International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, Vol. 16, No 3, p. 1-11.

This is an abstract of the article which will appear soon on the Journal webpage.

ABSTRACT

A small subset of methodological literature has investigated ways that researchers have grappled with dissonant findings that emerge when quantitative and qualitative data and/or findings are compared in mixed methods research. Absent from this discussion is consideration of research when the dissonance emerges from a clash between results produced from quantitative analysis and the assumptions embedded in a theoretical framework. This methodological article reports on the findings from an exploratory content analysis of eleven empirical mixed methods articles that encountered dissonance during an initial stage and followed this stage with additional data collection and/or analysis. An in-depth case-based analysis exposed differences between those that addressed dissonance by adding a qualitative phase and those that added both a qualitative phase and one devoted to merging both qualitative and quantitative data, often through a joint display. Although the qualitative phase generally served to elaborate theoretical understanding, those reporting on mixed analysis were more likely to frame their findings as disputing assumptions from a theoretical framework. Reframing the discussion about dissonance in mixed methods research, findings suggest that researchers will benefit by considering the process of exploring dissonant findings as a series of steps rather than a single strategy. Findings contest the assumption that designing a research project with a theoretical framework rules out the possibility of a robust exploratory component.

Keywords: mixed methods research, mixed analysis, Initiation rationale, dissonance, joint display