At the outset, we draw a “soft” distinction between mixed methods and mixed
methodologies. To the extent that mixed methods rely on the joint exploitation of
qualitative and quantitative methods, this can occur within either a positivist/functionalist
or interpretive paradigm. However, we refer to this as a soft distinction because the
definitions we draw on frequently refer to elements of mixing methods and methodologies.
Furthermore, many scholars argue that moving between quantitative and qualitative
methods by definition implies a methodological shift, whether acknowledged or not. While
recognising that the boundary is “fuzzy”, we initially eschew questions of mixing
methodologies to focus on issues associated with the more straightforward application of
mixed methods, largely from a positivist/functionalist perspective. We then return to the
question of mixing methodologies. In particular, we pay attention to ongoing debates
regarding the compatibility of quantitative and qualitative methodologies within a single
study and the perceived possibilities for successfully combining methods with such
distinct epistemological and ontological positions (see also De Loo and Lowe in this special
issue for elaborated discussion on the contention of mixing methodologies).