Embracing Criticism from Outside the Community

I am among those who were slightly scandalized when I first heard about the all too visible rift that opened up between the well-known duo that first put voice to the idea of grounded theory, Glaser and Strauss. After their initial collaboration, the duo split on different epistemological approaches to grounded theory. The differences are profound in that they take different stances about, for example, the role of the literature, the balance between abduction and induction, and the role of verification. Exposing students to different points of view such as these about a method helps students to develop critical thinking skills. It helps them develop agency about the methods they chose and how they chose to implement them. It helps prepare them for the real-world where there are audience members, journal reviewers, and colleagues who dismiss MMR.

The same type of verbal scuffle emerged last year in the Journal of Mixed Methods, when several authors from within the community of self-identified researchers responded with some heat, accusing David Morgan (link to that editorial) of misrepresenting their views.

I felt similarly scandalized by reading a strongly worded 2021 editorial by Julianne Cheek in Qualitative Health Research Journal that certainly grabbed and held my attention. The whole thing felt like it had been written in all capital letters. This is a one of a long line of editorials in this Journal expressing outrage with an influx of submissions claiming to be mixed methods. As an editor of a journal myself, Methods in Psychology, I appreciate the frustration of receiving yet another manuscript adapting the MMR label with a qualitative component so trivial it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack. 

There are numerous articles and chapters about controversies in mixed methods research written by members from within the self-avowed MMR community. These are often dry, long-winded, nearly surgical accounts written with an emic perspective that hardly grab the same attention as a hotly worded editorial. 

Students are better prepared for the resistance they are likely to encounter when they venture outside of the safety of journals and conferences dedicated to mixed methods if they have had the opportunity to consider articles and editorials that are pointed in their criticism of mixed methods research that have been written by those standing outside of the field. Two examples of this kind of provocative commentary that would make good reading assignments are:

Cheek, J. (2021). Maintaining the integrity of qualitatively driven mixed methods: Avoiding the ‘this work is part of a larger study’ syndrome. Qualitative Health Research, 31 (6), 1015-1018.https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323211003546

Giddings, L. S., & Grant, B. M. (2007). A Trojan horse for positivism? A critique of mixed methods research. Advances in Nursing Science, 30 (1), 52-60. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-200701000-00006