Editorial Journal of Mixed

Methods Research
Volume 3 Number 2
April 2009 95-108

Mapping the Field of Mixed

© 2009 Sage Publications
10.1177/1558689808330883
http://jmmr.sagepub.com

Methods Research hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

T he intent of this editorial is to advance my list of topics currently being discussed in the
field of mixed methods research. As one who has been involved in the mixed methods
field since its beginning 20 years ago, I have some sense of the topics that have evolved and
that hold center stage in mixed methods discussions. Furthermore, as one of the founding
coeditors of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research (JMMR; and outgoing editor after
June 2009), I have been privileged to have examined close to 300 manuscripts submitted to
the journal in the past 3 years, and I have taken notes on what I have seen as potential con-
tributions of these manuscripts to the field of mixed methods research.
My discussion will first address why we, as researchers, need a map of the field at this cur-
rent time. Then I will advance a list of 30 topics that are being discussed today in the mixed
methods literature. To crosscheck the accuracy of my list, I will reflect on the topics that were
discussed last summer at the 2008 Mixed Methods Conference at Cambridge University, UK.
I will note differences and similarities between the papers presented at the conference and my
list. Then I will select four topics from my list, discuss the development of the topics, and note
recent insightful contributions that have emerged in the literature. Finally, I will end with some
thoughts about the future of mixed methods research. I hope that by reading this editorial you
will learn how one individual constructs the field of mixed methods today, obtain a glimpse
into what topics current writers presented at the Mixed Methods Conference last July, and
assess how your mixed methods manuscript might make a contribution to the field.

Why We Need a Current Map

We need a current map of the field of mixed methods to help authors who are submitting
manuscripts to JMMR. As a coeditor of JMMR (and I do not speak here for AbbasTashakkori,
the other coeditor), I often ask authors, “Please rewrite your manuscript with attention to
how it contributes to the mixed methods literature.” As I examine their manuscripts, I like
to note in my logbook something about “here is the contribution of this manuscript.” But,
of course, the author is not before me to respond. The author might ask,

What does a contribution mean?

Just tell me how it adds to the literature.
What literature?

Author’s Note: This was presented as the keynote address, entitled “A Current Assessment of How Mixed Methods Has
Developed,” at the 4th Annual Mixed Methods Conference, Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge University, UK, sponsored by
Anglia Ruskin University, July 21, 2008. I appreciate the thoughtful review of an earlier version of this editorial by Abbas
Tashakkori, Burke Johnson, and Vicki L. Plano Clark.

95
96    Journal of Mixed Methods Research

Take a hypothetical professor from political science with a specialty in public policy. She
or he knows the research on public policy quite well and perhaps also has a good grasp of
research methods in political science. In response to this individual’s question about the
literature, the following conversation could unfold:

Have you read any articles about mixed methods in the social sciences?
Not really. You see, I am content specialist in public policy in political science and I am quite
familiar with the methods that we use in political science.

Perhaps the scenario unfolds now that the author retracts the manuscript because it is not
suitable for publication in JMMR. Perhaps the author begins reading the mixed methods
articles, chapters, and books that have been written over the past 20 years. It seems to me
that this professor could profit from having a map of the mixed methods literature so that
they could position their study within the existing discussions.
Assume that this professor inquires further:

What do you mean by a “contribution”?

It means adding something new to the literature.

But I quickly add,

But also your study might replicate existing literature, test a theory, raise the voices of the under-
represented, provide an explanation for the meaning of experiences, promote social justice, or
even represent your own personal transformation gained through your research.

I do believe in all of these reasons for publishing an article in JMMR, as is discussed within
a previous editorial on ways of contributing to the literature (Creswell & Tashakkori, 2008).
Right now, however, I want to focus on developing a map of the mixed methods literature
and consider how a manuscript may contribute to this growing picture.
Another reason for the need for a current map is that maps available in the field are
rapidly becoming dated or are too general to use. For example, in 2003, Tashakkori and
Teddlie, in their 26-chapter Handbook of Mixed Methods, announced the six core issues of
the field.

1. The nomenclature and basic definitions used in mixed methods research

2. The utility of mixed methods research (why do we do it?)
3. The paradigmatic foundations for mixed methods research
4. Design issues in mixed methods research
5. Issues in drawing inferences in mixed methods research
6. The logistics of conducting mixed methods research

This Handbook provides a nice map of the field. But it is now 5 years old (a new edition is
in the planning stage) and I feel that much of the explosion in interest in mixed methods
has occurred during the past 5 years.1 Alternatively, we could turn to the dimensions of the
field identified in a JMMR article by Jennifer Greene, published in 2008. This article was
adapted from her keynote address to the Mixed Methods Special Interest Group Business
Meeting at the American Educational Research Association conference in April 2007. She
 Creswell / Editorial    97

created a generic framework for the components of any social science methodology and she
applied this framework to mixed methods research asking, What do we know? What have
we accomplished? And what important questions remain to be engaged? Her four domains
of this framework were as follows:

1. Philosophical assumptions and stances

2. Inquiry logics (methods, sampling, design, etc.)
3. Guidelines for practice (empirical guidelines, such as how to mix)
4. Sociopolitical commitments (interests being served, situational politics)

These domains provide a good, general map, but they too provide insufficient guidance for
specific topics and areas in need of further development in the mixed methods field. We
need a more detailed map.

A Map of Recent Topics in the Mixed Methods Literature

So I began thinking about designing a map of the field as it currently stands. I have a
small notebook and, for every manuscript that I review for JMMR, I faithfully log a state-
ment about the potential contribution of the manuscript to the field of mixed methods.
Recently I went through this notebook and assembled a list of 30 topics that represent the
contributions of recent mixed methods manuscripts. Then I aggregated these topics into five
domains. Once this was done, I went through the 2008 program for the Mixed Methods
Conference held in July 2008 at Cambridge University, UK, and assigned the papers to my
list of topics. In this way, I could see the coverage of the conference topics. I apologize to
presenters if I misassigned their papers to one of my topics. Indeed, some papers addressed
several topics on my list, and I chose to assign them only to one. Also, in this editorial I
cite only the lead authors and their general topics rather than reference all of the papers
presented at the conference. The reader is directed to the conference Web site for exact
titles (see http://www.mixedmethods.leeds.ac.uk/pages/information/confarchive.htm).

My Map and the Conference Papers

Table 1 provides my list of domains, topics, and my assignment of conference papers to
the topics. In my map of the field, I listed four topics under philosophical and theoretical
issues: combining philosophical positions, worldviews, and paradigms; the philosophical
foundation for mixed methods; the use of qualitative theoretical lens in mixed methods; the
false distinction between quantitative and qualitative research; and thinking in a mixed
methods way (mental models; Greene, 2007). Individuals presenting at the conference
continued to debate the need for and identification of the philosophical foundation for
mixed methods research, and they discussed whether quantitative and qualitative data and
approaches are truly different. I was surprised to not find any papers at the conference
on theoretical lens and mixed methods research, such as ethnic, racial, disability, sexual
orientation, and feminist topics as used in mixed methods studies. A graduate student I am
working with has identified 34 theoretically driven mixed methods studies for analysis, all
98    Journal of Mixed Methods Research

based on Mertens’s (2003) transformative perspective (Sweetman, 2007). I also hope to see
future conference papers examining theoretical lens topics. I also urge authors to take up
Greene’s idea of mental models and discuss more its relevancy and application. Greene
embraced the use of multiple perspectives as a central idea in mixed methods thinking.
Extrapolating from this idea, I think that we see all around us in everyday life elements of
qualitative and quantitative thinking. In the Katrina hurricane disaster in the United States,
for example, commentators presented both the numbers of displaced individuals and the
stories of their plight. A family physician at one of my workshops wrote to me saying that
I might talk about mixed methods research using the example of multiple commentators at
a soccer game in which we often have a color commentator (qualitative) and the play-by-
play commentator (quantitative). Many other examples could be cited in which we find
elements of storytelling and aspects of trend charts.
I listed numerous topics under the domain of techniques of mixed methods. These range
from unusual blends of sources of data, to specific elements of the process of research, and
on to validity and ethics. Consistent with what Greene (2007) said, many topics being dis-
cussed in the field of mixed methods address techniques. There was good coverage of the
techniques of mixed methods at the conference. As might be expected, several papers
focused on the steps of the research process from theory development, to research ques-
tions, and on to the interpretation of the findings. Studies on the research process from a
longitudinal, evaluation perspective were not presented but these designs may be more
widely discussed at evaluation conferences. I was also surprised to learn that no papers
were taking on the issue of validity. Although I did not see unusual methods being com-
bined, perhaps a closer inspection of the papers would yield more possibilities. A paper, for
example, linking longitudinal survey data and life history narratives is an unusual but crea-
tive blend of quantitative and qualitative research (Singer, Ryff, Carr, & Magee, 2002).
Topics related to the nature of mixed methods reflect the ongoing discussion of defining
the field, creating a language for it, and using it as a stand-alone design or in conjunction
with other designs and methodologies. At the conference, the use of mixed methods in
existing designs, such as case studies, formative evaluation in experiments, and action
research, attests to an emerging trend toward incorporating mixed methods procedures into
traditional designs. I was surprised to learn that the conference papers did not continue to
probe a definition of mixed methods, as had been the case in past conferences. Perhaps
enough had been said on this topic and individuals were content to use the definitions pro-
vided in the current literature (see Johnson, Onwuebuzie, & Turner, 2007). The use of a
bilingual language is perhaps one of those “hidden” topics that surfaces in others ways,
such as in discussions based on postmodern deconstructions or in research designs.
Many fields are adopting and using mixed methods. We are also beginning to learn how
the fields are using it especially in team approaches and in the adaption of mixed methods
to specific discipline techniques. Also part of this picture is the teaching of mixed methods
and the ways fields are writing up their studies for publication. As suggested by papers at
the conference, I noted the trend of mixed methods studies addressing topics in different
content fields (e.g., child care, illness, poverty, etc.). The authors of these studies may actu-
ally make a case that their study “is the first mixed methods study in their content area.” To
add to the mixed methods literature, however, I would suggest that these content studies be
more than simply the use of mixed methods research in different content areas. The authors
might reflect on the current use of methodologies in their content field and then go on to
 Creswell / Editorial    99

Table 1
A Map of Recent Topics and 2008 Mixed Methods Conference Papers
Recent Topics for Adding to the
Domain Mixed Methods Literature 2008 Mixed Methods Conference Papers

Philosophical and Combining philosophical

theoretical issues positions, worldviews, and
paradigms
Philosophical foundation mixed Onwuegbuzie et al.—dialectical pragmatism
methods Aroni—historical shifts in paradigm debate
Use of qualitative theoretical lens
in mixed methods
False distinction between Muncey—subjective-objective dichotomy
qualitative and quantitative Casey et al.—polarity between quantitative
research and qualitative
Thinking in a mixed methods
way-mental models
Techniques of mixed Unusual blends of methods
methods Joint displays of quantitative and
qualitative data
Longitudinal, evaluation studies
Transforming qualitative data into
counts

Process steps of research (theory, Richardson—theory development

questions, sampling, Okeleke-Nezianya—research questions
interpretation) Pere & Feijoo—theory development
Papadimitriou & Westerheijden—
interpretation integration
New thinking about research Jones et al.—mixed sequential and
designs concurrent designs
Shaw et al.—example of embedded design
Methodological issues in using Day—methodological challenges
designs Godfrey—differences between stages
Notations for designs
Visual diagrams for designs
Software applications Peladeau—mixing methods and software
Integration and mixing issues Plano Clark et al.—integration designs
Themelis—complementary approaches
Rationale for mixed methods
Validity
Ethics Carpenter—holistic approach
Mertens & Creswell—overview and designs
Nature of mixed Definition of
methods Bilingual language for
Incorporation of mixed methods Meier—case study applications
into existing designs Currie & Farmer—case studies
Fernandez—multiple case study
Thomas—qualitative research in interventions
Coleman et al.—formative perspective in
interventions
(continued)
100    Journal of Mixed Methods Research

Table 1 (continued)
Recent Topics for Adding to the
Domain Mixed Methods Literature 2008 Mixed Methods Conference Papers

Pere et al.—embedded qualitative in

interventions
Zoladi et al.—qualitative in intervention
(RCD)
Dickmann et al.—action research as mixed
methods
Dakich—Delphi applications
Adoption and use of Fields and disciplines using it Brannen—workers’ careers in child care
mixed methods Elaswarapu—healthcare systems
Ramsey—critical illness
Mayoh—chronic illness
Cooper et al.—inflammatory bowel disease
Pun et al.—self care adherence
Landy—postpartum women
Prowse—poverty and development research
Gerber—art psychotheraphy
Breen—parapsychology
Dodwell—mental health
Steggles et al.—cancer
Salzano et al.—further education
Engward—ethics of student nurses
Albar—abandoned young people
Wisdom et al.—serious mental illness
Faulkner—dignity of older individuals
Reid et al.—environmental behavior research
Molina-Azorin—business management
Haller-Hayon—interorganizational
information sharing
Team approaches Brady & O’Regan—choices of teams
Galt—interdisciplinary health services teams
Linking mixed methods to Ramsey & Bond—using projective
discipline techniques techniques from psychology
Regan—use of repertory grid in science
education
Teaching mixed methods to Wibberley et al.—teaching at masters level
students
Writing up and reporting O’Cathain—reporting
Corden & Hirst—final report development
Brindle—writing for publication
Politicization of mixed Funding of mixed methods Crow—Economic and Social Research
methods research Council funding
Deconstructing mixed methods
Justifying mixed methods Boyd—compromises made
Note: These papers were presented at the Mixed Methods Conference held July 2008 at Cambridge University, UK. For
detailed information about each paper, the conference program can be downloaded from http://www.mixedmethods.leeds
.ac.uk/pages/information/confarchive.htm.
 Creswell / Editorial    101

suggest how the use of mixed methods research extends the current methodologies used in
their respective fields. Such a perspective would be of interest to the mixed methods com-
munity. More and more, writers are discussing the team approach to mixed methods as well
as issues in teaching the topic and in reporting results to different audiences. A researcher
might look at Laurel Richardson’s book Writing Strategies (1990) and examine how the
language of mixed methods needs to be adjusted for different audiences, such as policy
makers, scholars, and lay people. A writer might examine the article in the Annals of Family
Medicine to see how health science writers might configure their studies for acceptable
publication in medical journals (Stange, Crabtree, & Miller, 2006).
The topics of funding, deconstruction, and justification under the politicization of mixed
methods are not surprising, and as the field grows in visibility, more papers are predicted
for future conferences. We had few papers in this area at the 2008 Mixed Methods
Conference. However, at the Qualitative Inquiry 2007 Congress in Illinois recently, several
audience members asked for my mixed methods presentation (Creswell, 2007) expressed
keen interest in the deconstruction of terms in mixed methods, such as mixing. They were
especially interested, too, in the Freshwater (2007) article on a postmodern critique of
mixed methods presented in JMMR.

Select Topics and Insightful Contributions

Now I will take four topics on my list, briefly discuss some history about each topic, and
then talk about recent insightful contributions that I believe will extend the conversation
about the topics.

Incorporation of Mixed Methods Into Other Designs

In terms of discussions about research designs, I often begin with a general introduction
to mixed methods. As shown in Figure 1, mixed methods was originally viewed as two
separate strands of research—quantitative and qualitative—with a clear division between
the two. In the mid-1990s, the discussion seemed to change from the two separate strands
to how the two strands might be linked, and a connection was made between the two
strands. Out of this linkage grew the idea of mixed methods as we know it today. But imme-
diately different perspectives emerged on what constituted the nature of mixed methods
(see an earlier editorial by Creswell & Tashakkori, 2007). Some, like myself, focused on
the methods of collecting and analyzing data, recognizing that the methods were an integral
part of the entire process of research. Others focused on how qualitative and quantitative
research flowed into all phases of the research process (the methodologists). Still others
focused on philosophy. Now we are seeing yet another group emerge—those who combine
mixed methods with more traditional designs. So we have ethnographers using mixed
methods procedures as well as case studies researchers, experimental health science inves-
tigators, and narrative researchers (Eliot, 2005; LeCompte & Schensul, 1999; Luck,
Jackson, & Usher, 2006; Sandelowski, 1996). The use of mixed methods procedures within
existing designs and procedures has tremendous potential for making mixed methods rel-
evant to many areas in many disciplines, including visual methodology. I am writing an
102    Journal of Mixed Methods Research

Figure 1
Perspectives About Mixed Methods

Quantitative Data Qualitative Data

Mixed Methods

Method
Methodology
Paradigm
Perspective Using mixed
methods in other designs

article now on how an award-winning documentary developer combined quantitative and

qualitative data and used one of the mixed methods designs in composing a documen-
tary on immigrants (Creswell & McCoy, in press). I am curious about how visual method-
ologists at the University of KwaZulu-Natal weave quantitative components into their
qualitative documentaries on HIV-AIDS at the Centre for Visual Methodologies and Social
Change (http://cvm.za.org).

Paradigms as Beliefs of a Community of Scholars

I am tired of the “incompatability” argument that one cannot mix paradigms. It is as if a
particular researcher’s worldview is a fixed trait that cannot be examined, changed, or com-
bined. Furthermore, mixed methods research can be conducted by teams that include spe-
cialists in quantitative and qualitative research. It is required that members of these teams
listen to each other. When the issue of incompatability arises, it seems to be a conversation
stopper. If we cannot mix paradigms, so the argument goes, then mixed methods research is
untenable. Fortunately, we have moved beyond this thinking. We now have mixed methods
writers talking about the possibility of using multiple paradigms in research, and yes, some-
times they may be in tension, and such tension is good. The dialectic between opposing ideas
can contribute to new insights and new understandings (Greene & Caracelli, 1997). Then
there are those who have searched for the single underlying paradigm for mixed methods
research. Many have found this paradigm in a traditional U.S. philosophy, pragmatism
(Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Others, such as Mertens (2008), believe in the use of a trans-
formative worldview. With my colleague, Plano Clark, I have taken a different perspective
(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). We see a link between paradigms and methods. Perhaps
one paradigm (like pragmatism) serves as an adequate foundation for concurrent or parallel
types of designs, while paradigms may shift during a sequential design in which one starts
from a postpostivist perspective (quantitative) and then moves to a constructivist (qualita-
tive) worldview (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). This linking of paradigms and methods is
not appreciated by qualitative researchers who have taken the stance that many different
kinds of methods can fit with each type of paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). I respect this
 Creswell / Editorial    103

view but, in practice, I still believe that many researchers choose their methods because of
their paradigms that either explicitly or implicitly frame their research.
An exciting new development recently in this paradigm discussion is the emergence of
the community-of-scholars idea that has been discussed by Morgan (2007) and Denscombe
(2008). I recommend David Morgan’s JMMR article to you. It is a brilliant piece of schol-
arship and it was presented at the Cambridge Mixed Methods Conference in 2005 as the
keynote address. One aspect of his article is the presentation of four versions of the concept
of paradigms. For all four types, he saw paradigms as “shared belief systems that influence
the kinds of knowledge researchers seek and how they interpret the evidence they collect”
(p. 50). However, they differ in level of generality. Paradigms can be viewed as worldviews
(an all encompassing perspective on the world) or they can be seen as epistemologies incor-
porating ideas from the philosophy of science such as ontology, methodology, and episte-
mology. Paradigms can viewed as the best or typical solutions to problems, and paradigms
may represent shared beliefs of a research field. It is this last perspective that Morgan
strongly endorsed. Researchers share a consensus in specialty areas about what questions
are most meaningful and which procedures are most appropriate for answering the ques-
tions. In short, many practicing researchers look to paradigm perspectives from a community-
of-scholars perspective (p. 53). This was the version of paradigms that Kuhn (1970) most
favored, according to Morgan.
I also recommend Denscombe’s (2008) recent JMMR article in which the community-of-
scholars idea was reinforced and expanded. He outlined how communities may work using
such ideas as shared identity, research problems, networks, knowledge, and informal
groupings. I am excited about this line of thinking. It leads to a better understanding of the
trend toward fragmentation of the mixed methods field in which various disciplines adopt
mixed methods in different ways, create unique practices, and cultivate their own special-
ized literatures. When I hear my colleagues at the Veterans Administration Research Center
in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in the health sciences talk about mixed methods as formative and
summative evaluation procedures, I recognize that a unique field or discipline orientation
to mixed methods is being applied (Forman & Damschroder, 2007).

New Thinking About Research Designs

There has been much development on the topic of mixed methods research designs. I
have learned that designs used in practice are much more subtle and nuanced than I had
first imagined. When my colleague Vicki Plano Clark and I wrote an introduction to the
field for beginning mixed methods researchers (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007), we dis-
cussed four types of designs. Triangulation (or concurrent) designs involve one phase of
data collection gathered concurrently. Explanatory or exploratory designs require two
phases of data collection, quantitative data collection followed sequentially by qualitative
data collection (or vice versa). Embedded designs, in which one form of data are embedded
within another, may be either a single- or a double-phase design with concurrent or sequen-
tial approaches. Along with these designs we now have a notation system (Morse, 1991),
visual diagrams, and guidelines for constructing the visual diagrams (Ivankova, Creswell,
& Stick, 2006). We now know that these designs are not complex enough to mirror actual
practice, although I would argue that they are well suited for researchers initiating their first
mixed methods study.
104    Journal of Mixed Methods Research

Complex designs have come to my attention through evaluation researchers. For exam-
ple, Nastasi and colleagues (2007) have introduced complex evaluation designs with mul-
tiple stages and the combination of both sequential and concurrent phases. The designs
have begun to incorporate unusual blends of methods, such as combinations of quantitative
and qualitative longitudinal data, discourse analysis with survey data, secondary datasets
with qualitative follow-ups, and the combination of qualitative themes with survey data to
produce new variables. The representation of designs has also advanced with joint matrixes
of quantitative and qualitative data in the same table, an approach encouraged by the matrix
feature of qualitative software products.
A fascinating trend to watch is the reconceptualization of research designs from typolo-
gies to other ways of thinking. Typologies, such as the four I have mentioned, are just one
of a dozen classifications that Plano Clark and I detailed in our mixed methods book
(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). In these designs, we focus on the weight given to qualita-
tive and quantitative data, the timing of both forms of data, and the stage of the research
process in which mixing occurs.
Another way of viewing designs is to look at mixed methods procedures not as designs
but as a set of interactive parts. Based on systems theory, Maxwell and Loomis (2003)
conceptualized the interactive five dimensions of the research process consisting of the
purpose, the conceptual framework, the questions, the methods, and the issue of validity.
Thus design, in their approach, gives way to the process of research for a more full, more
expansive view of the way to conceptualize and design mixed methods research. Another
approach is the innovative thinking of Hall and Howard (2008). They advanced a synergis-
tic approach in which two or more options interact so that their combined effect is greater
than the sum of the individual parts. The core principles of this approach are that the sum
of quantitative and qualitative is greater than either approach alone. Instead of looking at
mixed methods as a priority of one approach over the other or a weighting of one approach,
the researcher considers the equal value and representations of each. Instead of unequal
importance of the two approaches, the two are viewed from an ideology of multiple points
of view, instead of differences. Collaboration on a mixed methods project means research-
ers share their areas of expertise. The researcher also balances objectivity with subjectivity.
These are all important principles in design.
The synergistic approach along with other challenges to typological perspectives con-
tribute to a softening of the differences between qualitative and quantitative research, pro-
vide answers to questions about dominance of one method over the other (e.g., Denzin &
Lincoln, 2005) and honor the formation of research teams with diverse expertise. In the
future, I will need to rethink how I am looking at designs for mixed methods researchers.

Advocacy Through Extramural Funding

We have at least 15 books on mixed methods research, and several more are in produc-
tion. We have several journals devoted to mixed methods research—Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, Quality and Quantity, Field Methods, and the online journal International
Journal of Multiple Research Approaches. For JMMR, the reception has been outstanding
in our 2 years of publications. From January through May 2008, for example, we had
58,000 hits on the journal Web site. According to our publisher, Sage Publications, JMMR
 Creswell / Editorial    105

is tracking like a long-established journal, and the number of table of content alerts (8,900)
for every issue is the highest for Sage journals except for one other journal (personal com-
munication, Leah Fargotstein, Sage Publication, June 2008). Mixed methods research is
expanding internationally. Recent publications in JMMR report studies that include par-
ticipants from Sri Lanka (Nastasi et al., 2007), Germany (Bernardi, Keim, & von der
Lippe, 2007), Japan (Fetters, Yoshioka, Greenberg, Gorenflo, & Yeo, 2007), and the United
Kingdom (O’Cathain, Murphy, & Nicholl, 2007). In addition, mixed methods has been
embraced by a growing list of discipline fields. I have provided, during the past 5 years,
workshops for scholars in fields such as social psychology, social work, psychology, nurs-
ing, family medicine, health services research, and organizational studies. New courses are
emerging on mixed methods in different discipline fields. A number of courses are now
available on mixed methods research (Creswell, Tashakkori, Jensen, & Shapley, 2003) to
augment existing research methods courses that now incorporate both quantitative and
qualitative perspectives. Several online mixed methods courses are offered in the United
States at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln taught by an individual in the field of mass
communications, Ron Shope, and at the University of Alabama–Birmingham by the educa-
tor, Nataliya Ivankova.
I am especially excited about learning more about funding sources for mixed methods
research. Funding agencies encourage mixed methods research such as the National
Institutes of Health in the United States (National Institutes of Health, 1999) and in the
United Kingdom through the Economic and Social Research Council’s Research Methods
Programme (Bryman, 2006). In our Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research Office at
Nebraska, we have undertaken the study of projects funded by the U.S. National Institutes
of Health. We have gone into their database (CRISP) and looked at newly funded projects
over the past 5 years and examined funded projects with the words “mixed methods” in the
project description. We then plotted on a graph the number of projects that include these
words. Between 2003 and 2008, the number of projects with these words has increased
from year to year, and we know that the National Institute for Mental Health has funded
the most mixed methods projects. We then examined the projects that were given to new
scholars, the K01 awards, which involve mentoring and the conducting of a specific project.
We see that several emerging scholars seek to learn more about qualitative and mixed meth-
ods research in their learning phase of their K grants. My colleague, Plano Clark, will be
interviewing these investigators and learn how they incorporated mixed methods into their
projects and the specific challenges they encountered. This will provide added insight into
the practice of conducting a mixed methods study. Perhaps the continued investigation of
funding sources will lead new policies for U.S. federal agencies about evaluative criteria
for assessing mixed methods studies.

Conclusion and the Future

These specific topics are only a few areas in which I feel that future researchers should
devote their attention as mixed methods continue to grow. Scholars looking to write a
manuscript that contributes to the mixed methods literature may want to start by examining
this map and considering where their work may contribute to our current understandings of
the field. Undoubtedly, some will criticize my efforts as attempting to fix the field and limit
106    Journal of Mixed Methods Research

conversation. To them I say that we need my list as well as the lists of topics of many oth-
ers. This is only a start of the conversation.
As we look into the future, I am reminded as to how the Handbook of Mixed Methods
(Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003) ended on a note predicting the future for the field of mixed
methods research. Now, 5 years later (and many JMMR manuscripts later) I would like to
make some predictions about some of my topics and the future of mixed methods research.
Here is what I see.
The field of mixed methods will continue to expand across disciplines and fields so that
my hypothetical professor in political science that I spoke of earlier will have a discipline-
based literature on mixed methods. Generic books about mixed methods will no longer be
needed; instead, we will have discipline-based books, such as the recently issued book on
mixed methods for nursing and the health sciences (Andrew & Halcomb, 2008). The critics
of mixed methods will always be present but the concerns about identity will quiet down.
Splinter groups will emerge with specific interests, such as feminist mixed methods research-
ers or mixed methods software developers. The “Atlantic gap” will not be a problem because
people from both sides of the ocean have worked hard, from the beginning, to collaborate. In
my opinion, this is different than how qualitative research emerged during the 1980s.
We will look back in several years and see that it was the graduate students who promoted
mixed methods research and who taught their faculty the importance of this approach to
inquiry and the value of not adhering strictly to either quantitative or qualitative approaches.
The students will be more interested in how best to address their research problems than the
politics of methodology. Mixed methods techniques will be refined and expanded. For exam-
ple, we will have many models from which to choose to construct a joint matrix of qualitative
and quantitative data. My list of topics will be seen as too brief and too incomplete, much in
the way I have talked about the Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003) and the Greene (2007) per-
spectives. Mixed methods research will no longer be seen as a new approach.
Perhaps mixed methods manuscript writers of the future will have more guidance as to
whether their paper contributes to the literature. For those preparing manuscripts, topics of
interest will be clearly before the mixed methods community and investigations will have
a foundation of literature on which to build a new manuscript. The future editors of the
JMMR will not have to respond with the question, “How does your manuscript contribute
to the literature?” and authors will state, somewhere toward the beginning of their manu-
scripts, “Here is how my study makes a contribution.”

John W. Creswell
Founding Editor

Note
1. I recently had a chance to read the new, insightful Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009) book, Foundations of
Mixed Methods Research, in which the authors updated their 2003 Handbook list of issues. This book was
published after the 2008 Mixed Methods Conference. The authors mentioned issues in need of further investiga-
tion to include several ideas, such as the use of mixed methods questions, the development of a nomenclature
for mixed methods, questions about what mixed methods adds beyond quantitative and qualitative approaches,
the integration of qualitative and quantitative components, the need for standards in mixed methods research, the use
of rationales for using mixed methods, the difficulty in finding distinct strands of qualitative and quantitative in
 Creswell / Editorial    107

studies, and the use of both sequential and concurrent designs in studies. Many, but not all of these topics, are
discussed in this editorial.

References
Andrew, S., & Halcomb, E. (Eds.). (2008) Mixed methods research for nursing and health sciences. London:
Blackwell.
Bernardi, L., Keim, S., & von der Lippe, H. (2007). Social influences on fertility: A comparative mixed methods
study in Eastern and Western Germany. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 23-47.
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research,
6(1), 97-113.
Creswell, J. W. (2007, May). Concerns voiced about mixed methods research. Paper presented at the Qualitative
Inquiry Congress, Champaign, IL.
Creswell, J. W., & McCoy, B. (in press). Mixed methods research and documentary development. In S. Hesse-
Biber (Ed.), The handbook of emergent technologies in social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Tashakkori, A. (2007). Editorial: Differing perspectives on mixed methods research. Journal
of Mixed Methods Research, 1(4), 303-308.
Creswell, J. W., & Tashakkori, A. (2008). Editorial: How do research manuscripts contribute to the literature on
mixed methods? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(2), 115-120.
Creswell, J. W., Tashakkori, A., Jensen K. D., & Shapley, K. L. (2003). Teaching mixed methods research:
Practices, dilemmas, and challenges. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in
social & behavioral research (pp. 619-637). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denscombe, M. (2008). Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 270-283.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eliot, J. (2005). Using narrative in social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. London: Sage.
Fetters, M., Yoshioka, T., Greenberg, G. M, Gorenflo, D. W., & Yeo S. A. (2007). Advance consent in Japanese
during prenatal care for epidural anesthesia during childbirth. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(4),
333-365.
Forman, J., & Damschroder, L. (2007, February). Using mixed methods in evaluating intervention studies.
Presentation at the Mixed Methodology Workshop, VA HSR&D National Meeting, Arlington, VA.
Freshwater, D. (2007). Reading mixed methods research: Contexts for criticism. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 1(2), 134-146.
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Greene, J. C. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 2(1), 7-22.
Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (Eds.). (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and
benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hall, B., & Howard, K. (2008). A synergistic approach: Conducting mixed methods research with typological
and systemic design considerations. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 248-269.
Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. (2006). Using mixed methods sequential explanatory design: From
theory into practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3-20.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A., & Turner, L. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal
of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 122-133.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999). Ethnographer’s toolkit, vol 1. Designing and conducting ethno-
graphic research. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira.
108    Journal of Mixed Methods Research

Luck, L., Jackson, D., & Usher, K. (2006). Case study: A bridge across the paradigms. Nursing Inquiry, 13(2),
103-109.
Maxwell, J., & Loomis, D. (2003). Mixed methods design: An alternative approach. In A. Tashakkori & C.
Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 241-272). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Mertens, D. M. (2003). Mixed models and the politics of human research: The transformative-emancipatory
perspective. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral
research (pp. 135-166). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mertens, D. M. (2008). Transformative research and evaluation. New York: Guilford.
Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1),
48-76.
Morse, J. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40,
120-123.
Nastasi, B. K., Hitchcock, J., Sarkar, S., Burkholder, G., Varjas, K., & Jayasena, A. (2007). Mixed methods in
intervention research: Theory to adaptation. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 164-182.
National Institutes of Health, Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research. (1999). Qualitative methods
in health research: Opportunities and considerations in application and review. Washington, DC: Author.
O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2007). Integration and publications as indicators of “yield” from
mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 147-163.
Richardson, L. (1990). Writing strategies: Reaching diverse audiences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sandelowski, M. (1996). Using qualitative methods in intervention studies. Research in Nursing & Health, 19,
359-364.
Singer, B., Ryff, C. D., Carr, D., & Magee, W. J. (2002). Linking life histories and mental health: A person-
centered strategy. Sociological Methodology, 28, 1-51.
Stange, K. C., Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. (2006). Publishing multimethod research. Annals of Family
Medicine, 4(4), 292-294.
Sweetman, D. (2007). Use of the transformative-emancipatory perspective in mixed methods: A review and
recommendations. Unpublished manuscript, University of Nebraska College of Business.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and
qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.