Mixed methods research synthesis: definition, framework, and potential

By Mieke Heyvaert, B. Maes, Patrick Onghena. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 2011

260 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e007001d927d6534a29a9e2da3c01c1c198dc03a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

Ultra‐processed foods and the nutrition transition: Global, regional and national trends, food systems transformations and political economy drivers (2020, methodology): “tative and qualitative data sources required to address the aim, we adopted a mixed methods synthesis review method.(102,103) This combined (a) a quantitative analysis of worldwide trends and patterns in the apparent consumption of UPFs, including ‘risk ingredients’ linked”
Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) (2018, background): “Systematic reviews combining qualitative, quantitative, and/or mixed methods studies are more and more popular because of their potential for addressing complex evaluation questions that matter in clinical practice.(1,2) Indeed, including different types of studies in a review can provide a richer u”
Gamification in theory and action: A survey (2015, background): “…well-rounded understanding and ultimately a consensus on the conceptualization of an object of study by carefully describing and then comparing and contrasting an array of sources on the topic that may be qualitative, quantitative or mixed in nature (Jensen and Allen, 1996; Heyvaert et al., 2013).”
Teachers’ Everyday Professional Development (2016, methodology): “…research synthesis as one “in which researchers combine qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies, and apply a mixed methods approach in order to integrate those studies, for the broad purpose of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration” (Heyvaert et al., 2013, p. 662).”
Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence (2017, background): “In the field of review, mixing qualitative and quantitative evidence can be seen at two levels: study level and synthesis level [22].”
Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews (2020, unknown): “2,3,23 For data transformation, JBI recommends that quantitative data be qualitized, as codifying quantitative data is less error-prone than attributing numerical values to qualitative data.”
Critical Appraisal of Mixed Methods Studies (2013, background): “The authors of the present study take pragmatism as their MM philosophical stance, advocating the integration of quantitative and qualitative methods within a single study from a question-driven philosophy (cf. Heyvaert et al., 2013; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005b).”