Mixed methods, crimes, and misdemeanours
- PDF / 414,985 Bytes
- 3 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 42 Downloads / 186 Views
Mixed methods, crimes, and misdemeanours Rachel Ellaway1
© Springer Nature B.V. 2020
Editorials can try to do many things: reflect on the state of the science, suggest ways of thinking about emerging issues, or just talk about the business of the Journal in general. And sometimes they can seek to address a problem in the material being submitted to the Journal; this is one of those editorials. In this issue, I am writing this as a plea to those submitting their papers to this Journal and as a direction to scientists in our field more broadly to be more thoughtful and grounded in the use of mixed methods research (MMR). Over the years, I have seen many papers submitted to AHSE claiming to be mixed methods research (MMR) but few that have situated themselves robustly within the discourses of MMR. This is despite the applied and pragmatic tendencies of much of the scholarly work undertaken in health professions education research often mapping well to MMR approaches. After all, even at the most simplistic level, adding a ‘what’ dimension to a ‘why’ study or vice versa can make all the difference in substantiating a study’s knowledge claims. So, my concern is that, while MMR seems, based on submissions to AHSE and its appearance elsewhere, to be of growing interest and utility in health professions education research, the sophistication has all too often been lacking in the design, execution, and reporting of these studies. I therefore offer the following in thinking about and engaging in MMR. Firstly, MMR is not simply a conjunction of methodologies or paradigms; it is a paradigm in and of itself with a robust and dynamic methodological basis. This is reflected in its publications, such as The Journal of Mixed Methods Research, which provide a lively discourse about the use of MMR. See, for instance, the paper from Johnson et al. (2007) reflecting on the many conceptualizations of MMR. Naturally, these debates have also been pursued in other venues. See for instance Shaw et al. on how MM researchers need to consider: the paradigms they draw on, the logic of combining them, the specific nature of the different methods employed, the analytical strategy (theory-driven, data driven, or explanation driven), and critical evaluation of the knowledge claims made (their validity, reliability and objectivity, credibility, transferability, trustworthiness, and confirmability). See also Yanchar and Williams (2006) who called for researchers to always consider five factors in selecting any method or methods: contextual sensitivity, creativity, conceptual awareness, coherence, and critical reflection. If a single reference manual is needed, then the Tashakkori and Teddlie source provides an excellent collection of articles (2010). * Rachel Ellaway [email protected] 1
Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
R. Ellaway 778
Those engaging in MMR should be able to situate their work within its debates, just as they would for any other methodological paradigm. Howe
Data Loading...
