Applied Research Project: Research Questions

Editorial

Exploring the Nature of Research Questions in Mixed Methods Research

I n our editorial to the second issue of the JMMR (Creswell & Tashakkori, 2007), we

summarized some of our perspectives about the characteristics of strong, publishable

mixed methods articles. Among the attributes discussed, we proposed that a strong mixed

methods article should

• demonstrate the need for mixed methods to answer research questions that include clearly interconnected qualitative and quantitative components,

• present distinctly identifiable qualitative and quantitative data (or one transformed to the other) that are analyzed and presented separately,

• make identifiable inferences or conclusions on the basis of the results of appropriate qualita- tive and quantitative data analyses, and

• clearly integrate the results of the two or more (qualitative and quantitative) strands of the study into coherent conclusions or inferences that are more comprehensive and meaningful

than those of the qualitative or quantitative strands alone.

In this editorial, we begin to address the nature of mixed research questions.

A strong mixed methods study starts with a strong mixed methods research question or

objective. Numerous scholars have reiterated the fact that research questions are shaped by

the purpose of a study and in turn form the methods and the design of the investigation (for

examples, see Brewer & Hunter, 2005; Bryman, 2007; Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Jiao, this

issue; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Krathwohl, 2004; Newman & Benz, 1998; Rao &

Woolcock, 2003; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Obviously, such mixed methods research

questions and objectives clearly demand the use and integration of both qualitative and

quantitative approaches or methods. (It should be kept in mind that not all research ques-

tions and objectives benefit from using mixed methods.) Consequently, when a project

explores mixed research questions with interconnected qualitative and quantitative compo-

nents or aspects (e.g., questions including ‘‘what and how’’ or ‘‘what and why’’),1 the end

product of the study (conclusions and inferences) will also include both approaches.

Despite this clear importance, the attributes of strong mixed methods research questions

have remained relatively unexplored by mixed methodologists or have just started being

explored by mixed methods writers (e.g., Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). Options for

formulating, stating, and exploring research questions in mixed methods research are

important issues for discussion. Mixed methodologists have repeatedly placed mixed

methods on a continuum that includes qualitative, quantitative, and mixed approaches

rather than using the dichotomy of qualitative or quantitative (for reviews, see Newman,

Ridenour, Newman & DeMarco, 2003; Teddlie, Tashakkori, & Johnson, in press). Follow-

ing this suggestion, a basic issue remains open for debate: How does one frame a research

question in a mixed methods study? Should it be stated as a combination of separate quali-

tative and quantitative questions or as a single question that is general and incorporates

Journal of Mixed

Methods Research

Volume 1 Number 3

July 2007 207-211

� 2007 Sage Publications 10.1177/1558689807302814

http://jmmr.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

207

both? To explore possible answers to this question, let us review some of the models and

practices we have observed in the current literature.

The current state of the art reflects the use of multiple research questions for qualitative

and quantitative strands of the research. More recent thinking calls for an explicit ‘‘mixed

methods question’’ in addition to separate qualitative and quantitative questions. Thus, it

is important to outline the possibilities for writing research questions into mixed methods

studies:

1. Write separate quantitative and qualitative questions, followed by an explicit mixed methods

question (or, more specifically, questions about the nature of integration). For example, if a

study involves concurrent quantitative and qualitative data collection, this type of mixed

question could ask, ‘‘Do the quantitative results and the qualitative findings converge?’’

(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p. 107). If a study is more sequential, the question might be

‘‘How do the follow-up qualitative findings help explain the initial quantitative results?’’ or

‘‘How do qualitative results explain (expand on) the experimental outcomes?’’ (for further

examples, see Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, Table 5.2). Creswell and Plano Clark (2007)

advocated the inclusion of such specific questions that make explicit researchers’ intent as to

how they will mix the quantitative and qualitative strands in a study.

2. Write an overarching mixed (hybrid, integrated) research question, later broken down into

separate quantitative and qualitative subquestions to answer in each strand or phase of the

study (Teddlie & Tashakkori, in press). This is more frequent in parallel or concurrent stu-

dies than in sequential ones. Although this overarching question might be implicitly present,

sometimes it is not explicitly stated. An example from recent literature is Parmelee, Perkins,

and Sayre’s (2007) study exploring ‘‘how and why the political ads of the 2004 presidential

candidates failed to engage young adults’’ (p. 2). The authors followed this implicitly stated

question with three specific subquestions: ‘‘How does the interaction between audience-level

and media-based framing contribute to college students’ interpretations of the messages

found in political advertising?’’ ‘‘To what extent do those interpretations match the framing

found in the ads from the 2004 U.S. presidential election?’’ and ‘‘How can political ads be

framed to better engage college students?’’ (p. 4). As another example, in a parallel or con-

current design, a mixed methods question might be ‘‘What are the effects of Treatment X on

the behaviors and perceptions of Groups A and B?’’ Consequently, the component questions

that are drawn from the overarching mixed question might be ‘‘Are Groups A and B different

on Variables Y and Z?’’ (the quantitative strand) and ‘‘What are the perceptions and con-

structions of participants in groups A and B regarding treatment X?’’ (the qualitative strand).

3. Write research questions for each phase of a study as the study evolves. If the first phase is a

quantitative phase, the question would be framed as a quantitative question or hypothesis. If

the second phase is qualitative, the question for that phase would be framed as a qualitative

research question. This is found in sequential studies more than in concurrent studies.

These three practices offer different perspectives about research questions in mixed meth-

ods research. They raise questions about whether only quantitative and qualitative ques-

tions should be written, whether a single mixed methods question should be written to

emphasize the nature of mixing and integration, or whether a single mixed (hybrid, inte-

grated) question should written that transcends the subsequent qualitative and quantitative

subquestions.

Also, placing mixed methods on a (multidimensional) continuum of qualitative and

quantitative approaches (rather than a third option, added to the dichotomy of qualitative

208 Journal of Mixed Methods Research

and quantitative approaches) creates an interesting dilemma: Should or can mixing occur

at the research purpose or question, or should it be kept limited to the methods of the study

(data, methods of data collection, data analysis stage)?

Mertens’s (2007) article in this issue addresses various important considerations regard-

ing research questions. She suggests the necessity of an overarching concern or purpose

for changing the lives of the participants in a study and discusses how a researcher’s trans-

formative worldview might or should affect his or her research questions, data sources,

design, conclusions, and policy recommendations in a ‘‘cyclical transformative’’ way. By

inference, such a concern and purpose would necessitate overarching mixed questions,

similar to Option 3 above, which evolve as the project progresses. Examples of such over-

arching questions in Mertens’s article include ‘‘What were the factors that allowed the

sexual abuse to happen?’’ and ‘‘What would need to be changed in order to reduce the

probability that it would recur?’’ (p. 214). Mertens concludes that the transformative para-

digm ‘‘provide[s] a framework that is useful for raising questions about the assumptions

that underlie research and the contribution of research to enhancing human rights’’

(p. 224).

Christ’s article in this issue is an example of developing research questions in a sequen-

tial manner while asking a specific question about the nature of mixing or linking qualita-

tive and quantitative findings. He provides strong arguments for a recursive process in

which research questions of one strand of a sequential mixed methods study initiate or

shape the questions of another strand in a continuous manner. The mixed methods ques-

tion revolves around the consistency between the results of various strands of a longitudi-

nal study. An interesting aspect of Christ’s article is the fact that contrary to many

sequential mixed methods studies, both the quantitative and the qualitative questions were

exploratory.

Scott et al.’s article in this issue provides partial examples for the first and second

approaches to research questions. The authors frame an overarching question while asking

a question about the nature of mixing or linking. First, they pose an overarching question

to drive the entire study (what are the effects of social support on the adjustment of

widows following the deaths of their spouses?), with the goal of understanding widows’

‘‘experiences of loss and social support’’ and ‘‘day-to-day appraisals of social support dur-

ing the transition into widowhood’’ (p. 244). Clearly, this general question potentially

includes both quantitative and quantitative types of subquestions. The authors answer

these subquestions (or objectives) by collecting and analyzing relevant data. However,

they also implicitly pose a question regarding integration, exploring the degree to which

‘‘the quantitative and qualitative findings . . . inform each other’’ (p. 244). Collins et al.’s article in this issue presents the results of a sequential mixed study

answering two broad research questions set forth from the start: (a) What was the ‘‘preva-

lence of sampling designs utilized in mixed methods research’’ (p. 279)? and (b) To what

extent was there ‘‘interpretive consistency’’ among published research articles that could

be identified as mixed? Although the strands were conducted sequentially (first a quantita-

tive analysis of the articles, then a qualitative analysis of the sequence of and relationship

between the quantitative and qualitative components of each article), the nature of the two

questions did not change as a result of this sequence. An interesting issue emerging for

debate is the necessity (or lack thereof) of separate typologies for each component or stage

Tashakkori, Creswell / Editorial 209

of a mixed methods study, including the research questions. For example, is it possible (or

necessary) to explore a parallel or concurrent set of research questions in a sequential

mixed design?

We hope this brief overview demonstrates the necessity of paying close attention to

how investigators frame their research questions and the need for further discussions of

this issue in mixed methodology. On the basis of this review, we would like to make three

broad suggestions for mixed methods articles, with the hope of advancing the debate

regarding research questions in mixed methods:

1. Mixed methods studies need at least one explicitly formulated mixed methods question or

objective about the nature of mixing, linking, or integration (i.e., how the findings of various

strands relate to one another). Such a question about the nature of integration follows the

qualitative and quantitative types of questions and emerges from the specific need to use

mixed methods (e.g., elaboration, complementarity). Answers to the question should be

explicitly explored and presented at the end of the article.

2. Mixed methods studies will benefit from at least one overarching mixed (integrated, hybrid)

question that provides the possibility of subsequent qualitative and quantitative types of sub-

questions. Such a question effectively links the components or strands (qualitative and quan-

titative) and objectives and questions of the study and sets the stage for comprehensive

mixed methods inferences and conclusions at the end.

3. The nature and form of research questions might be different in sequential and parallel or

concurrent mixed methods studies. In parallel studies, the component questions are framed

from the start. In sequential studies, the questions of a second (or later) strand emerge as a

result of the findings of the first (or earlier) strand. Regardless of this variation, mixed meth-

ods studies benefit from a dynamic process in which the component (strand) questions are

reexamined and reframed as the two or more strands of the study progress.

Abbas Tashakkori

John W. Creswell

Editors

Note

1. See Creswell and Plano Clark (2007, pp. 103-104) for a discussion of differences between qualitative

and quantitative research purposes and questions.

References

Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (2005). Foundations of multimethod research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 8-22.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Tashakkori, A. (2007). Developing publishable mixed methods manuscripts. Journal of Mixed Methods

Research, 1, 107-111.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2004). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach (2nd ed.). Long

Grove, IL: Waveland.

Newman, I., & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum.

Carbondale: University of Illinois Press.

210 Journal of Mixed Methods Research

Newman, I., Ridenour, C., Newman, C. & DeMarco, G.M.P., Jr. (2003). A typology of research purposes and its relationship

to mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie, (Eds.) Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral

research (pp. 167-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Parmelee, J. H., Perkins, S. C., & Sayre, J. J (2007). ‘‘What about people our age?’’ Applying qualitative and quantitative

methods to uncover how political ads alienate college students. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 183-199.

Rao, V., & Woolcock, M. (2003). Integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches in program evaluation. In

F. Bourguignon & L. Pereira da Silva (Eds.), The impact of economic policies on poverty and income distribution:

Evaluation techniques and tools (chap. 8). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (in press). Foundations of mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Teddlie, C., Tashakkori, A., & Johnson, B. (in press). Emergent techniques in the gathering and analysis of mixed methods

data. In P. Leavy & S. Hesse-Biber (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods. New York: Guilford.

Tashakkori, Creswell / Editorial 211