{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016067329762815608, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.920634920634921, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Taking the Next Step: Mixed Methods Taking the Next Step: Mixed Methods Research in Organizational Systems Research in Organizational Systems

Mixed methods research combines theoretical and/or technical aspects of quantitative and qualitative research within a particular study. This paper traces the historical development of mixed methods research, and delineates current post-positivist and constructivist paradigmatic perspectives. We describe the two major positions of mixed method advocates: the dialectic and the pragmatic. We identify five purposes for mixing methods and eight types of mixed method studies. Grounded in mixed method inquiry literature, the authors examine the benefits and tenets of mixed methods research, analyze how it is currently being reported in three studies published in the Information Technology, Learning, & Performance Journal, and offer specific recommendations for clarifying written descriptions of methods used to collect and interpret data. We draw positive implications for the organizational systems field for clearly writing about mixed research methods in publications. Few examples exist in the fields of human resource development, distance education, and foreign language education, of intentionally using the inquiry literature on mixing qualitative and