513656
editorial2014
QHRXXX10.1177/1049732313513656Qualitative Health ResearchMorse and Cheek
Editorial
Making Room for Qualitatively-Driven Mixed-Method Research
Qualitative Health Research 2014, Vol. 24(1) 3–5 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1049732313513656 qhr.sagepub.com
Janice M. Morse1 and Julianne Cheek2 Mixed-methods research1 is attracting increasing interest among researchers, so it is no surprise that QHR has been receiving more submissions describing such research. In response to this trend, and following QHR’s mandate, QHR’s Editorial Board has made an official decision to accept articles that report qualitatively-driven mixedmethods research.
What is the Impetus for This Decision? Mixed-methods research is a contested field still in development. A range of definitions of mixed-methods research have been proposed, about which there is ongoing debate. There is little agreement even about what mixed-methods research is. One definition that seems to be taking center stage describes mixed methods as employing a quantitative method and a qualitative method linked in the same study (i.e., QUAN-qual, or less frequently, QUAL-quan designs). For example, this is the definition that determines whether or not a manuscript will be published in the Journal of Mixed Methods Research (JMMR; Mertens, 2011), and this also defined as best practice in mixedmethods research in relation to NIH (National Institutes of Health) funding (Creswell, Klassen, Plano Clark, & Smith, 2011). Although there is no doubt that the use of quantitative and qualitative methods in the same research study can make an important contribution to health research, there are potential consequences if this is assumed to be the best or the only approach to mixed methods (Cheek, in press). Most mixed methods appear to be quantitatively-driven, with qualitative research (again) taking the back seat. In QHR, we will focus on qualitatively-driven mixedmethod designs that incorporate a core qualitative project complemented by a supplemental quantitative component (QUAL-quan designs), as well as those that incorporate two qualitative approaches in the same study, the QUAL-qual research design articulated by Morse and Niehaus (2009). By publishing studies that are qualitatively-driven mixed-method designs we hope to provide another dimension to a “mixed methods way of thinking” that is “generative and open, seeking richer, deeper, better understanding of important facets of our infinitely
complex social world” (Greene, 2007, p. 20). We see this initiative as one part of a continuing dialogue about how qualitative inquiry and qualitatively-driven research designs can respond to questions arising inductively from an infinitely complex social world.
What are Characteristics of Qualitatively-Driven Mixed-Method Designs? We will begin by differentiating between multiple methods and mixed-method designs. From the outset it is important to point out that mixed-method design is not the same as multiple-methods research. Multiple methods are two or more complete projects attached to an overall inductive aim (called the inductive thrust). The research questions for each study are separate, but complementary to the overall aim. Because each study (or “component”) is a separate study answering a different question, each is less dependent on the other components in the study. Therefore, multiple methods are not as difficult to conduct as a mixed-method project: they do not have the sampling concerns, or the interaction and changes from interproject reflexivity; that is, until you get to writing the integrated article that combines the findings of all the projects (two or more) and which addresses the overall inductive aim of the project. The QUAL project provides the theoretical narrative or base into which the details from each of the other projects addressing the aim are added as detail, exemplars, or rich description. QHR particularly welcomes articles that report this integration. These are a form of a “meta” article—not a research synthesis of the literature, but the accumulation of all of your multiplemethods studies in relation to your main inductive aim. By contrast, mixed-method design consists of one complete project (one study that may be published by itself) that includes an additional supplemental strategy 1
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Ensuring Clarity, Oslo, Norway
2
Corresponding Author: Janice M. Morse, University of Utah College of Nursing, 10 S 2000 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-5880, USA. Email: [email protected]
4
Qualitative Health Research 24(1)
that uses a different analytical technique and is not comprehensive enough to stand alone; that is, the supplemental strategy is only “complete,” or interpretable, within the context of the core component (Morse, 2003; Morse & Niehaus, 2009). Thus, mixed-method design consists of “one and a half” projects, with the supplemental component adding scope, depth, or description to the core component. The supplemental component does not “make sense” on its own: qualitatively it lacks saturation; quantitatively it may consist of a set of scores. With QUAL-qual or QUAL-quan designs the core (main) component (i.e., the QUAL) is a complete study. It is a saturated, complete study that could be published alone, but it is complemented with another data set, called the supplemental component (the qual or quan), that is used to illustrate a particular aspect or a dimension of the aim that is inaccessible by the core method. Dynamic reflexivity between the two components assists in illuminating aspects of the analysis of the core project. Such dynamic reflexivity enables the research design to respond to and be molded by the questions underpinning the research, both initially and throughout the project. It avoids the problems that arise when trying to fit the question to fixed designs predetermined at the proposal phase (Hesse-Biber & Johnson, 2013). The two components of the mixed-method study are usually kept separate2 during the analytic procedures until they are combined at the point of interface and integrated into a new section in the article called the Results Narrative (Morse & Neihaus, 2009). When integrating the two components, the results of the core component form the theoretical base (i.e., the main story), into which the results of the supplemental component are used to illustrate the theoretical narrative or to add description at strategic positions in the narrative. In this way, significant areas of the research project are expanded, strengthened, and deepened by the supplemental project. This strategy of using mixed-method design thereby enhances the research project as a whole, often circumventing the necessity to conduct a further separate project. In summary, the characteristics of qualitatively-driven mixedmethod designs are as follows: 1. They are related components that address the same research aim. One component is a complete qualitative project and the supplemental component uses a different strategy, either qualitative or quantitative. 2. The results of the core and the supplemental component meet at the point of interface, and are integrated in a section called the Results Narrative, with the analysis from the qualitative core forming the basis of the narrative and the supplemental project adding details or examples.
We refer to mixed-method design in the singular, because it must be considered as one method, one combined project, not two methods.
Criteria for Review of Mixed-Method Articles in QHR There are two core requirements for a qualitatively-driven mixed-method manuscript submitted to QHR: 1. “Intactness”: The report must be of an intact study. Frequently researchers write in their submission to QHR that their study was “part of a larger study.” Obviously it may be a part of a multiple-method study, but not a part of a mixedmethod design, for in mixed-method designs the supplemental project is not adequate to stand alone. Writing that a study is a part of a larger study brings up questions of, “Which part?” and “Where is the rest?”—and even accusations of “salami slicing” or breaking a larger project into small and less-significant pieces. 2. Qualitatively-driven: As with all qualitative inquiry, the major theoretical drive, as stated in the aim and the core research questions, must be inductive. This means that the core component must be qualitative and described (and even diagramed) as QUAL.
Review Criteria Once a manuscript meeting the two core requirements outlined above is sent out for review, reviewers will use the following guide to assist them when reviewing: 1. Is the article a qualitatively-driven design (either QUAL-qual or QUAL-quan)? 2. Does the article conform to the notational system used in QHR: a. QUAL (uppercase) refers to the core qualitative project b. qual refers to the supplemental qualitative project c. quan refers to the supplemental quantitative project d. + is used to indicate that the core and the supplemental projects are conducted simultaneously e. → is used to indicate that the core and the supplemental projects are conducted sequentially 2. Does the core (QUAL) meet the QHR criteria for a qualitative research article? 3. Is the supplemental component (qual or quan) integrated into the core component at the results at the point of interface, and does the core study (QUAL) form the theoretical base in the Results Narrative?
5
Morse and Cheek 4. Does the supplemental component (qual or quan) add description, examples, or other details to the QUAL results? 5. Are figures clear, and do they facilitate understanding of the design? 6. Is there a description of the ethical issues related to the study, an explanation of how these were taken into account, and a description of how they affected the mixed-method design? Notes 1. We distinguish between mixed methods, as an overarching term for all types of research involving two or more methods, and mixed-method design, which includes one core project and one supplemental strategy in the same project (see the section, “What are Characteristics of Qualitatively-Driven Mixed-Method Designs?”). 2. One exception pertains to qual semistructured interviews as a supplement to a QUAN mixed-method project. In this case the semistructured responses are transformed to quantitative data and incorporated into the analysis of the quantitative data set as separate variables. This, of course, is beyond the scope of our qualitatively-driven methods.
References Cheek, J. (in press). It depends. Possible impacts of moving the field of mixed-methods research towards best practice guidelines. In S. Hesse-Biber, & B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of mixed and multimethod research. New York: Oxford. Creswell, J. W., Klassen, A. C., Plano Clark, V. L., & Smith, K. C. (2011). Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health. Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. Hesse-Biber, S., & Johnson, R. B. (2013). Coming at things differently: Future directions of possible engagement with mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 103-109. doi:10.1177/1558689813483987 Mertens, D. (2011). Publishing mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(1), 3-6. doi:10.1177/1558689810390217 Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed and multi-method research design. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morse, J. M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed-method design: Principles and procedures. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Call for Articles Special Issue: Qualitatively-Driven Mixed-Method Research We invite submissions of excellent manuscripts that demonstrate the value and potential of a qualitativelydriven mixed-method approach. These may also be discussions of the reflexive process or other methodological issues. Submission Deadline: September 1, 2014
Copyright of Qualitative Health Research is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
editorial2014
QHRXXX10.1177/1049732313513656Qualitative Health ResearchMorse and Cheek
Editorial
Making Room for Qualitatively-Driven Mixed-Method Research
Qualitative Health Research 2014, Vol. 24(1) 3–5 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1049732313513656 qhr.sagepub.com
Janice M. Morse1 and Julianne Cheek2 Mixed-methods research1 is attracting increasing interest among researchers, so it is no surprise that QHR has been receiving more submissions describing such research. In response to this trend, and following QHR’s mandate, QHR’s Editorial Board has made an official decision to accept articles that report qualitatively-driven mixedmethods research.
What is the Impetus for This Decision? Mixed-methods research is a contested field still in development. A range of definitions of mixed-methods research have been proposed, about which there is ongoing debate. There is little agreement even about what mixed-methods research is. One definition that seems to be taking center stage describes mixed methods as employing a quantitative method and a qualitative method linked in the same study (i.e., QUAN-qual, or less frequently, QUAL-quan designs). For example, this is the definition that determines whether or not a manuscript will be published in the Journal of Mixed Methods Research (JMMR; Mertens, 2011), and this also defined as best practice in mixedmethods research in relation to NIH (National Institutes of Health) funding (Creswell, Klassen, Plano Clark, & Smith, 2011). Although there is no doubt that the use of quantitative and qualitative methods in the same research study can make an important contribution to health research, there are potential consequences if this is assumed to be the best or the only approach to mixed methods (Cheek, in press). Most mixed methods appear to be quantitatively-driven, with qualitative research (again) taking the back seat. In QHR, we will focus on qualitatively-driven mixedmethod designs that incorporate a core qualitative project complemented by a supplemental quantitative component (QUAL-quan designs), as well as those that incorporate two qualitative approaches in the same study, the QUAL-qual research design articulated by Morse and Niehaus (2009). By publishing studies that are qualitatively-driven mixed-method designs we hope to provide another dimension to a “mixed methods way of thinking” that is “generative and open, seeking richer, deeper, better understanding of important facets of our infinitely
complex social world” (Greene, 2007, p. 20). We see this initiative as one part of a continuing dialogue about how qualitative inquiry and qualitatively-driven research designs can respond to questions arising inductively from an infinitely complex social world.
What are Characteristics of Qualitatively-Driven Mixed-Method Designs? We will begin by differentiating between multiple methods and mixed-method designs. From the outset it is important to point out that mixed-method design is not the same as multiple-methods research. Multiple methods are two or more complete projects attached to an overall inductive aim (called the inductive thrust). The research questions for each study are separate, but complementary to the overall aim. Because each study (or “component”) is a separate study answering a different question, each is less dependent on the other components in the study. Therefore, multiple methods are not as difficult to conduct as a mixed-method project: they do not have the sampling concerns, or the interaction and changes from interproject reflexivity; that is, until you get to writing the integrated article that combines the findings of all the projects (two or more) and which addresses the overall inductive aim of the project. The QUAL project provides the theoretical narrative or base into which the details from each of the other projects addressing the aim are added as detail, exemplars, or rich description. QHR particularly welcomes articles that report this integration. These are a form of a “meta” article—not a research synthesis of the literature, but the accumulation of all of your multiplemethods studies in relation to your main inductive aim. By contrast, mixed-method design consists of one complete project (one study that may be published by itself) that includes an additional supplemental strategy 1
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA Ensuring Clarity, Oslo, Norway
2
Corresponding Author: Janice M. Morse, University of Utah College of Nursing, 10 S 2000 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-5880, USA. Email: [email protected]
4
Qualitative Health Research 24(1)
that uses a different analytical technique and is not comprehensive enough to stand alone; that is, the supplemental strategy is only “complete,” or interpretable, within the context of the core component (Morse, 2003; Morse & Niehaus, 2009). Thus, mixed-method design consists of “one and a half” projects, with the supplemental component adding scope, depth, or description to the core component. The supplemental component does not “make sense” on its own: qualitatively it lacks saturation; quantitatively it may consist of a set of scores. With QUAL-qual or QUAL-quan designs the core (main) component (i.e., the QUAL) is a complete study. It is a saturated, complete study that could be published alone, but it is complemented with another data set, called the supplemental component (the qual or quan), that is used to illustrate a particular aspect or a dimension of the aim that is inaccessible by the core method. Dynamic reflexivity between the two components assists in illuminating aspects of the analysis of the core project. Such dynamic reflexivity enables the research design to respond to and be molded by the questions underpinning the research, both initially and throughout the project. It avoids the problems that arise when trying to fit the question to fixed designs predetermined at the proposal phase (Hesse-Biber & Johnson, 2013). The two components of the mixed-method study are usually kept separate2 during the analytic procedures until they are combined at the point of interface and integrated into a new section in the article called the Results Narrative (Morse & Neihaus, 2009). When integrating the two components, the results of the core component form the theoretical base (i.e., the main story), into which the results of the supplemental component are used to illustrate the theoretical narrative or to add description at strategic positions in the narrative. In this way, significant areas of the research project are expanded, strengthened, and deepened by the supplemental project. This strategy of using mixed-method design thereby enhances the research project as a whole, often circumventing the necessity to conduct a further separate project. In summary, the characteristics of qualitatively-driven mixedmethod designs are as follows: 1. They are related components that address the same research aim. One component is a complete qualitative project and the supplemental component uses a different strategy, either qualitative or quantitative. 2. The results of the core and the supplemental component meet at the point of interface, and are integrated in a section called the Results Narrative, with the analysis from the qualitative core forming the basis of the narrative and the supplemental project adding details or examples.
We refer to mixed-method design in the singular, because it must be considered as one method, one combined project, not two methods.
Criteria for Review of Mixed-Method Articles in QHR There are two core requirements for a qualitatively-driven mixed-method manuscript submitted to QHR: 1. “Intactness”: The report must be of an intact study. Frequently researchers write in their submission to QHR that their study was “part of a larger study.” Obviously it may be a part of a multiple-method study, but not a part of a mixedmethod design, for in mixed-method designs the supplemental project is not adequate to stand alone. Writing that a study is a part of a larger study brings up questions of, “Which part?” and “Where is the rest?”—and even accusations of “salami slicing” or breaking a larger project into small and less-significant pieces. 2. Qualitatively-driven: As with all qualitative inquiry, the major theoretical drive, as stated in the aim and the core research questions, must be inductive. This means that the core component must be qualitative and described (and even diagramed) as QUAL.
Review Criteria Once a manuscript meeting the two core requirements outlined above is sent out for review, reviewers will use the following guide to assist them when reviewing: 1. Is the article a qualitatively-driven design (either QUAL-qual or QUAL-quan)? 2. Does the article conform to the notational system used in QHR: a. QUAL (uppercase) refers to the core qualitative project b. qual refers to the supplemental qualitative project c. quan refers to the supplemental quantitative project d. + is used to indicate that the core and the supplemental projects are conducted simultaneously e. → is used to indicate that the core and the supplemental projects are conducted sequentially 2. Does the core (QUAL) meet the QHR criteria for a qualitative research article? 3. Is the supplemental component (qual or quan) integrated into the core component at the results at the point of interface, and does the core study (QUAL) form the theoretical base in the Results Narrative?
5
Morse and Cheek 4. Does the supplemental component (qual or quan) add description, examples, or other details to the QUAL results? 5. Are figures clear, and do they facilitate understanding of the design? 6. Is there a description of the ethical issues related to the study, an explanation of how these were taken into account, and a description of how they affected the mixed-method design? Notes 1. We distinguish between mixed methods, as an overarching term for all types of research involving two or more methods, and mixed-method design, which includes one core project and one supplemental strategy in the same project (see the section, “What are Characteristics of Qualitatively-Driven Mixed-Method Designs?”). 2. One exception pertains to qual semistructured interviews as a supplement to a QUAN mixed-method project. In this case the semistructured responses are transformed to quantitative data and incorporated into the analysis of the quantitative data set as separate variables. This, of course, is beyond the scope of our qualitatively-driven methods.
References Cheek, J. (in press). It depends. Possible impacts of moving the field of mixed-methods research towards best practice guidelines. In S. Hesse-Biber, & B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of mixed and multimethod research. New York: Oxford. Creswell, J. W., Klassen, A. C., Plano Clark, V. L., & Smith, K. C. (2011). Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health. Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. Hesse-Biber, S., & Johnson, R. B. (2013). Coming at things differently: Future directions of possible engagement with mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 103-109. doi:10.1177/1558689813483987 Mertens, D. (2011). Publishing mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(1), 3-6. doi:10.1177/1558689810390217 Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed and multi-method research design. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morse, J. M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed-method design: Principles and procedures. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Call for Articles Special Issue: Qualitatively-Driven Mixed-Method Research We invite submissions of excellent manuscripts that demonstrate the value and potential of a qualitativelydriven mixed-method approach. These may also be discussions of the reflexive process or other methodological issues. Submission Deadline: September 1, 2014
Copyright of Qualitative Health Research is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
