Traversing the qualitative–quantitative divide using mixed methods: some reflections and reconciliations for sport and exercise psychology

Abstract

The aim of this paper was to provide commentary on one prevalent theme found in many of the articles within the current special issue: the notion of moving beyond a qualitative–quantitative divide using mixed methods to help navigate and/or reconcile this divide. This commentary highlights several key controversial issues in mixed methods literature within the social sciences in order to raise critical consciousness about such issues. We explore these distinct yet interrelated issues in the form of two central questions: what are mixed methods? And do mixed methods privilege post-positivism? As the field of sport and exercise psychology moves towards blurred genres in qualitative research (i.e. acknowledging a full range of paradigms, methods and strategies and the boundaries between them softened), such questions are important to raise and consider in order to advance critical dialogues on mixed methods within the field, allowing researchers to be more open, critical and reflexive. Our commentary concludes by offering some final reflections on mixed methods research in sport and exercise psychology in the light of these issues and questions.

Keywords:

• mixed methods
• paradigm dialogue
• qualitative
• sport
• exercise

Notes

1. The term ‘paradigm’ can refer to ‘shared belief systems that influence the kinds of knowledge researchers seek and how they interpret the evidence they collect’ (Morgan 2007, p. 50) and is partially based on Kuhn’s (1970) definition. The central tenet of positivism is that things (e.g. identity, the self) have meaning before, and are independent of, any scientific awareness of them (Crotty 1998). Researchers subscribing to positivism try to discover realities about people and the social world, using the ‘correct’ theoretical perspectives and/or methods, trying to maintain a value-free, objective stance. In contrast, a post-positivist stance is more moderate with the interest being in probability rather than certainty and obtaining a certain level of objectivity rather than absolute objectivity to approximate the truth (Crotty 1998, Lincoln et al. 2011).

2. The meaning and definitions of pragmatism are steeped in a long history of philosophy marked by multiple transformations and view points (see Rorty 1991). Delving into the specifics of this history and debates on pragmatism are beyond the scope of this discussion (see Feilzer (2010) for an overview of pragmatism in mixed methods research).

3. The topic of research designs and ways to conduct mixed methods research is both varied and vast. Additionally, data analysis and strategies is another topic of controversy and gaining momentum within the mixed literature (see Teddlie and Tashakkori 2011).

4. As avid consumers and fans of movies, television shows and popular culture, we could not resist using an analogy from the movies when discussing post-positivism and a quote from the Big Bang Theory in our conclusions. We apologise if the use of either of these examples trivialises our points, irritates readers, excludes readers from the discourse and/or makes them roll their eyes. The intent was to make the connections more apparent and at the same time have some fun with it.

5. Two edited volumes within sport and exercise psychology recently brought together scholarship under the genre of cultural sport psychology research. Cultural sport psychology research draws upon alternative paradigms to critically examine how sport and exercise psychology is (re)presented via a sociocultural lens to challenge the domain’s assumptions and practices (see Schinke and Hanrahan 2009, Ryba et al. 2010). Readers interested in modes of qualitative inquiry outside of post-positivism and what they have to offer sport and exercise psychology are referred to these rich volumes.