Mixed Methods Research

I created this paper for my graduate research methods class at the University of Rochester. The professor asked us to read, Chapter 10, Mixed Methods Research, from "Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology," by Mertens (2019) and provide a critical analysis. I have included my analysis below.

Mixed Methods Research

This week, I chose to comment on Mertens' Chapter 10, Mixed Methods Research. Mertens' opening sentence of the chapter tells us that the use of mixed methods approaches is increasing. She offers us some straightforward definitions of mixed methods research, including the basic premise that it contains both quantitative and qualitative. Mertens gives us more details, examples, and notes that researchers must have math and word skills to conduct mixed methods.

Mertens explains how mixed methods are important in the fields of education and psychology because both these fields are so complex, and multiple perspectives are required for a complete understanding. She also mentions that every philosophical school can use mixed methods: pragmatic, constructivist, postpositivist, and transformational. Mertens talks about mixed methods design, for example, with qualitative and quantitative parts done in parallel or sequentially. Again, Mertens touches on the complexity of mixed methods and how it becomes even more important to conduct it right and carefully.

After reading this chapter, I was curious because mixed methods seem like an obvious path for the future. From my beginning learnings, it seems there is kind of an ideological war going on between the postpositivists and the transformationalists, with the pragmatists and constructivists left somewhere in the middle. It seems obvious to me that mixed methods could be used to synthesize these two ideological schools and bring the war to peace.

It seems to me that mixed methods were not used in the past because it was complicated to collect and analyze big data sets, especially qualitative ones. These days, with big data and AI, we absolutely can collect, organize and investigate big data sets of both qual and quant data.

I was left wanting more after the chapter; I felt like Mertens gave us a superficial overview of the topic compared to her chapter on qualitative research, which was about 48 pages in length; this mixed method was only 18. I wondered if Mertens was biased because I sensed that she over-emphasized qualitative research and was overly critical of quantitative research. I felt she was only superficially covering mixed methods, so I googled her more to try and learn more.

What I didn't realize until I visited Merten's website was that her entire career seems to have been devoted to mixed methods as a technique and the transformative paradigm, which it looks like she may have even invented. I also didn't realize until visiting her website that Mertens is deaf, so I imagine that may have profoundly shaped her experience in the world.

Another thought came to mind: Mertens is a transformative mixed methods research practitioner instead of a theorist. When I reviewed her resume online, I noted that she seems more orientated toward practice rather than theory, which aligns with the political action-orientated transformative paradigm. I then wondered, is this why her chapter on mixed methods was so focused on the complexity and nuances of implementing it rather than its possibilities for the future? Maybe she is an in-the-weeds do-er instead of a big-picture theorist; perhaps that's why she focused less on the future possibilities or the far-reaching potential of mixed methods.

Anyway, to conclude, after reading the short chapter by Mertens on mixed methods, I was intrigued as to why it was so short, and then surprised to find that she is not only one of the key creators of the transformative paradigm but a leading proponent, practitioner, and driver of mixed methods in research. I was still left wondering, why not give us more about it? I'm curious if our class has any ideas; considering Merten's position, why didn't she go into more detail about mixed methods, including the potential the future holds for mixed methods, instead of her only 18-page chapter?