The State of Mixed Methods Research in Public Administration and Public Policy

• Date: 01 November 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12981
• Published date: 01 November 2018

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 78, Iss. 6, pp. 904–916. © 2018 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12981.

904 Public Administration Review • Novem ber | Dece mber 2 018

Kathryn Hendren

Qian Eric Luo

Sanjay K. Pandey

George Washington University

The State of Mixed Methods Research in Public

Administration and Public Policy

Sanjay K. Pandey is Shapiro Professor

of Public Policy and Public Administration

in the Trachtenberg School, George

Washington University. He is a recipient of

the NASPAA/ASPA Distinguished Research

Award and an elected fellow of the

National Academy of Public Administration.

E-mail: skpandey@gwu.edu

Qian (Eric) Luo is a PhD candidate in

public policy and public administration and

research associate in the Department of

Health Policy and Management, George

Washington University. His research focuses

on community health centers, the health

workforce, social determinants of health,

hospital and insurance market competition,

cost-effectiveness analysis, and mixed

methods.

E-mail: qluo@gwmail.gwu.edu

Kathryn Hendren is a PhD candidate

and research fellow in public policy and

public administration in the Trachtenberg

School, George Washington University. Her

research interests include international

development and public administration,

methodology and mixed methods, program

evaluation, and complexity and systems

thinking.

E-mail: kyeager@gwmail.gwu.edu

Abstract: Public administration scholars have publicized the benefits of mixed methods research and exhorted

researchers to embrace mixed methods research design. Despite increasing calls for and numbers of mixed methods

publications, thus far there has been no rigorous assessment of the value added by mixed methods research designs.

This article provides an assessment of mixed methods articles published in leading public administration and public

policy journals. The authors assess methodological quality, study purpose, and research design in order to determine the

added value of mixed methods research designs. Findings highlight the promise of mixed methods research in public

administration and public policy. Realizing this promise will require better appreciation of the added benefits of

mixed methods designs, dedicated effort to improve the qualitative component of mixed methods studies, and greater

attention to integrating the qualitative and quantitative components of mixed methods studies.

Evidence for Practice

• Increased use of mixed methods research can help us better understand and address complex public

administration and public policy issues.

• To derive the full benefits of mixed methods research, researchers need to improve the quality of qualitative

strands of mixed methods research studies and communicate methodological information in greater detail.

• To advance the use and value of mixed methods research, researchers and practitioners need to question the

assumptions, interpretations, and limitations of dominant quantitative methodologies.

Mixed methods research designs in public

administration scholarship—covering

a range of practical and theoretical

issues—are on the rise (e.g., Maor and Sulitzeanu-

Kenan 2016; Newman, Cherney, and Head 2016).

This rise is driven by a belief that mixed methods

research designs improve the quality of evidence and

build strong foundational knowledge. Proponents

claim that mixed methods research, when designed

and executed properly, can offset the weaknesses

inherent in qualitative and quantitative methods

and join their respective strengths to provide a more

in-depth understanding (Creswell and Plano Clark

2011; Greene, Caracelli, and Graham 1989; Johnson

and Onwuegbuzie 2004; Pluye and Hong 2014).

The purpose of this article is to investigate whether

and to what extent the purported benefits of mixed

methods research designs are being realized in public

administration and public policy scholarship.

There have been repeated calls in the last decade to

embrace mixed methods research designs in public

administration. Yang, Zhang, and Holzer (2008)

specifically call for using multiple paradigms and

employing mixed methods research designs in a single

study. Riccucci (2010), in her book on traditions

of inquiry in public administration, points out that

mixed methods research designs are especially valuable

for applied fields like public administration (for a

similar perspective, see Raimondo and Newcomer

2017). Perry (2012) echoes these sentiments and

calls for more multimethod research in public

administration, citing benefits such as the ability

to triangulate data, compensate for the weaknesses

inherent in individual methods, and add depth of our

understanding to findings.

We concur with these assessments of the potential

of mixed methods to add value by corroborating

evidence, illuminating perspectives, and balancing

the biases inherent in using qualitative or quantitative

methods alone. Despite these calls for and claims

about benefits, thus far there has been no systematic

assessment of whether and how mixed methods

research designs add value to public administration

and public policy research. This article carries out a

systematic assessment of the value of mixed methods

research for public administration and public policy.

Combining qualitative and quantitative methods

requires careful consideration of methodological

choices, ranging from questions of epistemic

appropriateness to the more practical questions of

the “cash value” of mixing methods. Researchers

undertaking mixed methods research must address

historical barriers to its widespread use, including the

Research Article