IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jpamgt/v41y2022i3p891-920.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defining And Assessing The Value Of Canonical Mixed Methods Research Designs In Public Policy And Public Administration

Author

Listed:
  • Chelsea Richwine
  • Qian Eric Luo
  • Zoë Thorkildsen
  • Nicholas J. Chong
  • Rebecca Morris
  • Burt S. Barnow
  • Sanjay K. Pandey

Abstract

Mixed methods research (MMR) designs are well suited for answering policy‐relevant questions, yet they remain underutilized in public policy and public administration scholarship. To provide a deeper understanding of the effective use of such designs, this article examines the prevalence of MMR in public policy and public administration journals, drawing a key distinction between “canonical” and “non‐canonical” MMR. Canonical mixed methods studies are characterized by (1) an explicit rationale for using mixed methods (i.e., a clear connection between methodological decisions and research questions), (2) effective integration of qualitative and quantitative strands, and (3) design transparency. We demonstrate the value of a canonical approach in public policy and public administration research by highlighting differences in quality between canonical and non‐canonical mixed methods studies. Our findings indicate that a canonical approach to mixed methods research makes positive contributions to methodological quality and knowledge development.

Suggested Citation

  • Chelsea Richwine & Qian Eric Luo & Zoë Thorkildsen & Nicholas J. Chong & Rebecca Morris & Burt S. Barnow & Sanjay K. Pandey, 2022. "Defining And Assessing The Value Of Canonical Mixed Methods Research Designs In Public Policy And Public Administration," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(3), pages 891-920, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:41:y:2022:i:3:p:891-920
    DOI: 10.1002/pam.22392
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22392
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/pam.22392?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Burt S. Barnow & Sanjay K. Pandey & Qian “Eric†Luo, 2024. "How Mixed-Methods Research Can Improve the Policy Relevance of Impact Evaluations," Evaluation Review, , vol. 48(3), pages 495-514, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:41:y:2022:i:3:p:891-920. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34787/home .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.