| Abstract |
The author critiques the claim that mixed method research is a third methodology, and the implied belief that the mixing of qualitative and quantitative methods will produce the 'best of both worlds'. The author suggests that this assumption, combined with inherent promises of inclusiveness, takes on a reality and certainty in research findings that serves well the powerful nexus of economic restraint and evidence-based practice. The author argues that the use of the terms 'qualitative' and 'quantitative' as normative descriptors reinforces their binary positioning, effectively marginalising the methodological diversity within them. Ideologically, mixed methods covers for the continuing hegemony of positivism, albeit in its more moderate, postpositivist form. If naively interpreted, mixed methods could become the preferred approach in the teaching and doing of research. The author concludes that rather than the promotion of more co-operative and complex designs for increasingly complex social and health issues, economic and administrative pressures may lead to demands for the 'quick fix' that mixed methods appears to offer. |
