The use of frameworks in research has a long and complex history; yet, their role remains widely misunderstood, particularly among students, novice researchers, and even experienced researchers and authors. The English word “framework” can be traced back to the late 16th century, wherein it referred to a physical structure for support or enclosure. Over time, its meaning broadened to include abstract systems of organization, paving the way for its adoption in research discourse. In contemporary contexts, frameworks are central to research across disciplines, providing conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and analytical scaffolds that shape inquiry from design to dissemination. Despite their ubiquity, frameworks often are misapplied or superficially referenced, leading to incoherent designs and weak integration of research elements. This problem is compounded by the lack of clear and comprehensive guidance in the methodological literature, coupled with inconsistent terminology across fields. In this article, we respond to this gap by first outlining the origins and uses of the term “framework,” then tracing the historical and contemporary role of frameworks in research. We introduce a comprehensive taxonomy of 23 distinct types of research frameworks, situating them within broader scholarly discourse and organizing them into six overarching families that clarify their functions across qualitative research, quantitative research, and mixed methods research traditions. We argue for the special importance of frameworks in mixed methods research, wherein integration requires conceptual coherence, and demonstrate how different framework types operate across research traditions to support design, analysis, interpretation, legitimation, and cumulative knowledge building. By offering a systematic typology, comparative synthesis, and guiding structure for classification, this article seeks to provide scholars, students, and reviewers with a shared conceptual vocabulary for understanding the diverse origins, purposes, and applications of research frameworks. By offering a comprehensive synthesis, exemplars, and guidance, we aim to demystify frameworks, to promote reflexive and coherent usage, and to strengthen methodological clarity and integration across research traditions.
Conceptual frameworks and theoretical frameworks are among the most frequently invoked yet inconsistently defined structures in contemporary research, particularly within mixed methods research. Despite their centrality to research design, interpretation, and integration, the methodological literature reveals sustained terminological drift characterized by origin-based distinctions (i.e., differentiating frameworks by whether they derive from formal theory or from study-specific conceptual construction), umbrella configurations (i.e., redefining one framework type as an overarching category that absorbs the other), synonymization (i.e., using the terms interchangeably), hierarchical nesting (i.e., positioning one framework within the other), and functional abstraction (i.e., defining frameworks by general purpose rather than by epistemic grounding). Drawing on a systematic conceptual analysis of influential methodological texts (2000–2025) and informed by the Critical Dialectical Pluralism 2.0 (CDP 2.0) meta-transformative and multidimensional metaparadigm and metaphilosophy, this article restores epistemic differentiation between conceptual frameworks and theoretical frameworks and situates their functions within deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning logics. We develop reasoning-oriented typologies that clarify how framework type should be aligned with epistemic movement rather than with methodological tradition (qualitative vs. quantitative). Extending this analysis, we examine patterns of framework use and misuse, distinguish theory-driven and model-driven literature reviews, and articulate mixed methods research–specific, logic-integrated definitions. Specifically, we advance restored definitions tailored to mixed methods research that differentiate explanatory regulation within phases/strands from integrative architectural coordination across phases/strands. We argue that theoretical frameworks regulate explanation, whereas conceptual frameworks regulate structural organization—extending, in mixed methods research, to the integration of phases and strands. When differentiated yet coordinately deployed, these frameworks function as complementary instruments within a multidimensional analytic architecture. We conclude by outlining implications for research design, doctoral education, and scholarly communication, positioning this effort as a movement toward disciplined pluralism in framework articulation. By advancing disciplined pluralism, this article strengthens analytic coherence, reduces jingle and jangle vulnerabilities (i.e., different terms for the same construct and identical terms for different constructs, respectively), and enhances transparency in framework articulation across qualitative research, quantitative research, and mixed methods research traditions.
In this editorial, we introduce the latest issue (Volume 17, Issue 1) of the International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches (IJMRA), which includes two articles and this editorial. Consistent with IJMRA’s focus on methodological innovation and application, the two articles in this issue present nuanced applications of widely used mixed methods designs. The first article, authored by Kim Hoffman, Todd Korthuis, Kellie Pert, and David Morgan, presents their application of a multiphase mixed methods Delphi study, integrating both exploratory and explanatory qualitative data to strengthen the Delphi approach. The second article, written by Amy Bywater, Alison Kington, and Karen Blackmore, presents what they describe as a fully integrated, sequential exploratory mixed methods design. Although numerous texts and articles cover these design types, IJMRA aims to showcase their application to advance understanding of methodological innovation.
Most Delphi studies primarily rely on questionnaires and subsequent quantitative ratings across multiple rounds to learn about a complex issue. This article demonstrates the integration of qualitative inquiry into a Delphi study to enhance and complement quantitative findings. We conducted a mixed methods Delphi study to establish a comprehensive list of quality and safety indicators for best practices in psilocybin therapy. Our qualitative methods entailed interviewing 37 providers and content experts with significant knowledge of Psilocybin Assisted Therapy to address one or more of the following goals: (a) provide a rationale for maintaining or removing quality and safety indicators, (b) improve indicator wording, (c) consolidate them or alter the timing of their consideration during therapy, and (d) provide contextual explanations for our decisions. Qualitative inquiry yielded important findings, as participants identified new dimensions of safety that extended beyond our initial scope. By using a mixed methods design, we demonstrate that both exploratory and explanatory qualitative methods can make a vital contribution to Delphi methods, extending beyond the use of quantitative ratings.
Joint displays have gained interest and use within mixed methods research over the last several years, serving as a tool that assists researchers in study planning, integration, meta-inference, and the interpretation of results. As generative artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities continue to advance, researchers must consider both the potential benefits and cautions of utilizing AI to support the development of joint displays. This article first briefly examines the purpose and uses of joint displays, then presents the potential benefits and cautions of using AI to support their development. As with many facets in our current society, using AI as a tool raises concerns that updated graphing and coding capacities might lead to overly complex displays and misinterpretation of findings. This article, therefore, presents an introductory discussion of the promise of using AI, accompanied by a strong warning that these tools do not replace the role of the researcher during analysis, interpretation, and communication of findings.
In this editorial, we introduce the latest issue (Volume 16, Issue 3) of the International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, which showcases two articles and two editorials that extend methodological innovation in mixed methods research. The first article, authored by Elizabeth Creamer, examines strategies for interrogating dissonance that may emerge between quantitative results and qualitative interpretations in mixed methods research designs. The second article, by Lauren Decker-Woodrow, explores the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in generating joint displays, offering both benefits and cautions for researchers adopting emerging technological tools. The second editorial, by Gullen et al., details the development of a Researcher-Practitioner Partnership focused on supporting students with disabilities through mixed methods inquiry. A metatheme uniting these contributions is adaptive methodological integration—reflecting how researchers can navigate dissonance, leverage AI, and cultivate collaborative partnerships to enhance rigor, inclusivity, and innovation within mixed methods research.
As arts-based mixed methods research (Arts-MMR) continues to evolve, the field remains in a nascent stage, with few examples available in the literature (Archibald, 2022). Yet, Arts-MMR holds immense potential for merging arts and mixed methods research within individual studies and broader research programs. Since Archibald’s (2018) pioneering review, several Arts-MMR works have emerged, representing both empirical studies and methodological innovations that offer frameworks for arts-based inquiry. This methodological article advances Arts-MMR through critical dialectical pluralism (CDP), a research philosophy that supports balance between artistic expression and scientific rigor, providing a foundation for future growth in Arts-MMR. To study the world with heart and mind, We blend methods, leaving none behind. Empirical prose presents the way, While poetry asks, “What truths will stay?” This article identifies 39 unique approaches for prose-poetic integration within abstracts, showcasing diverse strategies that unify empirical insight with philosophical reflection. A constant comparison analysis of these abstract types revealed two overarching metathemes and nine themes, with three types aligning closely with both Archibald and Gerber’s (2018) Conceptual Integration Framework and Onwuegbuzie’s (2017) 1 + 1 = 1 Integration Framework. Among these, “Prose for Introducing Real-World Applications, Poetry for Abstract or Philosophical Implications,” as exemplified by the current 333-word abstract, best represents both frameworks, achieving full integration because prose presents practical insights and poetry contemplates their deeper meanings. As prose builds structure, poetry reveals, A layered truth, where intellect feels. The author advocates that journal editors not only permit and encourage such prose-poetic abstracts, but also extend word limits to at least 350 words, allowing these integrative structures the space that they require. The power of this integrative format has inspired the editors-in-chief of the International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches (IJMRA), henceforth, to encourage both poetic abstracts (i.e., consisting only of poetry) and prose-poetic abstracts, expanding the potential for multidimensional research communication. Poetic abstracts, in general, and prose-poetic abstracts, in particular, invite researchers to craft narratives that appeal to both intellect and empathy, bridging rigorous analysis with creative expression.
A small subset of the methodological literature has investigated how researchers have grappled with dissonant findings that sometimes emerge when working with both quantitative and qualitative data. Absent from this discussion is consideration of dissonance that emerges from a clash between quantitative findings and the researcher's assumptions embedded in a theoretical framework, within mixed methods studies. This methodological article reports on the findings from an exploratory content analysis of 11 mixed methods studies that encountered such dissonance during an initial stage and followed this stage with additional data collection and/or analysis. The in-depth case-based analyses presented here expose differences between studies that addressed dissonance by adding (a) a qualitative phase or (b) both a qualitative phase and a phase devoted to merging both qualitative and quantitative data, often through a joint display. Findings suggest that researchers will benefit by considering the process of exploring dissonant findings as a series of steps rather than using a single strategy. Furthermore, the findings in this article contest the assumption that designing a research project with a theoretical framework rules out the possibility of including a robust exploratory component.
This fully integrated mixed methods research study (i.e., meta-methods research study) investigated, via an online survey, the challenges experienced by 346 Chilean university students during emergency remote learning necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Consistent with the findings of Zapata and Onwuegbuzie (2024), a topic modeling analysis of qualitative responses regarding their individual challenges influencing successful online learning yielded four key challenge themes: Mental Health challenges, Motivation challenges, Time Management challenges, and Learning Challenges. These themes then were quantitized, indicating that mental health challenges were the most prominent, affecting 29% of respondents. The quantitized themes were subjected to principal components analysis using both orthogonal and oblique rotations—both of which revealed two overarching metathemes: Metatheme 1: Learning and Motivation Barriers and Metatheme 2: Well-Being and Productivity Barriers. An all-possible-subsets canonical correlation analysis examined the relationships between these four metathemes and five psychological variables (gratitude, anxiety and depression, differentiation of emotional experiences, perceived academic control, and academic self-efficacy). This analysis revealed significant relationships between psychological variables—specifically, anxiety and depression, academic self-efficacy, and gratitude—and three sets of themes, namely, time management, mental health, and learning challenges. However, the multivariate relationship between the psychological variables and the challenge themes primarily was driven by the association between anxiety and depression from the set of psychological variables, and mental health from the set of challenge themes. The findings align with the Conservation of Resources theory, which highlights the interplay of resource depletion and replenishment during stress. The findings provide actionable insights for universities to design integrated interventions addressing both psychological and academic barriers.
There is a dearth of literature on research partnerships in educational settings, where research inherently is practical and aimed at enhancing learning systems. However, the pace of research in these settings often can be slow, leading to a disconnect from the immediate needs of K-12 schools (Cousins & Simon, 1996; Ion et al., 2019). This article delves into a long-term educational research-practice partnership between a K-12 school district and university researchers. This partnership, which is deeply rooted in the practical needs of the schools, has resulted in numerous quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research studies. We draw on the insights gained from this ongoing partnership to provide guidance on dispositions and action steps that can be applied in other partnerships to facilitate robust mixed methods research studies.
Researcher-practitioner partnerships (RPPs) can be positioned to identify and address longstanding social problems. This editorial describes a burgeoning RPP between a state-level entity and a major research university in the United States that endeavors to improve the long-term employment outcomes of students with moderate and severe disabilities. New approaches to instruction are being developed through online learning platforms that can benefit both students and teachers; however, their continued refinement and effectiveness must be informed by empirical research. Readers of this journal are encouraged to think about how they might develop and support their own RPPs.
(Verse 1): In a world of research, where questions collide, Arts and mixed methods walk side by side. Through melody’s flow and harmony’s thread, We weave a framework where voices are led. (Chorus): The sound of methodologies, breaking the mold, Where data and music share truths untold. Polyphonic rhythms, insights take flight, Methodomusic guides the path to the light. (Verse 2): From qualitative tales to numbers so pure, The arts bring a balance, a method secure. Songs of justice, equity in tune, Transforming the field, a methodology’s boon. (Bridge): Tolstoy once said, music holds emotion’s key, Unlocking the essence of humanity. Instruments of thought, chords of design, Mixed methods and music, a fusion divine. (Chorus): The sound of methodologies, breaking the mold, Where data and music share truths untold. Polyphonic rhythms, insights take flight, Methodomusic guides the path to the light. (Outro): A symphony of methods, a melody spun, In arts and mixed methods, the future’s begun. The authors call, with a vision so bright, For Methodomusic to lead us to insight.
This article develops a novel mixed methods research framework to investigate the corporate-backed, university-based Indonesian innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem. The framework integrates autoethnography and system dynamics, combining qualitative and quantitative research approaches to capture the dynamic interactions within the ecosystem. Autoethnography provides deep insights into entrepreneurs’ lived experiences through personal narratives and observations, while system dynamics models complex interactions, identifying leverage points and evaluating policy impacts. This study contributes to the field of mixed methods research by demonstrating how the integration of interpretivist and constructivist approaches through autoethnography with the empirical rigor of system dynamics enhances the modeling of complex systems. The research offers a methodological innovation that addresses a gap in the mixed methods research literature, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding entrepreneurial ecosystems and for informing policy development in similar contexts. This approach exemplifies how mixed methods research can be leveraged to produce actionable insights, particularly in contexts requiring both rich qualitative data and robust quantitative modeling.
Biodiversity indices are crucial in ecology for quantifying the diversity of species within ecosystems, providing insights into ecological health and guiding conservation efforts. Among these indices, the Shannon Diversity Index (SDI) particularly is popular due to its ability to account for both species’ richness and evenness, making it a versatile tool in various ecological contexts. Despite its widespread use in ecology, the application of the SDI in educational research has been limited, although it holds potential for offering valuable insights into the composition and variety of elements within educational settings. Therefore, the major purpose of this article is to demonstrate the applicability of the SDI in educational contexts by conceptualizing educational systems as ecosystems. A heuristic example is provided, showcasing how the SDI can be applied to analyze the diversity of challenges faced by university students across five institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. This example illustrates how the SDI can be disaggregated to compare subgroups within the same dataset and applied across multiple ecosystems, allowing for comparative analyses of different educational environments. The discussion also addresses the minimum sample sizes required for reliable SDI calculations, ensuring accurate representation of diversity. This article demonstrates how the SDI can contextualize emergent themes subjected to descriptive-based quantitizing, highlighting the potential for integrating qualitative and quantitative research approaches more fully. The findings underscore the versatility and robustness of the SDI, advocating for its broader application in educational research to provide comprehensive insights and to inform targeted interventions, ultimately fostering more inclusive and effective educational practices.
Mixed Methods Research (MMR) provides great research approach for investigating complex problems and systems. MMR is seen as the latest and more pragmatic approach in the field of social science. It has the opportunity of mixing the strengths of both quantitative (QUAN) and qualitative (QUAL) research approaches in one study but also the challenges of integrating (mixing) these strengths into the process. This review of methodological literature seeks to address possible integration that might occur within an MMR. Integration can occur at one stage, or multiple stages of a mixed methods research study. Understanding the different stages of integration within a mixed methods research study can greatly improve the professional research dexterity of researchers. Integration strategies are discussed to provide mixed methods researchers with the opportunities meaningfully to integrate the QUAN and QUAL approaches within an MMR. Possible challenges of integration also are discussed in this article.
One in six individuals in the world are disabled; yet, modern survey science lacks a framework of inclusion for individuals with disabilities. For this reason, the behavioral health knowledge base is limited in generalizability and exacerbates health disparities. The purpose of this article is to report the iterative and community-engaged process underwent to facilitate an accessible research participation experience for Blind or low vision (BLV) participants. The authors highlight tips for engaging the community learned throughout the project. Pilot research, focus group discussions (Study 1), and a survey (Study 2) engaged BLV adults and solicited their feedback on the format and accessibility of the research procedures of a healthcare quality scale development project. The focus group discussion participants reported benefits from participation, including enjoyment from participation and knowledge sharing. The survey participants commented on the degree that study measures reflected community members’ experiences and provided feedback on study materials and format. Methods from our studies easily can be adopted into most research designs, can increase the participation of disabled persons, can improve validity and generalizability, and can reduce health disparities.
Mixed methods research ameliorates many convergent research challenges within the contemporary sociotechnical landscape. We suggest the integration of software engineering in mixed methods research is a critical step to address some of the remaining and persistent challenges. One such research challenge where computational science is particularly well suited is in hazard preparedness—in particular, the creation of risk communication messages to mitigate or to prevent harm. Computationally enhanced risk communication is convergent research that integrates software engineering and social science research for the benefit of protecting humans and infrastructure. To this end, we developed a mixed methods framework for the efficient construction of risk communication messages. We call this the Domain Agnostic Risk Communication (DARC) framework and present it here. The DARC framework formalizes connections between computational science and social science methods. It incorporates the best available science in risk communication research and a cadre of natural language processing techniques to impart validity, reliability, and precision into resultant messages. The DARC framework is highly modular owing to the incorporation of the software engineering principles of abstraction, extensibility, and encapsulation. Although the focus of this position article is on risk communication, we encourage the incorporation of software engineering into mixed methods research and the incorporation of mixed methods more broadly into software engineering experimentation.
Systematic integration of quantitative and qualitative research is a known challenge when conducting mixed methods research (MMR) and joint displays are one method to make the integration process more concrete. A systematic review of the published literature on joint displays and MMR rationales was conducted in order to juxtapose joint display typologies with corresponding MMR rationales. Data from the mixed methods research systemic methodological review (MMR-SMR) were summarized using descriptive statistics, and a codebook was used to look for patterns and to develop themes that were integrated with descriptive codes. There were 71 joint displays across 27 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The MMR-SMR provides a comprehensive, updated examination of joint displays in the methodological literature and includes several contributions to the field of mixed methods research. One finding suggests that joint displays have evolved beyond their original typologies and an updated typology is provided. The current MMR-SMR identified a novel data transformation joint display that presented the conversion of qualitative data into quantitative data in a tabular format. It is unique that combinations of joint displays are being used (e.g., a side-by-side joint display that incorporates a theoretical lens or a path diagram) and that multiple joint displays are being used in individual studies. Researchers are recommended to strongly consider using joint displays as a method of integration because it can provide a structure to think about integration and to report the results of integration, which can further enhance transparency of the mixed methods research integration process.
With this editorial, we introduce the latest issue (i.e., Volume 15, Issue 1) of the International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches and provide an overview of its main points presented within its two articles.
Families of premature newborns hospitalized in intensive care tend to face fear and distress. After discharge, these families have different care needs, and some will continue to experience high levels of stress. Therefore, this study aimed to identify maternal stress levels and difficulties with at-home infant care using a parallel convergent mixed methods research design. Quantitative data were collected using the Parental Stress Scale (administered at a hospital) and the Parental Stress Index Scale (administered at a follow-up clinic) with 51 mothers of preterm infants in Brazil. Qualitative data were collected through in-depth interviews with 15 mothers, randomly selected from the quantitative sample 3 to 6 months after discharge. Higher maternal stress scores and lower parenting confidence were associated with child hospitalization. However, family support helped mothers adapt to the new home care routine, empowering them to develop healthy maternal competence. Data integration showed that the sample and subsample presented similar stress levels.
