IJE vol.33 no.6 © International Epidemiological Association 2004; all rights reserved.
Book Review |
Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioural Research. Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (eds). Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2003, pp.768, £77.00 ISBN: 0-7619-2073-0.
Mixing methods, that is using both qualitative and quantitative techniques within the same research project or programme of research, has a relatively long history. However, more recently the concept of merging qualitative and quantitative methods has become increasingly popular, in particular, in areas of applied research. The publication of this handbook is, therefore, rather timely in response to this increased trend in what the editors refer to as a ‘mixed method’ approach.
Before the publication of this text there were very few resources available that focused on a mixed methods approach to research. This may be due to the fact that this remains a controversial issue with many researchers still asking the fundamental question of should we be mixing methods at all? The editors in their opening chapter attempt to outline the purpose of the collection based around several questions which they feel remain unanswered: the utility of mixed methods research, the paradigmatic foundations for this type of approach, design issues, what inferences can be drawn, and the actual logistics of this approach.
The rather large text provides an overview (albeit with a North American bias), of the field of mixed methods research and is divided into four sections. The first includes chapters that discuss both historical and contemporary issues in mixed methods, including a useful overview of the field and the main paradigmatic issues. The following section covers more methodological and analytical topics, outlining several different typologies for mixed methods research designs. Chapters in this section also include useful practical topics such as sampling strategies, data collection strategies, methods of data analysis, and making inferences. The third section, and in my view the weakest, is dedicated to applications and examples of mixed methods research across disciplines, including management and organizational research, health sciences, nursing and education. The book ends with a section on conclusions and future directions for mixed methods research.
As might be expected with a volume of this size, the chapters vary in quality.
There is some repetition across the chapters, however, as most of the chapters are probably intended as stand alone pieces, this is inevitable to a point. The benefit of this is that for each chapter the definitions being used are made clear and the standpoint of the author made explicit, however, a more negative aspect is the resultant inconsistencies. The book does attempt to cover a range of viewpoints relating to the issue of mixed methods. Because of this there are inevitable contradictions across the chapters, in particular, in the ways in which some authors feel ‘mixing’ of methods is appropriate. For those using the text as a first port of call, this could be rather confusing. For example, in chapter 7 Janice Morse sets out her view that mixing methods is only appropriate if the methodological congruence of each component method is maintained and not ‘mix and match’ research in which strategies can be liberally selected and combined. However, this view can be contrasted with that, for example, of Johnson & Turner (chapter 11) who argue that using both open and closed questions within a questionnaire survey would be one way to mixed methods and others who suggest that data can be ‘transformed’, that is they can be either ‘quantitized’ or ‘qualitized’ accordingly (Onwuegbuzie & Teddlie, chapter 13). In this sense the novice reader could select to read only one or two chapters and be left with a biased and perhaps uncritical view of the mixed method approach. Whilst a range of standpoints are represented I was still left with a feeling that the book was slightly biased towards the more mix and match approach to mixed methods. Some key writers were missing from the list of contributors, notably Julia Brannen, Alan Bryman and Martin Hammersley—who have written excellent pieces on mixed methods in the past and I feel could have produced very good chapters perhaps resulting in a more balanced collection overall. A further criticism of the book is the overemphasis on ‘typologies’. The authors themselves in the final chapter state they have identified almost 40 types of mixed method designs and then go on to describe the framework for yet another typology, the usefulness of which could be questioned.
Overall this edited collection provides a good attempt at filling an obvious gap in the research methods literature that will be of use to those working in the field of health and health services research. It is built up from a series of chapters that are coherent in their own right and generally fairly easy to read. In this way, the book would be useful for researchers and research students alike and would be a helpful addition to any library of methodological texts.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||