Terminology and Mixed Methods Research: A Persistent Challenge

Abstract

Research paradigms provide a way of thinking about research, or philosophical perspectives of research. Crotty ’ s widely used four elements of the research process provide a way of thinking about research. The elements are epistemology, theoretical perspective, methodology, and methods (Crotty, 1998). Authors have extended this framework to another aspect: rhetoric (Creswell, 2013; Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2017a). Fetters and Molina-Azorin (2017a) advanced the rhetorical dimension of integration, de fi ning it as “ Creating or adapting terminology intentionally and thoughtfully to re fl ect the mixed methods paradigm, writing with an integrated structure to illustrate the mixed methods dimension, structuring the fi ndings narrative using contiguous or weaving presentations, using metaphors to write about integration, composing integrated prose to effectively illustrate the added value of mixed methods fi ndings ” (p. 295). However, the concept of rhetoric or the language used to write about and report research is often overlooked and underappreciated and too often stands in the way of researchers ’ ability to craft persuasive manuscripts about their mixed methods research practices. Scholars have paid attention to the terminology and nomenclature associated with mixed methods research since the early days of developing the fi eld dedicated to this approach. In the fi rst handbook of mixed methods research, editors