For mixed methods research in psychology to expand, a body of psychologists, and psychology
academics who have the knowledge and expertise to conduct and review mixed methods
research is required. Reviews of mixed methods articles in psychology (e.g., Bartholomew
and Brown, 2012; Bartholomew and Lockard, 2018) have highlighted issues related to
the lack of clarity of methods used in published mixed methods psychological research.
These include the failures to identify the type of mixed method design, the mixed
methods research question, the qualitative analysis methodology, and to explicitly
state the process for integrating data. These findings highlight the lack of training
for psychologists in both conducting and reviewing mixed methods research. Whilst
the new American Psychological Association reporting standards for mixed methods research
(Levitt et al., 2018) are helpful for authors and reviewers with some mixed methods
expertise, they must be complemented by at least foundational training in mixed methods
research to ensure the quality and rigor of mixed methods research published in psychology
journals.
In order to develop a body of psychologists and psychology academics who have the
knowledge and expertise to conduct and review mixed methods studies, we need to teach
current and future generations of psychology students about mixed methods research.
At present, mixed methods research training, where offered at all, is typically provided
at the doctoral level and across disciplines (Christ, 2009; Baran, 2010; Poth, 2014).
Whilst Onwuegbuzie et al. (2011) argued that we can expect mixed methods to be routinely
taught in the majority of higher degree by research programs in the future, Poth (2014)
viewed one-off mixed methods courses as inadequate preparation, calling instead for
the teaching of mixed methods research to begin earlier, positioned alongside the
teaching of qualitative and quantitative research. Similarly, while not specific to
psychology, the Mixed Methods Task Force report on the future of mixed methods (Mertens
et al., 2016a) has recommended the inclusion of mixed methods approaches in the undergraduate
curriculum, describing this as “the natural starting point” (p. 19).
We echo the sentiment of the Task Force by calling for the inclusion of mixed methods
research in the undergraduate psychology curriculum, beginning with teaching an appreciation
of mixed methods research. The last decade has seen an increase in the number of psychology
undergraduate programs in the United Kingdom, United States of America and Canada
1
teaching both quantitative and qualitative research methods (Gibson and Sullivan,
2018; McMullen and Winston-Proctor, 2018). Although these methods are often poorly
integrated, and many educators tend to focus excessively on differences between qualitative
and quantitative paradigms (Fielden et al., 2012), this teaching does provide a foundation
for the introduction of mixed methods research. As exposure to quantitative and qualitative
research increases, psychology students' perceptions of the incompatibility of qualitative
and quantitative research methods decrease (Roberts and Povee, 2014). While the teaching
of both quantitative and qualitative research methods equips students for multimethods
research (the use of multiple methodologies to address different goals within a research
project), mixed methods research varies from multimethods research in the focus on
integration, as both qualitative and quantitative components are addressing the same
objective (Anguera et al., 2018). Integration can occur during design, methods, interpretation
or reporting (Fetters et al., 2013) and can result in additional insights and understanding.
When moving from teaching qualitative and quantitative research methods separately
to teaching mixed methods research, it is this mixing and integration that needs to
be taught. Previous research has demonstrated that undergraduate psychology students
are receptive to mixed methods, despite some misconceptions about mixed methods research
and skepticism about the motivation and practices of mixed methods researchers (Povee
and Roberts, 2015) that may stem from their unfamiliarity with this type of research.
Burgeoning literature on mixed methods research pedagogy at the postgraduate level
(e.g., Earley, 2007; Christ, 2009; Baran, 2010; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2011; Frels et
al., 2012, 2014; Poth, 2014) can be used to inform the development of mixed methods
research courses at the undergraduate level. Frels et al. (2014) reported that leading
mixed methodologists emphasized application and integration as learning goals when
teaching mixed methods research. However, there is no “one size fits all” in terms
of how mixed methods training can be delivered. Research conducted with experienced
mixed methods teachers (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2011) indicates that courses vary in their
orientation (importance placed on coverage of quantitative and qualitative methodologies
before covering mixed methods), application (from conceptual to applied), and structure
(from highly structured to exploratory/experiential), highlighting the possible range
of teacher positions for mixed methods courses. This diversity of teaching approaches
reflects the diversity of mixed methods research designs. Regardless of the teaching
approach selected, Mertens et al. (2016a) highlight the role of educators to support
students in aligning mixed methods research choices with philosophical assumptions.
A limited number of example models (e.g., Onwuegbuzie et al., 2013; Ivankova and Plano
Clark, 2018) and syllabi (e.g., Earley, 2007; Christ, 2009) for mixed methods research
courses are available. We encourage academics who teach mixed methods to undergraduates
to share their syllabi, resources and experiences. We note that there are currently
no materials that relate to teaching mixed methods research in the “statistics and
research methods” teaching resources and “research methods” project syllabi sections
of the Society for the Teaching of Psychology website (http://teachpsych.org/)
2
. The recently published Oxford Handbook of Undergraduate Psychology Education (Dunn,
2015) is similarly silent with regard to teaching mixed methods.
Whilst the availability of teaching resources, example syllabi and authoritative guides
will no doubt encourage some instructors to introduce mixed methods into undergraduate
research methods classes, the inclusion of mixed methods in our accreditation guidelines
and textbooks will have a much larger and more immediate impact. In Australia, where
the first author works, the Australian Psychology Accreditation Council (2018) require
that research methods be taught to all undergraduate psychology students, but are
not prescriptive about the range of methods students should be exposed to. In the
United Kingdom (home of the second author), the British Psychological Society (2017a,b)
specify that undergraduates should learn how to conduct quantitative and qualitative
research, but make no mention of mixed methods research. The regulatory landscape
in the United States is similar (American Psychological Association, 2016). Furthermore,
the current
3
bestselling psychology research methods textbook on Amazon.com (Morling, 2018) does
not include any coverage of qualitative, let alone mixed methods research. Coolican
(2014), the current best seller on Amazon.co.uk, does provide coverage of both, although
mixed methods is relegated to a handful of brief mentions in chapters on measurement
and qualitative methods.
The positioning of mixed methods teaching within the undergraduate psychology curriculum
needs careful consideration. Ideally, the way we teach research methods will change,
integrating the teaching of qualitative and quantitative methods from the beginning,
rather than teaching each separately and in opposition to each other (for an illustration
of this approach, see Onwuegbuzie et al., 2010). This will overcome two key challenges
currently faced in teaching mixed methods: the preconceived bias and misperceptions
of students about quantitative and qualitative methods and the diversity of competence
in qualitative and quantitative research of students entering postgraduate mixed methods
research courses (Frels et al., 2012).
Where this restructuring of the research methods curriculum is not possible, there
are a number of alternatives. First, it is possible to teach quantitative, qualitative
and mixed methods courses sequentially throughout the undergraduate curriculum, such
as is currently done at the first author's institution. A potential consequence of
this sequential approach is that quantitative research is set up as the main research
methodology for psychology, with qualitative research then seen as an alternative
approach (Roberts and Castell, 2016). Mertens et al. (2016a) note that where either
quantitative or qualitative approaches are priveliged in teaching, a cultural shift
will be required to support mixed methods approaches. The priveliging of quantaitive
research methods over qualitative research methods in order of teaching potentially
leads to a misperception that the qualitative component of mixed methods research
is tokenistic (Povee and Roberts, 2015).
Beyond this, decisions on how to incorporate the teaching of mixed methods research
in the undergraduate psychology curriculum can be informed by the three components
of a student-centered pedagogy for research methods identified by Kilburn et al. (2014):
making the research process visible, engaging students in conducting research, and
reflecting on the research process. Examples of activities that fit within this framework
might include embedding mixed methods assignments and presenting and discussing relevant
mixed methods research findings within subject courses. Greene (2010) asks students
to select a mixed methods article and lead a class discussion on the quality of the
study. The first author has individual and group assessments that require students
to take the perspective of a journal article reviewer and critically review mixed
methods articles. These tasks explicitly ask students to reflect on how well the qualitative
and quantitative components of the research haved been integrated.
Regardless of the way in which mixed methods research is implemented within the undergraduate
psychology curriculum, evaluation will be essential in order to determine “what works.”
Guetterman et al. (2017) have developed a reliable and validated self-rated measure
of mixed methods skills that can be used to track students' self-ratings of skill
development, and may be used by course coordinators to improve curricula in areas
where students report they have limited skills.
We are not suggesting that introducing mixed methods to the undergraduate psychology
curriculum will be an easy task. A key challenge facing mixed methods research educators
is the time required to cover key quantitative and qualitative methods in addition
to the mixing of methods (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2011; Frels et al., 2012). Students
in graduate courses report finding mixed methods terminology and the concept of mixing
paradigms challenging (Hesse-Biber, 2015; Gilmartin and Esterhuizen, 2017). This is
not surprising given the “kaleidoscope” of mixed methods approaches and terminology
(Mertens et al., 2016b) and questions over the relevant content and skills to be taught
(Mertens et al., 2016b). Teachers of mixed methods courses often have not been formally
taught mixed methods themselves, and may have strengths in only qualitative or quantitative
research, indicating that a team-teaching approach may in some cases be required (Hesse-Biber,
2015). Further, in our experience, not all students are interested in learning mixed
methods research, with some undergraduate students already expressing a clear preference
for either quantitative or qualitative research methodologies by their final undergraduate
year. Despite these challenges, we envisage there will be benefits to the discipline
and employers in future years in terms of producing psychology graduates who are able
to select from the full range of research designs: quantitative, qualitative and mixed
methods.
Author Contributions
LR was responsible for leading the writing of the paper. PA contributed to the design,
ideas and writing.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial
or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.