Editorial: Speaking in Tongues—Diversity in Mixed Methods Research

Taylor and Francis Ltd SRM115445.sgm 10.1080/13645570500154626 International Journal of Social Research Methodology 364-5579 (pri t)/1464-5300 (online) Original Article 2 05 & Francis Group Ltd 830 000July 2005 AnthonyG ee s itute f EducationUniversity of London20 Bedford WayLondonWC1H 0AL a.gree @io .a .uk There is a renewed spirit of dialogue and sophisticated curiosity concerning research practice boundaries, their transgression, redrawing and for some, blurring and possibly even elimination where distinguishing quantitative from qualitative methods is concerned. Mixed seems to be where it is at, though some identities hang on, and the image of the introverted statistician (the nerd) or the hang-loose ethnographer are by no means eliminated. As stereotypes they are partially valid constructs for strongly bounding ‘mono’ methods as well as occasions for recognizing other(s). Few would dismiss the view that statistical techniques allow us to conceptualize and model multiple levels of social reality or to describe complex mechanisms. Alternatively, nor would they dismiss ethnographic approaches as being effective for elaborating cultural forms and social meanings, indeed, often involving some elementary counting and distributions, too. Neither quantitative nor qualitative are monolithic its, but permeable domains in which many styles have emerged. Complexities in inductive and deductive iterative strategies abound and there is a renewal of interest in both/and rather than mono-either/or, so far as methods and methodology are concerned. The vital consideration, however, is for researchers to be reflexive about the how, when, where and why of their applications of these procedures and logics and to abide by the demands of scientific communicative ethics for keeping all informed every step of the way, an aspiration rarely attended to in full detail. Moreover, the frequently cited argument in the mixed methods debate is that qualitative and quantitative methods is a false dichotomy, that research paradigms are a better representation of the way in