Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Research in Nursing
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gilbert, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Mixed methods and mixed methodologies

The practical, the technical and the political

Tony Gilbert

School of Applied Psychosocial Studies, University of Plymouth

This paper presents a discussion of mixed-methods approaches drawing largely on the nursing literature. Taking a supportive but sceptical stance to the mixed-methods approach, the paper considers conditions to manage this tension. Competing claims for qualitative versus quantitative evidence alongside a growing commitment for multidisciplinary research when dealing with complex phenomena offer background issues providing incentives to adopt mixed-method approaches. The paper identifies a tendency to assume that all mixed-method approaches involve quantitative and qualitative methods creating a binary division between induction and deduction. At the same time, discussion explores three frameworks enabling differentiation of mixed-method approaches, producing a merging and revision of these frameworks into a new typology – the practical, the technical and the political – allowing the possibility of qualitative mixed-methods designs. In addition, a distinction emerges between approaches with a clear theoretical and methodological commitment enabling or carrying the potential for political action from approaches lacking political potential and therefore limited to practical or technical qualities. The paper draws on a number of studies from the literature to provide examples of the ‘types’ that provide the typology. It concludes by claiming that the typology enables the management of the critical tension between support and scepticism when reviewing mixed-method approaches.

Key Words: abduction • retroduction • politics of care • typology • mixed methods

Journal of Research in Nursing, Vol. 11, No. 3, 205-217 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1744987106064634


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Mixed Methods ResearchHome page
J. W. Creswell and A. Tashakkori
Editorial: Differing Perspectives on Mixed Methods Research
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, October 1, 2007; 1(4): 303 - 308.
[PDF]