University of Nebraska - Lincoln University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Faculty Publications, Department of Psychology Psychology, Department of
2005
Mixed Methods Research Designs in Counseling Psychology Mixed Methods Research Designs in Counseling Psychology
William E. Hanson
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
, whanson@purdue.edu
John W. Creswell
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
, jcreswell1@unl.edu
Vicki L. Plano Clark
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
, vicki.planoclark@uc.edu
Kelly S. Petska
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
J. David Creswell
University of California, Los Angeles
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/psychfacpub
Part of the Psychiatry and Psychology Commons
Hanson, William E.; Creswell, John W.; Plano Clark, Vicki L.; Petska, Kelly S.; and Creswell, J. David, "Mixed
Methods Research Designs in Counseling Psychology" (2005).
Faculty Publications, Department of
Psychology
. 373.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/psychfacpub/373
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Psychology, Department of at
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications,
Department of Psychology by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
Over the past 25 years, numerous calls for increased meth-
odological diversity and alternative research methods have
been made (Gelso, 1979; Goldman, 1976; Howard, 1983).
These calls have led to important discussions about incorpo-
rating qualitative methods in counseling research and includ-
ing qualitative studies in traditional publication outlets (Hosh-
mand, 1989; Maione & Chenail, 1999; Morrow & Smith, 2000).
They have also led to discussions about integrating quantita-
tive and qualitative methods, commonly referred to as mixed
methods research.
In the social sciences at large, mixed methods research has
become increasingly popular and may be considered a le-
gitimate, stand-alone research design (Creswell, 2002, 2003;
Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989; Tashakkori & Teddlie,
1998, 2003). It may be dened as “the collection or analysis
of both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study in
which the data are collected concurrently or sequentially, are
given a priority, and involve the integration of the data at one
or more stages in the process of research” (Creswell, Plano
Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003, p. 212). When both quanti-
tative and qualitative data are included in a study, researchers
may enrich their results in ways that one form of data does not
allow (Brewer & Hunter, 1989; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998).
Using both forms of data, for example, allows researchers to
simultaneously generalize results from a sample to a popula-
tion and to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon
of interest. It also allows researchers to test theoretical mod-
els and to modify them based on participant feedback. Results
of precise, instrument-based measurements may, likewise, be
augmented by contextual, eld-based information (Greene &
Caracelli, 1997).
Despite the availability of mixed-methods-related books,
chapters, and journal articles, virtually nothing has been writ-
ten about mixed methods research designs in applied psy-
chology, generally, or in counseling psychology, specically.
Cursory examination of the three editions of the Handbook of
Counseling Psychology (e.g., Brown & Lent, 2000), of popular
research design texts (e.g., Heppner, Kivlighan, & Wampold,
1999), and of mainstream, peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Jour-
nal of Counseling & Development, The Counseling Psychologist) re-
inforces this assertion. The general absence of discussions on
mixed methods research designs may be due to a number of
factors, including the historical precedent of favoring quanti-
tative and experimental methods in psychology (Gergen, 2001;
Waszak & Sines, 2003), the difculty in learning and applying
both types of methods (Behrens & Smith, 1996; Ponterotto &
Published in Journal of Counseling Psychology 52:2 (2005), pp. 224–235; doi 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.224
Copyright © 2005 American Psychological Association. Used by permission.
“This article may not exactly replicate the nal version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.”
An earlier version of this article was presented at the 111th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, August 2003. The authors thank Patricia Cerda and Carey Pawlowski, who assisted in identifying
and locating published mixed methods studies.
Submitted October 27, 2004; revised December 6, 2004; accepted December 10, 2004.
Mixed Methods Research Designs in Counseling Psychology
William E. Hanson, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
John W. Creswell, Department of Educational Psychology and Ofce of Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research,
University of Nebraska–Lincoln, and Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan
Vicki L. Plano Clark, Department of Educational Psychology, Ofce of Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research,
and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Kelly S. Petska, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
J. David Creswell, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles
Corresponding authors — William E. Hanson, Counseling Psychology Program, 228 TEAC, University of Nebraska–Lincoln,
Lincoln, NE 68588-0345, email whanson1@unl.edu , and John W. Creswell, Department of Educational Psychology,
241 TEAC, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0345, email jcreswell1@unl.edu
Abstract
With the increased popularity of qualitative research, researchers in counseling psychology are expanding their methodologies
to include mixed methods designs. These designs involve the collection, analysis, and integration of quantitative and qualita-
tive data in a single or multiphase study. This article presents an overview of mixed methods research designs. It denes mixed
methods research, discusses its origins and philosophical basis, advances steps and procedures used in these designs, and iden-
ties 6 different types of designs. Important design features are illustrated using studies published in the counseling literature.
Finally, the article ends with recommendations for designing, implementing, and reporting mixed methods studies in the litera-
ture and for discussing their viability and continued usefulness in the eld of counseling psychology.
224
Mi xe d Me th o ds Re s ea Rch de sig ns in co u ns e li n g Psy cho log y 225
Grieger, 1999), and the general lack of attention given to di-
verse methodological approaches in graduate education and
training (Aiken, West, Sechrest, & Reno, 1990). However, with
so few resources available, answers to the following types of
questions remain elusive and somewhat difcult to nd: What
is mixed methods research? What types of mixed methods
studies have been published in counseling? How should mixed
methods studies be conducted and reported in the literature?
The purpose of this article is to help answer these questions
by introducing mixed methods research designs to counseling
psychologists.
1
Our goal is to help counseling researchers and
educators become more familiar with mixed methods termi-
nology, procedures, designs, and key design features. Articles
by Goodyear, Tracey, Claiborn, Lichtenberg, and Wampold
(2005) and Beck (2005) introduce two specic methodological
approaches—ideographic concept mapping and ethnographic
decision tree modeling, respectively—and serve to further fa-
miliarize researchers and educators with mixed methods re-
search designs.
The present article is divided into three sections. In the rst
section, we present an overview of mixed methods research,
including its origins and philosophical basis, rationales, ba-
sic steps in designing a mixed methods study, and procedural
notations. We also present a typology for classifying different
types of mixed methods research designs. In the second sec-
tion, we use mixed methods studies published in counseling
to illustrate each of the designs and key design features dis-
cussed. In the third and nal section, we offer recommenda-
tions for conducting and publishing mixed methods research.
Overview of Mixed Methods Research
The historical evolution of mixed methods research has
not been traced completely by any one author or source, al-
though Datta (1994) and Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998, 2003)
have identied many of the major developmental milestones.
The brief overview presented here attempts to incorporate and
build on their analyses.
Origins and Philosophical Basis
The use of multiple data collection methods dates back to
the earliest social science research. It was, however, Camp-
bell and Fiske’s (1959) study of the validation of psycho-
logical traits that brought multiple data collection methods
into the spotlight. In their classic study, the multitrait-multi-
method matrix was designed to rule out method effects; that
is, to allow one to attribute individual variation in scale scores
to the personality trait itself rather than to the method used
to measure it. Although Campbell and Fiske focused on col-
lecting multiple quantitative data, their work was instrumen-
tal in encouraging the use of multiple methods and the collec-
tion of multiple forms of data in a single study (Sieber, 1973).
Taken one step further, the term triangulation, borrowed from
military naval science to signify the use of multiple reference
points to locate an object’s exact position, was later used to
suggest that quantitative and qualitative data could be com-
plementary. Each could, for example, “uncover some unique
variance which otherwise may have been neglected by a single
method” (Jick, 1979, p. 603).
Over time, mixed methods research has gradually gained
momentum as a viable alternative research method. Over the
past 15 years, at least 10 mixed methods textbooks have been
published (Bamberger, 2000; Brewer & Hunter, 1989; Bryman,
1988; Cook & Reichardt, 1979; Creswell, 2002, 2003; Greene
& Caracelli, 1997; Newman & Benz, 1998; Reichardt & Ral-
lis, 1994; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Recently, the Hand-
book of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research was pub-
lished (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). In addition, journals such
as Field Methods and Quantity and Quality are devoted to pub-
lishing mixed methods research. International online journals
(see Forum: Qualitative Social Research at http://qualitative-re-
search.ne) and Web sites (e.g., http://www.u.edu/~bridges/
people.htm) provide easy access, resources, and hands-on ex-
periences for interested researchers. Despite this growth and
development, a number of controversial issues and debates
have limited the widespread acceptance of mixed methods
research.
Two important and persistent issues, the paradigm-method
t issue and the “best” paradigm issue, have inspired consid-
erable debate regarding the philosophical basis of mixed meth-
ods research. The paradigm-method t issue relates to the
question “Do philosophical paradigms (e.g., postpositivism,
constructivism) and research methods have to t together?”
This issue rst surfaced in the 1960s and 70s, primarily as a
result of the increasing popularity of qualitative research and
the identication of philosophical distinctions between tradi-
tional postpositivist and naturalistic research. Guba and Lin-
coln (1988), for example, identied paradigm differences
between postpositivist philosophical assumptions and natu-
ralistic assumptions in terms of epistemology (how we know
what we know), ontology (the nature of reality), axiology (the
place of values in research), and methodology (the process of
research). This led to a dichotomy between traditional inquiry
paradigms and naturalistic paradigms.
Some researchers have argued, for example, that a postpos-
itivist philosophical paradigm, or worldview, could be com-
bined only with quantitative methods and that a naturalistic
worldview could be combined only with qualitative meth-
ods. This issue has been referred to as the “paradigm debate”
(Reichardt & Rallis, 1994). From this perspective, mixed meth-
ods research was viewed as untenable (i.e., incommensura-
ble or incompatible) because certain paradigms and methods
could not “t” together legitimately (Smith, 1983). Reichardt
and Cook (1979) countered this viewpoint, however, by sug-
gesting that different philosophical paradigms and meth-
ods were compatible. In their article, they argued that para-
digms and methods are not inherently linked, citing a variety
of examples to support their position (e.g., quantitative pro-
cedures are not always objective, and qualitative procedures
are not always subjective). Indeed, the perspective exists to-
day that multiple methods may be used in a single research
study to, for example, take advantage of the representative-
ness and generalizability of quantitative ndings and the in-
depth, contextual nature of qualitative ndings (Greene &
Caracelli, 2003).
The best paradigm issue relates to the question “What phil-
osophical paradigm is the best foundation for mixed methods
research?” This issue, like the paradigm-method t issue, has
multiple perspectives (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). One per-
1. We thank Beth Haverkamp for her helpful conceptual feedback on this article.
226 ha ns o n e t a l. in Jo urn al of Co u ns e li n g Psy Cho log y 52 (2005)
spective is that mixed methods research uses competing par-
adigms intentionally, giving each one relatively equal foot-
ing and merit. This “dialectical” perspective recognizes that
using competing paradigms gives rise to contradictory ideas
and contested arguments, features of research that are to be
honored and that may not be reconciled (Greene & Caracelli,
1997, 2003). Such oppositions reect different ways of making
knowledge claims, and we advocate for honoring and respect-
ing the different paradigmatic perspectives that researchers
bring to bear on a study. In an earlier publication, we iden-
tied six different mixed methods research designs and dis-
cussed how the underlying theoretical lenses, or paradigms,
may differ, depending on the type of design being used (Cre-
swell et al., 2003). This perspective maintains that mixed meth-
ods research may be viewed strictly as a “method,” thus
allowing researchers to use any number of philosophical foun-
dations for its justication and use. The best paradigm is de-
termined by the researcher and the research problem—not by
the method.
Another perspective is that pragmatism is the best para-
digm for mixed methods research (Tashakkori & Teddlie,
2003). Pragmatism is a set of ideas articulated by many peo-
ple, from historical gures such as Dewey, James, and Pierce
to contemporaries such as Murphy, Rorty, and West. It draws
on many ideas including using “what works,” using diverse
approaches, and valuing both objective and subjective knowl-
edge (Cherryholmes, 1992). Rossman and Wilson (1985) were
among the rst to associate pragmatism with mixed meth-
ods research. They differentiated between methodologi-
cal purists, situationalists, and pragmatists. The purists be-
lieved that quantitative and qualitative methods derived
from different, mutually exclusive, epistemological and on-
tological assumptions about research. The situationalists be-
lieved that both methods have value (similar to the dialectical
perspective mentioned earlier) but that certain methods are
more appropriate under certain circumstances. The pragma-
tists, in contrast, believed that, regardless of circumstances,
both methods may be used in a single study. For many mixed
methods researchers, then, pragmatism has become the an-
swer to the question of what is the best paradigm for mixed
methods research. Recently, Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003)
have attempted to formally link pragmatism and mixed meth-
ods research, arguing that, among other things, the research
question should be of primary importance—more important
than either the method or the theoretical lens, or paradigm,
that underlies the method. At least 13 other prominent mixed
methods researchers and scholars also believe that pragma-
tism is the best philosophical basis of mixed methods research
(Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003).
Rationales, Basic Steps in Designing a Mixed Methods Study, and
Procedural Notations
Rationales. In the mid-1980s, scholars began expressing con-
cern that researchers were indiscriminately mixing quantita-
tive and qualitative methods and forms of data without ac-
knowledging or articulating defensible reasons for doing so
(Greene et al., 1989; Rossman & Wilson, 1985). As a result, dif-
ferent reasons, or rationales, for mixing both forms of data in
a single study were identied. Greene et al. (1989), for exam-
ple, identied a number of rationales for combining data col-
lection methods. These rationales went above and beyond
the traditional notion of triangulation. Specically, quanti-
tative and qualitative methods could be combined to use re-
sults from one method to elaborate on results from the other
method (complementarity), use results from one method to
help develop or inform the other method (development; see
Goodyear et al., 2005, and Beck, 2005), recast results from one
method to questions or results from the other method (initia-
tion), and extend the breadth or range of inquiry by using dif-
ferent methods for different inquiry components (expansion).
Thus, they provided not only rationales for mixing methods
and forms of data but also names for them.
Recently, mixed methods researchers have expanded
the reasons for conducting a mixed methods investiga-
tion (Mertens, 2003; Newman, Ridenour, Newman, & De-
Marco, 2003; Punch, 1998). We agree with Mertens (2003)
and Punch (1998), who suggested that mixed methods in-
vestigations may be used to (a) better understand a research
problem by converging numeric trends from quantitative
data and specic details from qualitative data; (b) identify
variables/constructs that may be measured subsequently
through the use of existing instruments or the development
of new ones; (c) obtain statistical, quantitative data and re-
sults from a sample of a population and use them to iden-
tify individuals who may expand on the results through
qualitative data and results; and (d) convey the needs of in-
dividuals or groups of individuals who are marginalized or
underrepresented.
For a comprehensive, in-depth discussion of rationale is-
sues, the reader is referred to Newman et al. (2003).
Basic steps in designing a mixed methods study. Designing a
mixed methods study involves a number of steps, many of
which are similar to those taken in traditional research meth-
ods. These include deciding on the purpose of the study, the
research questions, and the type of data to collect. Designing
a mixed methods study, however, also involves at least three
additional steps. These include deciding whether to use an
explicit theoretical lens, identifying the data collection pro-
cedures, and identifying the data analysis and integration
procedures (Creswell, 1999; Greene & Caracelli, 1997; Mor-
gan, 1998; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). These steps occur
more or less sequentially, with one informing and inuenc-
ing the others.
The rst step involves deciding whether to use an explicit
theoretical lens. As used here, the term theoretical lens refers
to the philosophical basis, or paradigm, (e.g., postpositivism,
constructivism, feminism) that underlies a researcher’s study
and subsequent methodological choices (Crotty, 1998). It is an
umbrella term that may be distinguished from broader epis-
temologies (e.g., objectivism, subjectivism), from narrower
methodologies (e.g., experimental research), and from, nar-
rower still, methods (e.g., random sampling, interviews). Rec-
ognizing that all researchers bring implicit theories and as-
sumptions to their investigations, researchers at this initial
stage must decide whether they are going to view their study
from a paradigmatic base (e.g., postpositivism, constructiv-
ism) that does not necessarily involve a goal of social change
or from an advocacy-based lens such as feminism. Our use of
the term advocacy is similar to what Ponterotto (2005) refers to
as a “critical/emancipatory” paradigm. In any event, the out-
come of this decision informs and inuences the methodology
and the methods used in the study, as well as the use of the
study’s ndings.
Mi xe d Me th o ds Re s ea Rch de sig ns in co u ns e li n g Psy cho log y 227
If, for example, a feminist lens is used in a mixed meth-
ods study, then the gendered perspective provides a deduc-
tive lens that informs the research questions asked at the be-
ginning of the study and the advocacy outcomes advanced at
the end (cf. Mertens, 2003). Within the eld of counseling psy-
chology, the research question might be “How does a coun-
selor’s level of self-disclosure affect a client’s perception of
empowerment?” Answering this question may lead to more
empowering, research-informed, counselor-client interactions
and to overt attempts to change how counselors are trained
and supervised.
The second step involves deciding how data collection will
be implemented and prioritized. Implementation refers to the
order in which the quantitative and qualitative data are col-
lected, concurrently or sequentially, and priority refers to the
weight, or relative emphasis, given to the two types of data,
equal or unequal (Creswell et al., 2003; Morgan, 1998). A coun-
seling researcher could, in the example above, collect data se-
quentially, rst collecting quantitative survey data related to
clients’ postsession levels of perceived empowerment and
then collecting qualitative interview data. The interview data
could then be used to corroborate, refute, or augment ndings
from the survey data. As a result, priority in this hypotheti-
cal study would be unequal. Unequal priority occurs when a
researcher emphasizes one form of data more than the other,
starts with one form as the major component of a study, or col-
lects one form in more detail than the other (Morgan, 1998).
Figure 1 shows many of the options related to this step.
The third step involves deciding the point at which data
analysis and integration will occur. In mixed methods stud-
ies, data analysis and integration may occur by analyzing
the data separately, by transforming them, or by connecting
the analyses in some way (Caracelli & Green, 1993; Onwueg-
buzie & Teddlie, 2003; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). A coun-
seling researcher could, for example, analyze the quantitative
and qualitative data separately and then compare and con-
trast the two sets of results in the discussion. As an alterna-
tive strategy, themes that emerged from the qualitative inter-
view data could be transformed into counts or ratings and
subsequently compared to the quantitative survey data. An-
other option would be to connect the data analyses. To do this,
the researcher could analyze the survey data, create a categor-
ical variable that helps explain the outcome variance, and con-
duct follow-up interviews with individuals who were repre-
sentative of each of the categories. For example, on the basis of
results from the survey data, a typology of empowering and
disempowering counselor self-disclosures, or levels of self-dis-
closure, could be developed. The researcher could then inter-
view a subsample of clients (e.g., some who felt empowered
and some who felt disempowered). In this way, results from
the quantitative analysis would be connected to the qualitative
data collection and analysis, primarily by aiding in the iden-
tication and selection of individuals to participate in the fol-
low-up interviews.
Procedural notations. Reminiscent of the notation system de-
veloped by Campbell and Stanley (1966), which used Xs and
Figure 1. Options related to mixed methods data collection procedures. QUAN = quantitative data
was prioritized; QUAL = qualitative data was prioritized; qual = lower priority given to the quali-
tative data; quan = lower priority given to the quantitative data.
