Mixed methods research burst onto the scene around the beginning of the second millennium. After decades of intense dispute between supporters of the qualitative perspective and their quantitative counterparts—with both sides having grown deeply entrenched in their respective views—a complementary approach promising the possibility of integration had finally been proposed. By that time, however, the vast majority of researchers had committed to one stance or the other; very few of us argued that the two approaches could be complementary.

Since then, the number of publications, scientific meetings and other activities devoted to the mixed methods approach has increased exponentially throughout the world. At a substantive level, we are pleased to see that a growing number of fields are generating mixed methods research, and we are eager to assist in promoting this trend. But, naturally, the field has experienced some growing pains: a certain degree of heterogeneity in terms of approaches, differences of opinion regarding certain conceptualizations (for example, mixed methods vs. multimethods), numerous design taxonomies, multiple ways of integrating qualitative and quantitative elements, and various positions on how best to overcome the enduring lack of symmetry between qualitative and quantitative aspects. The methodological and substantive spectrum is vast and broad, possibly because the mixed methods approach has become “obligatory” for much research, not only in psychology but in practically all branches of the social sciences.

However, the quality of the mixed methods studies published to date is highly variable, and this aspect is extraordinarily important. Thus, it is essential that we study the quality of mixed methods research and develop some means for measuring it and not least because due to the rapid growth of this mode of research, the meaning of the term mixed methods has sometimes been lost in the shuffle. Overall, at this critical juncture, we must establish methodological order and introduce guidelines and protocols to support new researchers and anyone else who wishes conduct this sort of research.

The goal of this Research Topic is to publish studies whose methodological approaches include, as a central element, aspects related to the Gordian knot of mixed methods and which also incorporate secondary—but no less important—elements such as dataset transformation, analytical techniques and data integration, as well as studies in which systematic observation is used as a mixed method in itself, etc. Moreover, we will apply the requirements with great rigor and it will not be enough for authors to simply state that a study uses mixed methods; they must demonstrate that it actually does. To be accepted, articles must contain some sort of conceptual, methodological or application-related contribution.

Details for Authors:
Types of manuscripts: Original research, technological proposals, theoretical contributions, systematic reviews, meta-analyses.

Specific Areas: We call for theoretical and empirical contributions in a broad range of applied areas: clinical psychology, developmental psychology, school, ethology, physical activity, sport, work psychology, leisure, organizations, community psychology, social psychology, etc.

Keywords: Symmetry, Quantitizing, Qualitizing, Record Transformation, Qual-Quan Integration

Important Note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.