Avoiding common pitfalls in mixed methods research?


Journal

Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice
ISSN: 1573-1677
Titre abrégé: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9612021

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 Aug 2024
Historique:
medline: 26 8 2024
pubmed: 26 8 2024
entrez: 26 8 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

This column is intended to address the kinds of knotty problems and dilemmas with which many scholars grapple in studying health professions education. In this article, the authors focus on how to help mentees take an analytic approach to improve their mixed methods work. Mixed methods research has increased in popularity and with that comes both strengths and weaknesses in these studies. We suggest key elements to look for when reading a mixed methods research paper. We also provide guidance around weaknesses we have noticed in reporting.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39186166
doi: 10.1007/s10459-024-10362-y
pii: 10.1007/s10459-024-10362-y
doi:

Types de publication

Editorial

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.

Références

Cleland, J. (2022). Exploring, measuring or both: Considering the differences between qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods research. Researching Medical Education, 1–13.
Ellaway, R. (2020). Mixed methods, crimes, and misdemeanours. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 25, 777–779.
doi: 10.1007/s10459-020-09985-8
Fossey, E., Bonnamy, J., Dart, J., Petrakis, M., Buus, N., Soh, S. E., Diug, B., Ayton, D., & Brand, G. (2023). What does consumer and community involvement in health-related education look like? A mixed methods study. Advances in Health Sciences Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-023-10301-3
doi: 10.1007/s10459-023-10301-3
Hampson, T., & McKinley, J. (2023). Problems posing as solutions: Criticising pragmatism as a paradigm for mixed research. Research in Education, 116(1), 124–138.
doi: 10.1177/00345237231160085
LaDonna, K. A., Taylor, T., & Lingard, L. (2018). Why open-ended survey questions are unlikely to support rigorous qualitative insights. Academic Medicine, 93(3), 347–349.
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002088
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). Sage.

Auteurs

Patricia O'Sullivan (P)

University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA, USA. Patricia.OSullivan@ucsf.edu.

Ayelet Kuper (A)

Wilson Centre for Research in Education, Division of General Internal Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Department of Medicine, University Health Network, University of Toronto, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Jennifer Cleland (J)

Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University Singapore, Nanyang Ave, Singapore, Singapore.

Classifications MeSH