A kaleidoscope of perspectives on the potential, contributions, and grand vision of a mixed methods approach to educational inquiry

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary describes a kaleidoscope as ‘an instrument containing loose bits of coloured material (such as glass or plastic) between two flat plates and two plan mirrors so placed that changes of position of the bits of material are reflected in an endless variety of patterns’ (“Kaleidoscope,” 2019). As guest editors, Jennifer C. Greene and I consider the articles in this special issue of the International Journal of Research and Method in Education a kaleidoscope containing a diversity of intellectual thought on mixed methods in education that attends carefully to both conceptual and practical issues. The educational researchers, evaluators, and methodological scholars featured in this special issue thoughtfully question taken-for-granted paradigmatic assumptions, creatively theorize the purpose of mixed methods, illuminate the capacity and complexity of mixed methods research teams, make meaning of mixed methods work through artistic expression, promote the transformative possibilities of mixed methods designs, and purposefully mix different analytic approaches to produce richer understandings.

The first two articles in the special issue disrupt traditional thinking about how theory can be used for mixed methods work. The article, Weaving an Interpretivist Stance Throughout Mixed Methods Research by Katrina McChesney and Jill M. Aldridge, problematizes the often unquestioned assumption that certain methods ‘belong’ with particular paradigms. McChesney and Aldridge argue that researchers have the flexibility as well as the responsibility to consider how a method or mixed methods is consistent with the philosophical assumptions of a paradigm. To advance their argument, the authors provide an empirical example that explicitly links an underexploited stance for mixed methods work (interpretivism) to a mixed methods approach used to investigate teachers’ professional development experiences. The second article, Embedding the Dialogic in Mixed Methods Approaches to Theory Development by Elizabeth G. Creamer and Cherie Edwards, disrupts the way of thinking about incongruencies in qualitative and quantitative findings as something to be avoided. To do this, Creamer and Edwards introduce the concept of incremental and rupture theorizing, drawing attention to the generative potential of dissonance. Through empirical studies from diverse fields, including education, these authors illustrate incremental and rupture theorizing, showcasing the creative ways mixed methods researchers used dialogic techniques to integrate qualitative and quantitative findings in response to unexpected results.

The second set of articles emphasize mixed methods teamwork, but in distinct ways. Cheryl Poth’s article, Realizing the Integrative Capacity of Educational Mixed Methods Research Teams: Using a Team Developmental Strategy for Boosting Innovation, draws on concepts from complexity science to address the challenges of cultivating meaningful collaboration among members of mixed methods research teams. Her discussion offers strategies designed to continuously develop the capacity of a team in order to integrate their individual competencies and foster a shared responsibility for addressing complex educational issues. In their article, Dialectic Dialogue: Reflections on Adopting a Dialectic Stance, authors Stephanie Cronenberg and Marcia Headley address the mixing of paradigms. Working as a team (of sorts), these former education doctoral students participate in a meta-dialogue, engaging how the dialectic stance was applied in their respective dissertations. Their autoethnographic account uses first-person narratives and artistic expressions to reflect on how paradigms were mixed, resulting in an in-depth exploration of dialectic praxis or what it means to put the dialectic stance into practice.

The next two articles in the special issue target the applications and implications of specific mixed methods designs for educational research. As suggested by its title, Mixed Methods Research in Inquiry-Based Instruction: An Integrative Review, the article reviews how mixed methods designs are used for inquiry-based instruction. As part of their integrative review, the authors, Chrysi Rapanta and Mark Felton examined and critiqued selected mixed methods studies, applying both qualitative and quantitative data analytic techniques and perspectives to the studies themselves. Their integrative review indicates that despite the prevalence of mixed method designs, educational researchers, often times, do not provide an explicit rationale for their design thereby limiting the full potential of the mixed methods design. In their article, The Emancipatory Potential of Transformative Mixed Methods Designs: Informing Youth Participatory Action Research and Restorative Practices Within a District-Wide School Transformation Project, Bernice Garnett, Lance Smith, Colby Kervick, Tracy Ballysingh, Mika Moore, and Eliaquin Gonell combine youth participatory action research and restorative practices to address inequities in the context of schools and school districts. Their transformative mixed methods evaluation projects challenge traditional educational research as they centre the experiences of youth, involve youth (and other stakeholders) in the evaluation process, and disrupt traditional power dynamics. The final article, Network Analysis and Qualitative Discourse Analysis of a Classroom Group Discussion, presents a novel mixed methods approach – Thematic Discourse Network Analysis (TDNA) – as a way to better understand and illustrate the dynamic nature of learning that occurs in student-group discussions. The authors, Jesper Bruun, Mats Lindahl, and Cedric Linder, discuss how their TDNA methodology integrates the qualitative and quantitative components of network analysis (NA) into the qualitative components of qualitative discourse analysis (QDA) through a technique they name the alignment process. The authors detail how the mixing of NA and QDA through the alignment process results in both thematic interpretations and graphical network representations that capture the connections between the meaning-making processes and structural aspects of student-group discussions.

As a whole, this IJRME special issue advances a valuing of difference and a respect for dialogue. We invite readers of this special issue of IJRME to view each article as a bit of coloured material, arranged to reflect a grander vision for mixed methods research. We understand that the patterns made by the coloured materials in the kaleidoscope will be experienced differently depending on the viewer. This is because each reader brings her own mixed methods perspective, background and values when looking through the kaleidoscope. Jennifer and I expect the materials to be viewed differently, but it is our hope that the beauty and brightness of the patterned colours reflected in the kaleidoscope stirs an appreciation for the distinctive contribution of the special issue and inspires a renewed vision of the possibilities of mixed methods for educational inquiry.