Where are the mixed methods research studies?

In 2015, we published an editorial dedicated to providing guidelines for the publication of mixed methods research in the Nordic Journal of Music Therapy (Bradt, 2015). Because that editorial was published exactly 6 years ago, I was curious to find out how many mixed methods research studies have since been published in our journal. I was disappointed to find out that the count was only two. This is quite surprising given the steady increase in the use of mixed methods research in health-related fields during the past two decades. Ettenberger et al. (2017) published a mixed methods research study in this journal on the use of family-centered music therapy with preterm infants and their parents. In 2019, we published a mixed methods research study by Campbell and colleagues (Campbell et al., 2019), a study that explored the use of vibroacoustic treatment for managing chronic pain and comorbid mood disorders. Both studies used a convergent design in which quantitative and qualitative data are collected and analyzed concurrently and independently (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).

Given the scarcity of mixed methods research publications during the past 6 years, I was thrilled to see three mixed methods research studies in the current issue. Margetts and colleagues (p. 338) used a convergent design to examine the impact of music therapy consultation with classroom practitioners on relationship formation between the practitioners and children with complex needs in Belarus. A select number of fragments of videotaped sessions before and after the consultation intervention were self-rated and peer-rated. In addition, the practitioners participated in interviews pre and post intervention to share their reflections on their experiences with the children. This study is a great example of a convergent mixed methods research design even though the authors only reported the qualitative findings in this article. Publishing the quantitative, qualitative and integrative findings in one publication can be quite challenging given word count limits, but certainly offers important advantages (Guetterman et al., 2015). Researchers conduct mixed methods research because they believe that using only one data source (e.g. quantitative data) does not allow for a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. Moreover, the integration of the two datasets brings about important insights that cannot be communicated to the reader if the quantitative and qualitative findings are published separately. As I shared in my 2015 editorial, I encourage authors of mixed methods research studies to contact our editorial team if they would like additional space to publish the complete mixed methods findings. However, if authors opt to present partial findings (e.g. only qualitative data), then they should present the overall mixed methods research design as demonstrated by Margetts et al. in this publication so that the readers are informed about how the reported data were collected in relation to other data sources.

Kostilainen and colleagues (p. 357) used a mixed methods study to examine the effects of maternal singing during kangaroo care on maternal outcomes and the mother–infant relationship. The authors identified their study as a convergent design. Given that the qualitative data were embedded within a larger cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT), labeling it as a mixed methods intervention design (aka embedded design) would probably have been more accurate (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). In this study, qualitative data were collected from mothers in the music therapy treatment arm through means of open-ended questions in a questionnaire that was administered after the intervention. The purpose of the open-ended questions was to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the mothers’ experiences with maternal singing.

This issue also includes a mixed methods research study protocol by Silveira and colleagues (p. 314). The study protocol is for an RCT that will examine the effect of functional electrical stimulation (FES) with iPad-based music therapy versus usual care on upper limb recovery and well-being in 40 stroke survivors. After completion of the intervention phase, all participants will be invited to participate in a semi-structured interview aimed at learning about participants’ perceptions of how the treatment they received affected their recovery. As with Kostilainen et al., the authors labeled the design as a convergent design, although, here too, I would categorize it as a mixed methods intervention design since the RCT design and method requirements (to ensure internal validity) dominate the overall mixed methods research design.

As a researcher who frequently uses mixed methods research in my intervention studies, I was thrilled to see three mixed methods research studies in this issue. As stated by Gallo and Lee (2016),

investigators with well-considered research questions and aims can be creative and imaginative in how to deploy mixed methods to make their intervention relevant and effective for diverse community and service settings. From designing interventions that take into account cultural factors to the study of implementation processes for established interventions, mixed methods can play an important role across the entire spectrum of the intervention development pipeline (p. 195).

Collecting and analyzing both types of data require the needed expertise on the research team and increase the time and effort spent on a study, but, in my experience, the added gain is exponential. I certainly hope to see a steady increase in the submissions of mixed methods research to our journal.

Before I close, let me bring your attention to two more publications in this issue. Tang and Schwantes (p. 377) report the findings of their survey on the use of international service learning (ISL) and its impact on intercultural competence in U.S. music therapists. Based on the findings, the authors offer important recommendations related to the need for theoretical and conceptual clarification of intercultural competence in music therapy professional practice, as well as cost-benefit considerations for participating in ISL. Finally, this issue concludes with a book review (p. 397), written by Brian Abrams, of Kelly Meashey’s The Use of Voice in Music Therapy.