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