Nursing Science

Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 5260Copyright c 2007 Wolters Kluwer Health| Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

A Trojan Horse for Positivism?

A Critique of Mixed MethodsResearch

Lynne S. Giddings, PhD, RGON, MN; Barbara M. Grant, PhD

Mixed methods research is captured by a pragmatically inflected form of postpositivism. Al-though it passes for an alternative methodological movement that purports to breach thedivide between qualitative and quantitative research, most mixed methods studies favor theforms of analysis and truth finding associated with positivism. We anticipate a move awayfrom exploring more philosophical questions or undertaking modes of enquiry that challengethe status quo. At the same time, we recognize that mixed methods research offers particularstrengths and that, although it serves as a Trojan Horse forpositivism,it may productively carryother paradigmatic passengers. Key words: mixed methods, qualitative research, quanti-

tative research, paradigms, postactivism, pragmatism

MIXED methods research is being pro-moted as a practice that breaches di- vide between qualitative and quantitative re-

search. Here, we join the current debate inthe nursing literature15 by advancing the view that mixed methods is a Trojan Horsefor positivist enquiry, depending for its appealon a pragmatic orientation. The critique ofmixed methods research offered here arisesfrom our shared concern at its contempo-

rary positioning as the third methodologicalmovement.6(pix) Such a positioning is fraught with theoretical and political complexities:

From the School of Nursing, Faculty of Health &Environmental Sciences, Auckland University ofTechnology (Dr Giddings); and the Centre for

Professional Development, University of Auckland(Dr Grant), Auckland, New Zealand.

We are grateful for feedback from the Young and Rest-less Scholars Writing Group (The University of Auck-land), Claire-Louise McCurdy for passing her editorialeye over the manuscript, and the academic women

who attended the Tauhara Writing Retreats (Taupo,Aotearoa, New Zealand) between 2003 and 2005 whopatiently listened to and commented on our developingideas and musings on mixed methods research.

Corresponding author: Lynne S. Giddings, PhD, RGON, MN, School of Nursing, Faculty of Health & Environ-mental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology,

Auckland 1142, New Zealand (e-mail: [email protected]).

in particular, it shores up the argument thatresearch is value neutral rather than grap-pling with its painful politics. In what fol-lows, and drawing on a comprehensive review of recent nursing research (L.S.G. andL. A. Williams, unpublished data, 2006), weargue that mixed methods research in nurs-ing and health generally, and increasingly inthe social sciences including education, has

been captured by a pragmatic postpositivism

and that such capture secures mixed meth-ods within the broader positivist project toknow the world in particular ways. The effectof this capture is to reinstall the marginaliza-tion of other forms of knowing. Moreover, theresultant narrowing of focus means more cir-cumscribed fields of values at play, questionsbeing asked, forms of data being collected,modes of analysis being undertaken, and pos-

sible outcomes being generated.The trend toward reinstalling positivist re-

search as the methodology of choice hasbeen noted by others. For example, Patti

Lather notes a resurgent positivism and gov-ernmental imposition of experimental designas the gold standard in [educational] researchmethods7(p35) in North America, as doesRobert Donmoyer8 who notes that this hasbeen a recent and rather dramatic change.

In her critique of evidence-based practice,

52

8/3/2019 a-curs 3,4 opt

2/9


A Critique of Mixed Methods Research 53

Sue Clegg points toward similar trends in at-titudes toward social policy research in theUnited Kingdom as they increasingly become

subject to the logic of what works.

9(p416)

Acursory survey of Web sites for health fund-ing bodies by one of the authors (L.S.G.)shows the prevalence of terms such as holis-tic, integrated, multi-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary,cross-disciplinary, and collab-orative,all code words signaling a preferencefor mixed methods research designs.

In what follows, we explain our posi-tion by exploring how mixed methods re-search has been captured by pragmatic post-

positivism. In particular, we tease out thetheoretical continuities between positivism

and postpositivism to clarify our claim thatthe latter remains within the paradigmaticpurview of the former. In previous work, wehave laid out a schematic view of researcherparadigms in the health and social sciences.10

The critique presented here draws on theschema that comprised 4 paradigms: posi-tivist, interpretivist, radical (also called crit-

ical), and poststructural. In that work, wealso acknowledged the emergence of indige-nous researchfor example, Kaupapa Maoriresearch in Aotearoa, New Zealandas a pos-sible further paradigm. We go on to attend

to two related conceptual confusions that arecritical to this debate. Finally, we acknowl-edge the strengths of mixed methods researchand explore the ways it can serve paradigmsother than that most closely associated with

science.

THE PRAGMATIC AND POSTPOSITIVIST

CAPTURE OF MIXED METHODS

RESEARCH

Pragmatism and postpositivism have been

significant influences on the modern mixedmethods movement. Although both havebeen viewed as paradigms or knowledge

claims,11(pp412) we see pragmatism as anideological position available within anyparadigm rather than a paradigm in its ownright. In practice, proponents of mixed meth-

ods research are often pragmatists in orienta-tion. Rather than focusing on epistemologicalintegrity, they emphasize the importance of

getting the job done.

12(p101)

It is the prac-ticality of the designs and their wide rangeof uses13(p364) that is valued. For these rea-sons, pragmatisms conjuncture with postpos-itivism is particularly fitting: as modes of re-search enquiry, both are marked by a lack oftheoretical reflexivity and both value eclec-ticism in choice of methods, although fordifferent reasons.

In contrast to pragmatism, postpositivismis of the order of a paradigm: it is a distinc-

tive development within the paradigm of pos-itivism, arising from the recognition of pos-

itivisms ideological and practical limitationsfor some forms of research, including nurs-ing, health, and social science research. Cru-cially, postpositivist thinking also contributedto the emergence of the alternative researchparadigms identified above, making space forstandpoints that no longer believed in thepossibility of understanding life from an ob-

jective point of view. Our critique is not di-rected at postpositivism per se but rather theway in which it works stealthily to entrenchpositivism.

In the short history of health and social

science research, the views of scientific pos-itivism have dominated, although not with-out criticism. For instance, Wilhelm Dilthey(18331911) and Edmund Husserl (18591938), whose ideas became the basis for mod-

ern phenomenology, argued that the scien-tific method was inappropriate for studyinghuman phenomena: What [life] is cannot beexpressed in a simple formula or explanation.Thought cannot fully go behind life, for it isthe expression of life.14(p25)

In the second half of the 20th century,there were multiple challenges to positivist

science from the protagonists of other com-peting paradigms such as feminists, critical

social theorists, and poststructuralists. Butprobably most influential were the evenearlier criticisms in the 1960s and 1970s within the positivist paradigm itself from agroup of philosophers of science, including

8/3/2019 a-curs 3,4 opt

3/9


54 ADVANCES IN NURSING SCIENCE/JANUARYMARCH 2007

Karl Popper,15 Thomas Kuhn,16 StephenToulmin,17 and Paul Feyerabend.18 Althoughthese thinkers came from different per-

spectives, collectively they destabilized thepositivist notions of absolute truth, prov-able hypotheses, and unbiased, value-free re-searchers. Their criticisms meant that posi-tivist science began to lose the high ground.Indeed, it was these postpositivist thinkersthat made the ideological space for theemergence of qualitative methodologies inthe 1980s, and, in turn, the modern-dayappearance of mixed methods research.Postpositivismthe post signaling a devel-opment of positivismemerged as a moremoderate form of positivism, but one that is

neither accepted nor understood by all posi-tivists. Indeed, it is the case that the many pos-itivist researchers do not understand them-selves in an epistemological or an ontologicalsense, a phenomenon not unusual in the self-awareness of dominant social groups.

Table 1. Comparing the philosophical underpinnings of positivism and postpositivism

Philosophical

assumptions Positivist position Postpositivist position

Determinism Effects have determinable causes andactions have predictable outcomes Effects and outcomes are the result ofa complex array of interactive

causative and outcome factors

Reductionism Experience can be reduced to a

discrete set of ideas or concepts

that can be described and tested

Experience can be described

conceptually and tested, but the

unpredictable and contradictory

nature of human experience needs

to be factored in

Objectivism Reality exists out in the world and

can be observed, measured, and

understood. Objectivity is the goal

of the researcher

Reality is socially and culturally

constructed and can be observed

and measured. Researcher

objectivity is impossible

Theory verification Theory is universal and generalizable

through a process ofproving

hypotheses

Theory remains open to verification

through a process ofsupporting

hypothesesRole of evidence Evidence is required to establish

truth

Evidence establishes degrees of

probability that something is true

Scientific method The scientific method is the best way

of knowing about the world and

seeking evidence to solve

problems

There is not one method: choice of

method (qualitative and

quantitative) is guided by the

research question

In many ways, the underpinning assump-tions of postpositivism are continuous withpositivism, as Table 1 makes plain. Before

we go any further, a caution: by catego-rizing research activities into a neat list ofphilosophical assumptions and characteris-tics, we are at risk of stereotyping the so-labeled researchers. We are aware of the di- versity of opinion among postpositivists, asindeed postpositivist colleagues who critiqueour work continually remind us! Our catego-rizing framework is offered to show the posi-tivist antecedents of postpositivism in orderto support our argument that the latter re-

mains within the general worldview of the for-mer.

Table 1 summarizes the continuities anddiscontinuities between the key philosophi-cal assumptions of positivism and those ofpostpositivism. A core fundamental positivistassumption is that of determinism, the be-lief that effects have a determinable cause and

8/3/2019 a-curs 3,4 opt

4/9



actions have predictable outcomes. Postposi-tivists maintain this assumption in a modifiedform: rather than assuming a linear process

of cause and effect, they perceive outcomesas the result of a complex array of causativefactors that are in interaction with their out-comes. Postpositivists also maintain the pos-itivist assumption of reductionism, the beliefthat experience can be reduced to a discreteset of ideas or concepts that can be describedand tested. Again, however, this assumption ismodified: postpositivists factor in the unpre-dictable and contradictory nature of humanexperience. Another key positivist assump-

tion, objectivism, is the belief that reality ex-ists out in the world and can be observed,

measured, and understood. On this point,however, postpositivists diverge from posi-tivists significantly: they tend to argue thatreality is socially and culturally constructedand researcher objectivity is impossible. Dif-ferent postpositivist researchers, though, takea range of stances on this issue: at the mostpositivist-inflected end of the spectrum, they

argue that the researcher must strive to be asneutral as possible, while at the other end,they argue that the researcher cannot be neu-tral because she is in relationship with whatshe is researching.

Postpositivist divergence from pure pos-itivism is found in yet other key assump-tions: postpositivists maintain the assump-tion of theory verification (the belief thatlaws and theories can explain various reali-

ties but that they need to remain open toverification to establish truth), but tend totalk about supportingrather than provinghypotheses. The role of evidence is to es-tablish a high degree of probability, ratherthan certainty, that something is true,hencethe term probabilistic evidence.19(p14) Thisrepresents a critical shift in thinking away

from the positivist assumption that theory canbe universal and generalizable. Postpositivists

also maintain the positivist assumption thatthe scientific method is best; however, theybelieve that choice of method is guided bythe research question and that research can

incorporate multiple methods, including non-traditional ones, especially for triangulation.Tashakkori and Teddlie define triangulation

as the combination and comparisons of mul-tiple data sources, data collection and analysisprocedures, research methods, and/or infer-ences that occur at the end of a study.6(p717)

In other words, triangulation offers ways toverify and confirm findings so the researcherhas confidence and some certainty in theconclusions made. Although methods are stillthe processes by which truth can be estab-lished, they are always open to challenge. Theresearch process needs to show evidence of

control for bias, with reliability and validitystandards used to ensure rigor. This repre-

sents another critical shift in thinking awayfrom the positivist assumption that the tradi-tional scientific method is theway to establishtruth: indeed, the belief that qualitative meth-ods have something to add to the findings ofquantitative ones underpins the postpositivistuptake of mixed methods research.

In spite of these challenges to some of pos-

itivisms basic tenets, postpositivism is funda-mentally an extension of rather than a breakfrom the positivist paradigm. Scientific meth-ods and principles are still accepted as thebest ways for discovering true knowledge and

solving problems. However, like their posi-tivist kin, postpositivist researchers rarely ac-knowledge the philosophical and theoreticalunderpinnings of their research. A recentsurvey of around 140 mixed methods re-

search articles featuring in nursing journalsbetween 1998 and July 2005 showed the ma-jority of them take an implicit rather than ex-plicit postpositivist orientation toward mixedmethods.20 We have already remarked thatsuch an omission can be understood as char-acteristic of a dominant culture that does notneed to explain itself: the absence of reflex-

ivity about deeply held assumptions furtherserves to maintain the dominance of the posi-

tivist worldview in the health and social sci-ences. It is in this sense that mixed meth-ods can be understood as a Trojan Horse forpositivism.

8/3/2019 a-curs 3,4 opt

5/9



WHAT IS MIXED IN MIXED METHODS

RESEARCH?

The lack of explicitness about paradigmaticpositioning extends to other aspects of mixedmethods practicein particular, there is of-ten a lack of clear understanding of just whatis mixedmethods or methodologies. Our at-tention now turns to this arena of theoreticaland political confusion.

The ingredient that is most commonlymixed in mixed methods research is the meth-ods, not the methodologies, and the methodsare mixed in the quite specific sense that both

qualitative and quantitative ones are used.Because of this, some proponents of mixed

methods research argue that this approach toresearch represents the best of both worlds,usually understood as the two worldviews ofpositivism/quantitative research and interpre-tivism/qualitative research. This claim arisesfrom two critical and persistent confusions:the first is a misunderstanding over the differ-ence between the ideas of methodology and

method and the second is that over the statusof the terms qualitative and quantitative.

First, the methodology/method pair. Themore abstract of the two terms, methodol-ogy, refers to the theoretical assumptions and

values that underpin a particular research ap-proach. For this reason, methodologies be-long within certain paradigms, althoughthey can be adapted to work in othersforexample, ethnography was originally an in-

terpretivist methodology but has since beenadapted for use within the critical/radicalparadigm as critical ethnography.Moreover,particular methodologies are often associated with specific disciplinesfor example, al-though ethnography is characteristic of so-cial anthropology, nursing has subsequentlydeveloped and applied it within certain prac-

tice contexts. Likewise, nursing research hastaken up the methodologies of phenomenol-

ogy and grounded theory that originally devel-oped within other disciplines. Distinctively,methodology is a thinking tool that guideshow a researcher frames her research ques-

tion and how she decides on what methodsand forms of data analysis to use.

Methods, in contrast, are much more con-

crete and practicalthey are the doing toolsfor collecting and analyzing data. To illus-trate, one commonly used method in ethnog-raphy is participant observation, wherebythe researcher gathers information by spend-ing time in the community under study. Incontrast, a phenomenologist is more likely touse in-depth conversationswith a small sam-ple (68) of participants to explore the mean-ings of a particular phenomenon. As tools,methods are almost always a-paradigmatic,

and therefore any given method may be usedin the service of any paradigm. In practice,

however, some methods are closely iden-tified with particular methodologies withincertain paradigms. For example, the open-ended interview method is closely associated with many of the methodologies of the in-terpretivist paradigm, and the survey method with those of the positivist/postpositivistparadigm.

Inability to distinguish between method-ology and method can lead to confusedthinking and practice on the part of manymixed methods researchers. This in turnhas given rise to charges of methodologi-

cal slurring21,22 and internal inconsistencywithin research design. Moreover, sometimesthere are claims of methodological triangula-tion in the literature22that is, researcherswho say they are bringing together the find-

ings of 2 or more methodologies in or-der to strengthen their study and, indeed,often to access funding opportunities. Al-though mixed methodologies research doesoffer the advantage of approaching a phe-nomenon from different angles, more oftenthan not such research turns out to be mixingthe methods rather than the methodologies.

Where methodologies are mixed inside oneresearch project, there are often problems

with the commensurability of the findings.This problem is particularly fraught whenthose methodologies also cross paradigmboundaries because then the underlying

8/3/2019 a-curs 3,4 opt

6/9



assumptions and values are usually contra-dictory. To give an example of this diffi-culty: Jennifer Greene and Valerie Caracelli

assert the value of a dialectic mixed meth-ods stance that intentionally includes differ-ent paradigms in order to reach better un-derstanding in research via an engagementwith the tensions that are invoked betweenparadigms.12(p97) Yet, discussion of their illus-trative case culminates in this way: the dia-logues in this evaluation were not actualisedas intended, and the reasons were largely re-lated to values and politics.12(p98) This un-satisfactory outcome is what we would pre-

dict from mixed methodology research acrossparadigms, because the significant differences

between paradigms are usually irresolvable,depending as they do on deeply different as-sumptions and values about the nature of theworld, the people within it, and the relationsbetween them.

Despite these difficulties, successful mixedmethodology research is possible under cer-tain circumstancesfor example, when both

methodologies lie within the same paradigm,the underlying assumptions and values arelikely to be coherent and so the differentfindings are less likely to be in tension withone another. Methodological mixing across

paradigms can also be effective where onemethodology is in the service of another. Insuch a case, and in contrast to the examplegiven above, one set of assumptions predom-inates and the contradictions can be dealt

with openly. Feminist grounded theory, crit-ical hermeneutics, and critical ethnographyare examples of such mixing; in all thesecases, methodologies from the interpretiveparadigm are framed by theoretical assump-tions from the radical/critical paradigm, sothat the way the research is carried out fromthe framing of the question to the presenta-

tion of the findings reflects the transformativeassumptions typical of the latter. Judith Wuest

and colleagues explain one version of this:When grounded theory and feminist theoryare used together, theoretical sensitivity is in-fluenced by feminism: investigators are re-sponsive to the ways that gender, culture,

class, ability, age, and sexual orientation arerevealed in the data and influence the varia-tion in emerging theoretical concepts.23(p258)

Finally, on this matter of methodologyand method, a related source of confusionis that mixed methods research is some-times referred to itself as a methodology.In our view, to have the status of a method-ology, mixed methods research design mustbe described by a larger term that points tothe theoretical positioning underpinning it,for example, descriptive (explanatory or ex-ploratory) mixed methods, feminist partici-patory mixed methods, ethnographic mixed

methods, and so on. In just such a vein,the most recent version of Lathers paradigm

chart lists positivist mixed methodsand in-terpretive mixed methodsas distinctive prac-tices within disparate paradigms.7(p37) Other-wise, the term mixed methodssimply refersto a particular selection of methods and asan unsituated practice, risks a lack of internalconsistency within the research design.

A second and critical confusion is the per-

ceived difference in status between the termsqualitative and quantitative. These termsare commonly used to describe the meth-ods or methodologies of mixed methods re-search. Historically, quantitative research has

been viewed as synonymous with positivismand qualitative with interpretivismhencethe association with methodology. More rad-ically, some writers consider the terms torefer to two research paradigms in and of

themselves.24 At the other extreme, theyare considered to be terms merely descrip-tive of forms of data: quantitative data be-ing numbers and statistics, and qualitative be-ing words and narratives. However, like EgonGuba and Yvonna Lincoln, we argue thatthe two terms most usefully describe differ-ent types of methods25(p105) that may be

used for data collection and analysis, and thatmethods in this sense are a-theoretical and

a-methodological.26(p33) As a-theoretical (ora-paradigmatic) doing tools, the methods ofresearch can be mixed without contradiction,although, as we have remarked above, with-out methodological awareness they may well

8/3/2019 a-curs 3,4 opt

7/9



be used in ways that are at odds with eachother and one (usually quantitative) will thencome to dominate.

The likely dominance of quantitative datais an outcome of the politics associated withresearch paradigms. In this landscape, pos-itivist science still holds the high ground.For example, scrutinizing the available mixedmethods research literature, the reader maygain the impression that qualitative researchis only exploratory to, or supportive of, quan-titative research data. This intimates that qual-itative research cannot stand on its own andis only validated by being attached to a sci-

entific, quantitative, evidence-based method-ology. This status difference is compounded

by another, deeper misunderstanding. Noviceand even well-established postpositivist re-searchers may misconstrue the inclusion of aqualitative method into their research designas doing qualitative research.This reinforcesthe classic talking past each other that oc-curs so often between researchers from differ-ent paradigms. For example, a postpositivist

researcher who has used a qualitative induc-tive process to analyze her data may dismissthe complexity and rigor of the work of aHeideggerian hermeneutic phenomenologistas unnecessarily complicating things.1 Such a

dismissal overlooks the distinctive underlyingassumptions that differentiate the paradigmsand guide their disparate methodologies. Inthis way, the increasing popularity of mixedmethods research further muddies the waters

around the significant differences betweenresearch paradigms and reasserts the domi-nance of the positivist/postpositivist one.

GOING FORWARD WITH MIXED

METHODS RESEARCH

Messiness occurs when researchers donot acknowledge their paradigmatic position-

ing. Moreover, the use of qualitative meth-ods with a dusting of interpretive (qualita-tive) concepts in a research report does notmake a positivist/scientific study inclusive ofthe interpretive paradigm (the best of both

worlds).If paradigmatic assumptions are notmade explicit by a researcher, the ensuinganalysis may contain unprocessed contradic-

tions. In a review of 141 journal articles, Gid-dings and Williams (unpublished data) foundthat where there was a lack of goodnessof fit between findings, the qualitative onestook the backseat in order to preserve theintegrity of the studys conclusions. In ef-fect, the qualitative findings are all too eas-ily relegated to the position as handmaidenof quantitative ones.7(p49) A contrasting re-sponse would be to address the disparity be-tween the findings as a way to refocus the

research question and/or the underlying re-searcher assumptions and values concerning

the topic or construct.Lather argues for the value of the disjunc-

tive affirmation7(p52) offered by paradigm(and methodological) proliferation. This is away of thinking about paradigm incommensu-rability and disagreement as neither cause forwar nor requiring reconciliation but as itselfa virtue: Layering complexity, foreground-

ing problems, thinking outside easy intelli-gibility and transparent understanding, thegoal is to move education [social] researchin many different directions in the hope thatmore interesting and useful ways of knowing

will emerge.7(p53) Further to this, Donmoyerpoints out that paradigmatic incommensura-bility is not the same as logical incompati-bility and therefore a given researcher canconceivably employ different paradigms in

different circumstances and/or to accomplishdifferent goals.8(p21) This is an argument forthe benefits of radical theoretical flexibility,one that Donmoyer thinks is especially rele-vant to public policy fields such as health, so-cial policy, and education. In these fields, de-cision makers must consider and balance a va-riety of perspectives, some of which may be

antithetical, to address a particular situationor a particular point in time.8(p23)

It follows from these arguments that theremay be research strengths to be gained bycombining qualitative and quantitative meth-ods: these include a broader research fo-cus and a wider variety of data collection

8/3/2019 a-curs 3,4 opt

8/9



approaches that in turn enable richer descrip-tions of a phenomenon to be gathered. Al-though mixed methods research to date pri-

marily reflects postpositivist assumptions,

1

itdoes not have to be confined to this paradigm.It is a research design that can be situ-ated within others. For example, feminist re-searchers have long shown creative flexibilityin their approaches to collecting and analyz-ing data, able to utilize quantitative methodsin the service of radical/critical or poststruc-turalist paradigms. Pamela Ironsides study27

of implementing and evaluating narrative ped-agogy using a sequential mixed methods

design is a case in point. Ironside useda pretest-posttest questionnaire followed by

semistructured interviews to gather data fromher students in a research design where thedata from both methods are treated equally.She first sets out the student responses to var-ious items on the questionnaire, giving someof the statistical results in support of conclu-sions made, and then presents the qualitativedata thematically. In the analysis, Ironside at-

tempts to integrate the findings from the twodata sources, although the quantitative find-ings were in a number of instances incongru-ent and inconsistent with the qualitative ones.Fruitfully, most of the discussion in the article

arises from this mismatch. Ironsides work il-lustrates the rich possibilities of mixed meth-ods design where ultimately new questionscan be posed and new ways to explore themare imagined.

CONCLUSION

As research in nursing, health, and socialsciences becomes more pragmatically drivenand unsituated mixed methods takes the fund-ing high ground, we anticipate a move away

from exploring more philosophical questionsor undertaking modes of enquiry that chal-

lenge the status quo. Yet, researchers needto be aware of and speak to the epistemolo-gical breaches that lie between positivism

and the paradigms that follow: effacing thesebreaches forecloses creative possibilities forworking more appropriately and wisely withthe communities our research seeks to serve.In spurring on such effacement, mixed meth-ods research is a Trojan Horse for positivism,reinstalling it as the most respected form ofsocial research, while at the same timethrough inclusionneutralizing the oppo-sitional potential of other paradigms andmethodologies that more commonly use qual-

itative methods. This tendency may have far-reaching consequences for nursing and nurs-

ing research, influencing teaching curricula(in particular, the scope and variety of post-graduate research projects), faculty appoint-ments, the kinds of research questions thatcan be asked, possibilities for publication,and, critically, funding decisions. Nursing re-search has historically led the way in the de-velopment of nonpositivist methodologies in

the health sciencesour warning is that thisposition is threatened by the mixed methodsmovement.

Mixed methods research does not need toplay this role. Situated mixed methodsthat

is, a research practice conscious of its under-lying assumptions, beliefs, and politicsmaybe a powerful form of research inquiry, offer-ing as it does the possibility of rich and con-tradictory findings. Such contradictions may

in turn shift the ways in which we understandkey research constructs and practices as wellas remind us of the complexity of the socialworld that we are attempting to understandand intervene in. More subversively, the cur-rently popularized rubric of mixed methodsmay offer a Trojan Horse for other, more radi-cal agendas to win funding from sources that

are not usually sympathetic to their causeifwily researchers play their cards right.

REFERENCES

1. Giddings LS. Mixed-methods research: positivism

dressed in drag? J Res Nurs. 2006;11(3):195203.

2. Johnstone PL. Mixed methods, mixed methodology

health services research in practice. Qual Health

Res. 2004;14(2):259271.

3. Sandelowski M. Combining qualitative and

8/3/2019 a-curs 3,4 opt

9/9



quantitative sampling, data collection, and anal-

ysis techniques in mixed-methods studies. Res Nurs

Health. 2000;9:279287.

4. Williamson GR. Illustrating triangulation in mixed-

methods nursing research. Nurse Res. 2005;12(4):718.

5. Gilbert T. Mixed methods and mixed methodologies:

the practical, the technical and the political. J Res

Nurs. 2006;11(3):205217.

6. Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, eds. Handbook of Mixed

Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thou-

sand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 2003.

7. Lather P. Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to

think with: teaching research in education as a wild

profusion. Int J Qual Stud. 2006;19(1):3557.

8. Donmoyer R. Take my paradigm . . . please! The

legacy of Kuhns construct in educational research.

Int J Qual Stud. 2006;19(1):1134.

9. Clegg S. Evidence-based practice in educational re-

search: a critical realist critique of systematic review.Br J Sociol Educ. 2005;26(3):415428.

10. Grant BM, Giddings LS. Making sense of method-

ologies: a paradigm framework for the novice re-

searcher. Contemp Nurse. 2002;13:1028.

11. Creswell JW. Research Design: Qualitative, Quanti-

tative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 2nd ed. Lin-

coln, Neb: Sage; 2003.

12. Greene JC, Caracelli VJ. Making paradigmatic sense

of mixed methods practice. In: Tashakkori A, Ted-

dlie C,eds.Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social &

Behavioural Research. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage;

2003:91110.

13. Morgan DL. Practical strategies for combining qual-

itative and quantitative methods: applications to

health research. Qual Health Res. 1998;8:362367.

14. Polkinghorne D. Methodology for the Human Sci-

ences: Systems of Inquiry. Albany: State University

of New York Press; 1983.

15. Popper KR. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New

York: Basic Books; 1959.

16. Kuhn T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Chicago: Chicago University Press; 1970.

17. Toulmin S. Forecasting and Understanding, Fore-

sightand Understanding: An Inquiry Into the Aims

of Science. Bloomingdale: Indiana University Press;1961.

18. Feyerabend PK. Against Method: Outline of an An-

archistic Theory of Knowledge. London: Humanities

Press; 1975.

19. Polit DF, Beck CT, Hungler BP. Essentials of Nursing

Research: Methods, Appraisal, and Utilization. 5th

ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 2001.

20. Giddings LS, Williams LA. A challenge to the post

positivist domination of mixed methods research: a

review of nursing journals 19982005. Paper pre-

sented at:The Mixed Methods Conference 2006; July

811, 2006; Cambridge, UK.

21. Baker C, Wuest J, Stern PN. Method slurring: the

grounded theory/phenomenology example. J Adv

Nurs. 1992;17(11):13551360.22. Magnusson C, Finnerty G, Pope R. Methodologi-

cal triangulation in midwifery education research.

Nurse Res. 2005;12(4):3041.

23. Wuest J, Merritt-Gray M, Ford-Gilboe M. Regenerat-

ing family: strengthening the emotional health of

mothers and children in the context of intimate part-

ner violence. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2004;27(4):257

274.

24. Blaxter L, Hughes C, Tight M. How to Research. 2nd

ed. Philadelphia: Open University Press; 2001.

25. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Competing paradigms in

qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS,

eds. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand

Oaks, Calif: Sage; 1994:105117.

26. Sarantakos S. Social Research. 3rd ed. New York: Pal-

grave Macmillan; 2005.27. Ironside P. Trying something new: implementing and

evaluating narrative pedagogy using a multimethod

approach. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2003;24(30):122

128.

Documents

a-curs 3,4 opt