Gillian Maudsley1. 1. Division of Public Health, Whelan Building, Quadrangle, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GB, UK. depphenq@liverpool.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some important research questions in medical education and health services research need 'mixed methods research' (particularly synthesizing quantitative and qualitative findings). The approach is not new, but should be more explicitly reported. AIM: The broad search question here, of a disjointed literature, was thus: What is mixed methods research - how should it relate to medical education research?, focused on explicit acknowledgement of 'mixing'. METHODS: Literature searching focused on Web of Knowledge supplemented by other databases across disciplines. FINDINGS: Five main messages emerged: - Thinking quantitative and qualitative, not quantitative versus qualitative - Appreciating that mixed methods research blends different knowledge claims, enquiry strategies, and methods - Using a 'horses for courses' [whatever works] approach to the question, and clarifying the mix - Appreciating how medical education research competes with the 'evidence-based' movement, health services research, and the 'RCT' - Being more explicit about the role of mixed methods in medical education research, and the required expertise CONCLUSION: Mixed methods research is valuable, yet the literature relevant to medical education is fragmented and poorly indexed. The required time, effort, expertise, and techniques deserve better recognition. More write-ups should explicitly discuss the 'mixing' (particularly of findings), rather than report separate components.
BACKGROUND: Some important research questions in medical education and health services research need 'mixed methods research' (particularly synthesizing quantitative and qualitative findings). The approach is not new, but should be more explicitly reported. AIM: The broad search question here, of a disjointed literature, was thus: What is mixed methods research - how should it relate to medical education research?, focused on explicit acknowledgement of 'mixing'. METHODS: Literature searching focused on Web of Knowledge supplemented by other databases across disciplines. FINDINGS: Five main messages emerged: - Thinking quantitative and qualitative, not quantitative versus qualitative - Appreciating that mixed methods research blends different knowledge claims, enquiry strategies, and methods - Using a 'horses for courses' [whatever works] approach to the question, and clarifying the mix - Appreciating how medical education research competes with the 'evidence-based' movement, health services research, and the 'RCT' - Being more explicit about the role of mixed methods in medical education research, and the required expertise CONCLUSION: Mixed methods research is valuable, yet the literature relevant to medical education is fragmented and poorly indexed. The required time, effort, expertise, and techniques deserve better recognition. More write-ups should explicitly discuss the 'mixing' (particularly of findings), rather than report separate components.
Authors: Suzanne Murray; Kevin L Obholz; Andrew D Bowser; Jim Mortimer; Patrice Lazure; Eric Peterson; James O Armitage; B Douglas Smith Journal: J Community Support Oncol Date: 2014-09
Authors: Patrice Lazure; Robert C Bartel; Beverly M K Biller; Mark E Molitch; Stephen M Rosenthal; Judith L Ross; Brock D Bernsten; Sean M Hayes Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-07-24 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Maureen E Kelly; Jon Dowell; Adrian Husbands; John Newell; Siun O'Flynn; Thomas Kropmans; Fidelma P Dunne; Andrew W Murphy Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2014-12-21 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Suzanne Murray; Claire McLintock; Patrice Lazure; Morgan Peniuta; Sam Schulman; Suely M Rezende; James H Morrissey; Thomas Reiser; Ingrid Pabinger Journal: Res Pract Thromb Haemost Date: 2019-06-28