Suchergebnisse

AbstractMixed methods research (MMR) designs are well suited for answering policy‐relevant questions, yet they remain underutilized in public policy and public administration scholarship. To provide a deeper understanding of the effective use of such designs, this article examines the prevalence of MMR in public policy and public administration journals, drawing a key distinction between "canonical" and "non‐canonical" MMR. Canonical mixed methods studies are characterized by (1) an explicit rationale for using mixed methods (i.e., a clear connection between methodological decisions and research questions), (2) effective integration of qualitative and quantitative strands, and (3) design transparency. We demonstrate the value of a canonical approach in public policy and public administration research by highlighting differences in quality between canonical and non‐canonical mixed methods studies. Our findings indicate that a canonical approach to mixed methods research makes positive contributions to methodological quality and knowledge development.