{"title":"Mixed methods, mixed feelings: a review of hurdles faced and vaulting poles to apply when wanting to do and publish mixed methods research.","authors":"Niels Spierings, Nella Geurts","doi":"10.1080/1369183X.2025.2487748","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sometimes 'mixed methods designs' are considered a winner for obtaining research grants, but a close-to-certain reject when publishing. Evidently, reality is more complex. At the same time, these considerations are grounded in actual experiences, observations and the structure of our epistemic community. In this contribution, we will reflect on this structure, particularly in ethnic and migration studies, as such reflection is particularly interesting for a case that is strongly interdisciplinary, which might pave the way as well as lead to double jeopardy (running into reviewers disliking the method and the disciplinary perspective). First, we will sketch a (quantitative) background of the definition and prevalence of mixed methods research in ethnic and migration journals. Next, and based on migration scholars' experiences with mixed methods research and often heard ideas, we will chart and discuss the structural barriers that hamper mixed methods research (from journal word counts to unqualified reviewers). Third, based on these barriers or hurdles as we will label them, both structural and practical solutions are discussed, leading to a wish list for facilitating high-quality mixed methods research.</p>","PeriodicalId":48371,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies","volume":"51 12","pages":"3170-3191"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12312779/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2025.2487748","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Sometimes 'mixed methods designs' are considered a winner for obtaining research grants, but a close-to-certain reject when publishing. Evidently, reality is more complex. At the same time, these considerations are grounded in actual experiences, observations and the structure of our epistemic community. In this contribution, we will reflect on this structure, particularly in ethnic and migration studies, as such reflection is particularly interesting for a case that is strongly interdisciplinary, which might pave the way as well as lead to double jeopardy (running into reviewers disliking the method and the disciplinary perspective). First, we will sketch a (quantitative) background of the definition and prevalence of mixed methods research in ethnic and migration journals. Next, and based on migration scholars' experiences with mixed methods research and often heard ideas, we will chart and discuss the structural barriers that hamper mixed methods research (from journal word counts to unqualified reviewers). Third, based on these barriers or hurdles as we will label them, both structural and practical solutions are discussed, leading to a wish list for facilitating high-quality mixed methods research.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies (JEMS) publishes the results of first-class research on all forms of migration and its consequences, together with articles on ethnic conflict, discrimination, racism, nationalism, citizenship and policies of integration. Contributions to the journal, which are all fully refereed, are especially welcome when they are the result of original empirical research that makes a clear contribution to the field of migration JEMS has a long-standing interest in informed policy debate and contributions are welcomed which seek to develop the implications of research for policy innovation, or which evaluate the results of previous initiatives. The journal is also interested in publishing the results of theoretical work.