Qualitative Research

http://qrj.sagepub.com

Editorial
Alan Bryman
Qualitative Research 2006; 6; 5
DOI: 10.1177/1468794106058865

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://qrj.sagepub.com

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Qualitative Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://qrj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://qrj.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://qrj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/6/1/5

Downloaded from http://qrj.sagepub.com at Cardiff University on November 7, 2008

 Q
5

Editorial
RQualitative Research
Copyright © 2006
SAGE Publications
(London,
Thousand Oaks, CA
and New Delhi)
vol. 6(1) 5–7.

A L A N B RY M A N
University of Leicester

These are exciting times for writers and researchers concerned with the
process of mixing different research methods and approaches to research
generally. As the epistemological and ontological arguments against combin-
ing them – particularly across the quantitative-qualitative research divide – are
being heard less often and are less frequently viewed as impediments than in
the relatively recent past, mixed-methods research, as it is increasingly
commonly called, has become a focus of more and more interest. Indeed, there
is almost a sense that it has become a distinctive approach to the research
process in its own right (Creswell, 2003). At the same time that this flurry of
intense activity is occurring, there is a sense among practising researchers,
methodologists and others, that a taking stock of the fundamental issues may
be necessary. This sense of a need to evaluate where we are with mixed-
methods research can be discerned in several of the articles in this issue.
As someone who has had an interest in these issues for many years, it has
been a great pleasure to be involved with this taking stock exercise for this
special issue of Qualitative Research. Readers will find a great deal of material
here that is thought-provoking for mixed-methods research practice and for
qualitative research generally. Five of the articles are based on, or derive very
directly from, a major ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) invest-
ment – the Research Methods Programme (articles by Bryman, Dicks et al.,
Dixon-Woods et al., Koenig, and Moran-Ellis et al.). All five of these projects
began in various ways with issues to do with integrating different methods. The
fact that all five came out of the first round of 20 projects funded under this
programme in itself points to the degree of interest in issues to do with mixing
methods.
Rather than summarize each article in turn, I would prefer to draw atten-
tion to certain distinctive themes that can be seen in these articles. These
themes represent significant issues for mixed-methods researchers. First, there

DOI: 10.1177/1468794106058865

Downloaded from http://qrj.sagepub.com at Cardiff University on November 7, 2008

6 Qualitative Research 6(1)

is a concern with the issue of what mixing or integrating actually means. The
articles by Moran-Ellis et al. and by Mason, in particular, are keen to try to flesh
out the meaning of a term like ‘integration’ and how it might differ from other
terms to do with bringing together different ways of conducting social
research. Bryman’s article is also essentially concerned with this issue but
more from the point of view of the reasons why researchers combine methods.
Second, there is a reminder that mixing methods is not just to do with mixing
quantitative and qualitative research but also to do with mixing methods
within quantitative and qualitative research. The articles by Dicks et al. and
Moran-Ellis et al. particularly emphasize the combination of different quali-
tative research methods.
Third, there is a concern with broadening the scope of what mixing methods
includes. As Bryman’s article shows, the typical empirical article based on
mixed-methods research derives from a fairly narrow range of research
methods and research designs. However, most of the articles in this special
issue broaden the range of ways of thinking about what is or can be mixed.
Thus, Dixon-Woods et al. explore the question of how far it is possible to
include both quantitative and qualitative studies in systematic reviews of areas
of research literature. Koenig examines different approaches to the study of
text and how far these can be combined. This broadening of the scope of what
it means to combine methods or approaches will be particularly challenging to
many practitioners, especially in the light of Bryman’s findings.
Fourth, there is a general questioning of some of the better known notions
with which mixed-methods research is associated. This is especially the case
with the notion of triangulation. This idea, which derives from validity concerns
in quantitative research, has been taken up by many researchers combining
quantitative and qualitative approaches to the point that it is almost synony-
mous with doing mixed-methods research. The articles in various ways bring
out the different ways of combining quantitative and qualitative research but
also the way that thinking purely in terms of triangulation limits the
researcher’s horizons.
Fifth, as Mason’s article makes especially clear, combining quantitative and
qualitative research can be done in a way that is particularly sensitive to the
nature of qualitative research and the objectives of its practitioners. Thus, even
though many of the epistemological and ontological disputes associated with
the ‘paradigm wars’ may have abated (Bryman, 2006, in press), there may be
lingering concerns, which Mason skilfully addresses, concerning a compatibil-
ity of style or ethos.
Sixth, there is a questioning of what it is we are referring to when we discuss
mixing methods. Moran-Ellis et al. draw attention to the different ways in which
‘method’ might be conceived, as well as the way they use the term, while
others, like Koenig, show how different approaches and styles of analysis may
represent methods as well. Dicks et al. also have some interesting points to
make about this issue in their distinction between modes and media.

Downloaded from http://qrj.sagepub.com at Cardiff University on November 7, 2008

 Editorial 7

These articles move forward discussions of, and thinking about, mixed-
methods research considerably. As the mixing of methods and approaches
becomes ever more eclectic, the job of methodologists and others in terms of
keeping track of the field will become more complex. While a daunting
prospect in some respects, the articles augur well for the richness and diversity
of perspective that are likely to contribute to a fertile future for mixed-methods
research.
Finally, I would like to thank the following for their help with refereeing
articles for this special issue:
Charlotte Aull Davies
Mary Dixon-Woods
Rosalind Edwards
Tisha Greenhalgh
Martyn Hammersley
Tim May
Clive Seale
Trevor Sheldon
Malcolm Williams

REFERENCES

Bryman, A. (2006) ‘Paradigm Peace and the Implications for Quality’, International
Journal of Social Research Methodology 9 (in press).
Creswell, J.W. (2003) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Downloaded from http://qrj.sagepub.com at Cardiff University on November 7, 2008