Mixed and Multiple Methods

John H McKendrick, Scottish Poverty and Inequality Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Glossary
Analytical levels (analytical scales) Realms of enquiry, each of which is associated with a different geography, for example,
personal, familial, neighborhood, regional, national, and global. The objectives of enquiry and the manner in which structural
forces are relevant to enquiry and vary across these levels.
Ecological Fallacy The error of ascribing characteristics to individuals on the basis of where they live.
Epistemology Systems of thought, which describe different ways of viewing, understanding, and appraising the social world.
Multilevel modeling An approach to data analysis, which simultaneously allows the relative significance of different levels of
analysis to be ascertained, for example, by incorporating personal, familial, neighborhood, and structural variables in the
analysis.

Multimethod research is widely practiced in human geography. This approach encompasses the application of more than one
method to engage a research question. As will be demonstrated in this article, this deceptively simple description belies a wide range
of approaches to research.
Multimethod research is not new in geography and should be considered one of the defining features of the regional geography
paradigm that prevailed in the second half of the 19th Century and the first half of the 20th Century when geographers were con-
cerned to integrate diffuse insights and knowledge to better understand the essence of particular places. With the seemingly inex-
orable rise of specialism in human geography in the late 20th Century, it is perhaps inevitable that ways of “doing geography”
became more specialized too. The emergence of multimethod research, at least in part, was a reaction against the excesses of
specialization.
Toward the end of the 1990s, there was a growing interest in multimethod research in human geography with seminars, confer-
ence sessions, and special editions of journals debating this approach to research. Of particular note was the collection of papers on
“Multi-method research in population geography,” published in 1999 in The Professional Geographer, which arose from a one-day
workshop of the Population Geography Research Group (of the RGS-IBG) hosted at the University of Manchester in 1988. The cata-
lyst for this workshop/collection of papers and the wider debates on multimethod research was dissatisfaction with the entrench-
ment of researchers into either side of a qualitative/quantitative divide with the mainstreaming of qualitative research designs in
human geography being implicitlydand often explicitlydpositioned in opposition to quantitative research designs.
There has been little direct discussion of multimethod research in geography since the 1990s, although Livingston et al. have
reflected on the inherent value of multimethod research in geographical inquiry, and Gallaher and WinklePrins have appraised
its effective application; however, most scholars have been primarily concerned to use multimethod research as a means to an
end, with enriching geographical understanding being the central purpose. Furthermore, research methods textbooks in human
geography tend to comprise a series of separate chapters that introduce students to a specific quantitative research method or
a specific qualitative research method; multimethod research is not always discussed in these textbooks, and when it is, it is pre-
sented as but one option among a list of many. Thus, the multimethod debates of the 1990s appear to be peripheral to how students
are introduced to research. Although it is not at the fore of methodological debates, multimethod research continues to be widely
practiced by human geographers.

The Reach of Multimethod Research in Contemporary Human Geography

Given the formative debates in population geography, it is no surprise that multimethod research continues to be widely practiced
in this subdiscipline, particularly with regards to migration, but also to advance geographical understanding with regards to issues
such as population composition and superdiversity. The reach of multimethod research extends far beyond population geography,
with examples to be found in environmental geography, urban morphology, urban geography, political geography, social geog-
raphy, economic geography, transport geography, gender geography, cultural geography, geography of crime, and children’s
geographies.
Notably, multimethod research has also been used in studies that fuse together interests across the physical/human geography
divide, such as in Lopez, Heider, and Scheffran’s study of urbanization that employed GIS mapping of remote sensing and recorded
complaints about illegal settlements. Another example demonstrated by Bagheri involves the use of qualitative geographic

International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 2nd edition, Volume 9 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10291-4 125

126 Mixed and Multiple Methods

information systems, which aim to infuse qualitative data into geographical information systems. Panek, Pászto, and Perkins have
used multimethod approaches in a study that aimed to appraise traditional ways of practicing geography in student field course.

Two Examples of Multimethod Research in Human Geography

Bradford and McKendrick’s exploratory study of the commodification of children’s play space in the United Kingdom was one of the
early studies that purposively used a multimethod approach to achieve its research objectives. Fieldwork commenced with the aim
of reviewing developments in the commercial provision of playgrounds for young children in North West England. Key questions
were addressed with respect to social exclusion, children’s role as clients and consumers of services, family leisure, and children’s
“place” in the built environment. A carefully balanced and interlinked research design encompassing questionnaire surveys, inter-
views, field observations, and video recordings was administered with children, parents, service providers, and play center staff. In
summary, six commercial providers of children’s playgrounds were profiled, and research was conducted in 10 field sites in the
Greater Manchester area; 872 families were surveyed, of which 30 were interviewed (adults and children separately) and, in
turn, from which seven participated in a second interview. This second interview was based around the family’s video diary of
a day visit to a commercial playground. Themes, which cut-across each of the methods, emerged to shed insight into disabled chil-
dren’s experience of play space, children’s birthday parties, family decision-making, and the role of playgrounds in urban
landscapes.
Multimethod research has also been deployed to better understand the geopolitics of military-themed videogames, presenting
this as an aspect of everyday life that is of growing interest. Bos used 32 interviews (mainly men in North West England) and video
ethnographic data (“talk-based” and “play-based” data) in order to explore the ways in which media and popular culture shape
geopolitical identities. Recasting popular consumption as an event rather than an act, he explored the everyday happenings in
the playing of Call of Duty, the virtual war game. These resources are used to explore how players engage with geopolitical construc-
tions, the interaction of private, public, and virtual spheres, and the ways in which geopolitical encounters are contingent on wider
social, material, and technological contexts.

The Parameters of Multimethod Research

Mixed, Multi, or Multiple?
Leaving aside the grammatical questions of whether the concept should be hyphenated (e.g., multi-method), separated (multi
method), or joined (multimethod), and whether or not the concept should be abbreviated (i.e., multi method) or not (multiple
method), there is a substantive point to consider pertaining to the adjectival part of the concept.
Although a distinction is sometimes drawn between multimethod research and mixed-meth/od research, comprehending this
distinction is complicated in that the difference is articulated in two waysdin terms of either hybridity versus independence or
according to the character of components (whether combining across the qualitative/quantitative divide or within one of these
traditions). Less commonly, the distinction is drawn in terms of hybridity versus independence of method. Mixed-method research
is specifically used to describe hybrid applications in which two or more approaches are used concurrently (at the same stage in the
research, at the same time, in the same place, with the same group being researched). Hybridity can refer to a single research instru-
ment collecting different types of data, e.g., a survey comprising questions with fixed responses (amenable to quantitative data anal-
ysis) and questions with open responses (amendable to qualitative data analysis). Hybridity might also refer to using a single
research instrument to collect data, which are themselves amenable to both quantitative and qualitative data analyses, for example,
subjecting responses to open-ended questions to quantitative data analysis (frequency of response) and qualitative data analysis
(interpretative understanding of relationships and structure). When defined in opposition to mixed-method research as hybridity,
multimethod research describes the independent application of more than one method in a research design. More commonly in the
wider field of mixed method research, the distinction is drawn in terms of the character of the components. In such cases, mixed-
method research refers to studies that combine qualitative and quantitative methods, in contrast to multimethod research that
could, for example, refer to combining different qualitative methods in a particular study.
Whatever nomenclature is adopted, commentators would agree that multi/mixed-method research involves the intentional
deployment of more than one method in a research design.

Stage and Level (Scale)

Multimethod research is often staged and could be described more comprehensively as multimethod, multistage research. The
archetypical multimethod project is multistage in design, for example, the questionnaire survey (stage 1), which identifies key infor-
mants who are interviewed (stage 2) to explore details of key findings emerging from the survey.
More controversial is whether multimethod research should be used to describe research that spans more than one analytical level
(scale). Some geographers have argued that research should not be described as multimethod if it spans more than one analytical level.
Most concern here is directed at researchers transposing findings from areal levels (neighborhood, city, and so on) to social levels (indi-
viduals and households) and committing an ecological fallacy. These criticisms can be countered on two grounds. First, it is reasoned
 Mixed and Multiple Methods 127

that such research cannot be described as multimethod as the different components of this research (at different analytical levels) do not
address the same issues. This critique, however, rests on an overly narrow definition of a given research question in which research is not
considered to be whole if it involves an analysis over more than one analytical level. This approach is particularly limiting for geogra-
phers who may be more inclined than other social scientists to directly explore relationships across analytical levels, for example, making
sense of household behavior in the context of neighborhood norms. Similarly, and equally problematically, this critique also argues
against the premises of multilevel modeling. Second, this critique tends to assume that researchers working across analytical levels
will be prone to transposing results across levels. This wrongly makes the assumption that the researcher will transpose findings, as
opposed to using them to contextualize or inform understanding at other analytical levels. As for multistage research, a more compre-
hensive description for research involving more than one method across analytical levels is multimethod, multilevel research.

Multimethod Research, Multimethod Research Design, and Multimodal Research

The sophistication of the multimethod approach, or the ends to which it can be put, can be described as progressing through three
tiers, with each subsequent tier incorporating and extending the scope of the former.
First, at the most simplistic level, multimethod research is when more than one research method is used to address a research
problem. Second, multimethod research designs not only comprise more than one method, they also deliberately incorporate more
than one method in research that is consciously planned to capitalize on the strengths afforded from using complementary
approaches. Finally, multimodal research designs refer to situations when research is designed to deliberately embrace both qual-
itative and quantitative approaches.
The higher orders of this hierarchy are open to critique. Some might question the practical limits to which knowledge can be
advanced by bringing together findings from diverse methods (multimethod research design), while others might question the epis-
temological validity of embracing qualitative and quantitative approaches (multimodal research). These “key debates” are discussed
below.
Although it may be helpful to acknowledge the different degrees of complexity in mixed-method research, the seminal position
statement developed by Mertens et al., Future of Mixed Methods: A Five Year Projection to 2020 of the Mixed Methods International
Research Association, opines that all should be considered within the broad church that is mixed-method research.

Uses of Multimethod Research

There are four reasons why human geographers practice multimethod research, most of which comprise several dimensions.

Data
Unsurprisingly, most researchers refer to data considerations when accounting for their use of multimethod research.
First and foremost, multimethod research affords the possibility of achieving congruence through data triangulation, that is, to
enhance the credibility of research using different methods to generate similar, consistent, or convergent findings, thereby reaching
the same conclusions.
Second, multimethod research can be used to extend the comprehensiveness of research by combining methods, each of which
generates particular data, which when brought together are complementary and can broaden understanding of the issue at hand by
enriching, expanding, clarifying, or illustrating.
Third, multimethod research can be used to highlight meaningful inconsistencies between findings produced through different
approaches to the same research question. The objective in such cases is to reflect upon, understand, and explore why different real-
ities are constructed (and not to source “the truth”).
Fourth, explanation can be pursued through multimethod research. The objective from this perspective is not merely to extend
the knowledge base. Rather, the objective is to design a subsequent stage in the research to specifically seek explanation for emergent
findings (which may be unclear or controversial) from an earlier phase of the research.
Fifth, and in a similar vein to the fourth approach, multimethod research can be used to test hypotheses that emerge from an
earlier phase of research.
Finally, the emergence of “big data” and the reinvigoration of the quantitative research tradition in human geography that has
followed should not be viewed as a challenge to either the validity or utility of multimethod research. On the contrary, in times,
when there is increasing concern over “research impact” and the practical ends to which research can be put, the rise of “big
data” provides further impetus to multimethod research, where local contextualization is necessary to capitalize on the generalized
insights of “big data” analysis.

Philosophy of Scholarship
Multimethod research is consistent with traditional and some contemporary ideals of geographical scholarship.
First, the breadth of understanding that is provided by multimethod research is consistent with approaches to geographical
scholarship that preceded the systematic tradition, whereby geographers pursued knowledge in specialist fields such as population
128 Mixed and Multiple Methods

geography, economic geography, and so forth. More specifically, multimethod research was routinely used to construct geographical
understanding in regional geography. Second, multimethod research is also consistent with more recent concerns to “give voice” to
marginalized groups and to promote “polyvocal” research. Similarly, a commitment to ethnography on the grounds that offers
a depth to understanding through immersion in the field is inherently a commitment to multimethod research as participant obser-
vation is invariably buttressed by non-participant observation and document analysis.
Although a multiplicity of methods is implicated in these endeavors, research would only be understood as multimethod if it
involved the researcher actively using more than one method to explore research questions.

Epistemological Preferences
Multimethod research has been criticized by some on epistemological groundsdthere are three epistemological positions, which
range from being tolerant of multimethod research to advocating this approach.
First, from an aparadigmatic stance, practical decisions about research design and method should be influenced by the demands
of the research and not by philosophical assumptions. Epistemology should not determine practice. Second, a dialectical stance
acknowledges that philosophical assumptions inform research design and proposes that these assumptions should be intentionally
mixed to overcome limitations and partiality to produce more comprehensive and insightful research. Finally, a pragmatic stance
advocates an inclusive framework which embraces multiple assumptions (and diverse methods).
The most fundamental criticism of multimethod research is that the application of more than one method in research can under-
mine epistemological validity. Proponents of multimethod research have observed that deterministic (or at least conservative)
conjunctions of epistemology and method hold sway. In contrast, they argue that the range of methods that can be used within
any epistemological tradition is greater than is generally assumed. This expansive view of methodological possibilities should
not be interpreted as a claim that “all methods are equal.” On the contrary, Table 1 uses bold typeface to suggest that, for each
research tradition, some methods are more useful than others, and that the preferred method varies between research traditions.
Thus, the survey questionnaire is particularly useful for the positivist; the interview is likewise useful for the realist and the stand-
point theorist, those working within a humanistic perspective would favor experiential fieldwork, while the postmodernist would
be inclined to utilize “documented” sources. These conjunctions are, and should be, the foundation of most research endeavor. The
tendency to use particular approaches should not preclude the application of other methods, most obviously for circumstances
where data availability is a problem, but also for circumstances whereby “alternative” methods provide complementary insights.

Political
Finally, it should be recognized that the reasons for pursuing multimethod research may owe less to research design per se, than to
ulterior motives. First, as outlined above, some of those whose primary concerns are epistemological or with particular ideals of
geographical scholarship may be more inclined to pursue multimethod research to realize their goals. Second, multimethod
research may be used as a learning tool for new researchers, for example, using different methods to engage the same question
on geographical field courses. Third, those who commit to transformative research in which the geographer adopts the simultaneous
role of advocate/researcher and for whom the primary knowledge goal is social change have found that multimethod research is
often a fruitful approach to adopt, particularly when seeking both to capitalize on the power of the “academic expert” voice while
ensuring that the interests of marginalized groups are to the fore. Finally, multimethod research may be used to gain the confidence
of an audience. It has been argued that policymakers have been more wary of conclusions drawn from small sample, in-depth qual-
itative investigations; careful integration of complementary large-scale quantitative survey results may be helpful in gaining the trust
of an otherwise skeptical audience.

Styles of multimethod Research

Attempts to devise a typology of multi method research have been troubled by the number of factors against which multimethod
research can be categorized. The challenges in classifying mixed-method research are acknowledged by the Mixed Methods Interna-
tional Research Association, which encourages such work but caution that these classifications should be valued for their substantive
insights and not as a means to delimit the breadth of work that might be considered mixed method.
First, multimethod research can be classified according to the number of component studies/methods that are used.
Second, method type is a second basis for classification. The archetype multimethod research is the survey questionnaire
combined with the in-depth (key informant) interview; however, there is a wide range of multimethod research possibilities beyond
this, ranging from combining very different types of method (e.g., controlled field experiment and ethnographic participant obser-
vation) to combining methods that are merely slight variations of a methodological genre, for example, focus group interview data
with data from in-depth personal interviews. New digital technologies have increased the range of methods that might be incorpo-
rated in multimethod research.
Third, research can be distinguished according to whether methods are applied concurrently or sequentially. In concurrent
designs, data are collected to test for congruence, to collect complementary data, or to highlight meaningful inconsistencies. In
Table 1 How epistemology informs, rather than precludes, methodological strategy: Examples from migration studies.

Methods and application

Research tradition Objectives Migration example Survey/questionnaire Interview Fieldwork Nonreactive

Positivist Establish empirical (patterns, reasons for, and Mathematical modeling of Content analysis of Fieldwork survey in urban Comparative systematic
regularities, which are outcomes arising from) census migration data to responses to a structured fringe to identify suitable analysis of migrant and
assumed to be of general Counter urbanization provide a national overview interview to establish sites for “migrant” nonmigrant children’s
(universal) significance from SMSAs and trend projection why households decided residential developments writing about what they like
to migrate (based on interview?) most about their (new)
home.
Humanistic Valorize human experience ‘Return” migration of Detailed social attitudes In-depth interview to Ethnographic, participant Analysis of reported accounts
and seek to understand “American” Jewish questionnaire to establish explore the meaning of observation to share the (autobiography, speeches,
the meaning, value, and families to Israel and understand the this migration experience emotions, experiences magazine articles) of return
human significance of personal context of to each individual migrant and significance of this migration, to situate the
events (nonfunctional reasons for) particular migration personal significance of the
this migration act in its wider
sociopolitical context.
Realist Identify the structures, Migration associated with Expansion method data In-depth interview with Participant observation Interpretation of a series of
which generate outcomes decentralization of modeling, which being senior civil servants to within the circle of decision- internal Departmental
via mechanisms (necessary government departments attentive to context, enables uncover the underlying makers to establish the briefing papers to chart the
causal powers) under from London to other the specificities of each processes behind these processes, which contrive temporal development (life
specific contingent parts of Britain department’s migration to departmental migrations to produce the resultant course) of the processes at
conditions be isolated from the general migration. work.
experience.
(Feminist) Standpoint Knowledge is socially Migration experiences of Implementation of a survey, Focus group interview to Unobtrusive observation of Interpretation of experiences
Theory constructed. Establish women partners (of) male designed by women using share and rationalize family processes involved contained with letters
a successor science in company executives their (familiar) language migration experiences in these migrations, commissioned for
which unprivileged to generate an overview among the group undertaken while fulfilling a women’s journal on the
knowledge (i.e., women’s) of migration experiences a service sector function subject of “Me and my
is recognised and valorised that they collectively (removals, estate agency partner on the move”

Mixed and Multiple Methods

deem to be important. house search, mortgage
lender, etc.)
Postmodernist Establish that the multiple Migration of elite “third Log-linear modeling of In-depth interview with Unobtrusive access to Unpack autobiographies,
positioning of the author world” women migration data to estimate the women to “unpack” migrant’s experiences via a personal journals, and/or
(or reader) has influenced the significance of their rationalizations of service function (e.g., labor letters of migrants, which
the production (or different “positions” on their migrations market consultant, int. discuss the migration
interpretation) of the the propensity to migrate. removal contractor) experience.
narrative

Source: McKendrick, J. H. (1999) Multi-method research: an introduction to its application in population geography. Professional Geographer 51(1), 40–49.

129
130 Mixed and Multiple Methods

sequential designs, later strands can fulfill each of these goals or they can be used to explain or test the findings of the previous
strand.
There may also be grounds for further subclassification by juxtaposing timing and method type, for example, distinguishing the
large-scale survey, which precedes the key informant interview (perhaps to probe for explanation for why there is an association
between survey variables) from the key informant interview, which precedes the large-scale survey (perhaps when the interview
is used to generate response options for survey questions).
Fourth, the relative importance of the respective methods in multimethod research can be used as a basis for classification.
Although all methods make an important contribution to the research, some components of the multimethod research may be
more dominant or may be deemed to be more important to the overall project. On the other hand, the component parts may
be considered to be of equal worth.
Fifth, multimethod research can be distinguished according to the point at which findings are integrated, that is, throughout the
study or kept separate until the end. Notably, there is an expectation that findings will be integrated into multimethod research.
Sixth, multimethod research can vary according to whether it has independence or interdependence between methods. That is,
whether subsequent methods are applied without reference to preceding methods or whether subsequent methods follow on from
and develop preceding methods. On the one hand, it might be argued that independence is needed to ensure that results are not
influenced by initial research. In contrast, it could be argued that interdependency is needed to ensure that the full complexity of
a research problem is addressed.
Seventh, whether the research is undertaken by a team (perhaps with their own methodological specialisms) or by a sole
researcher (by necessity, with competence across methods) is also used as a basis to classify multimethod research.
Eighth, a distinction can be drawn between a “multimethod project” and a project or program of research that utilizes multiple
methods. Although both may pursue the same methods to the same ends, in the former, the multimethod work is designed as
a single project, whereas in the latter, the second-stage research builds upon the work of an earlier research project.
Ninth, many classifications of multimethod research make reference to whether the design works within or across methods. As
discussed above for hybridity, “within method” multimethod research is when a single research instrument collects different types
of data or collects data, which is amenable to both quantitative and qualitative data analyses. “Across method” multimethod
research is that in which different types of data are collected through contrasting research methods.
Tenth, the nature of the multiple in multimethod research can vary. There is a tendency to literally interpret “method” as “tech-
nique” when discussing multimethod research. However, it should be acknowledged that the multiple in question could pertain to
how the method is applied, that is, the research could use multiple sampling frames, data sources, or analytical techniques.
Finally, and as was also discussed previously, multimethod research can be applied within or across analytical levels.

Weaknesses of Multimethod Research

The first weakness with multimethod research is to acknowledge that it is more demanding in terms of time, financial cost, and
researcher skills than single method applications. Not all researchers are equally comfortable or confident in applying a range of
methods. In particular, this makes multimethod research a less realistic proposition for small scale research, such as that required
of undergraduate dissertations.
Second, the pursuit of triangulation for congruence makes it difficult to deal with disparity between datasets. In particular, there
is a need to avoid the tendency to try to identify which set of data is the most valid.
Third, proponents of multimethod research should avoid the tendency to present “breadth” of study as an inherent virtue. While
the search for more comprehensive understanding is a laudable goal that could be achieved through multimethod research, multi-
method research is only a virtue if the design affords the subsequent/concurrent method to add substantially to what is known from
other components of the research. Similarly, it should not be assumed that measurement error will always be reduced through mul-
timethod research.
Fourth, there is a danger that, in seeking to capitalize upon the complementary strengths of different methods, the pursuit of
multimethod research encourages a more limited application of particular methods than might otherwise prevail, as each is utilized
according to an a priori understanding of its specific strengths.

Human Geography and Wider Debates on Mixed-Method Research in the Academy

The practice of what is more widely known as mixed-method research in the social sciences has been enhanced with the establish-
ment of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research since 2007, the formation of the Mixed Methods International Research Association in
2013 and the relaunch of the International Journal of Multiple Research Methods in 2017. Although not to the fore, geographical issues
have been of interest, such as Charman et al.’s work on measuring the township informal economy in South Africa and the special
edition on migration in 2019 in the Journal of Mixed Methods Research.
The maturing of the practice has been accompanied by several key reviews, both in the Journal of Mixed Methods Research and the
Future of Mixed Methods: A Five Year Projection to 2020 of the Mixed Methods International Research Association. This position state-
ment makes specific reference to human geography, asserting that multimethod research is consistent with the aspirations of a field
 Mixed and Multiple Methods 131

to place research resources in service of communities and to fuse the physical and human, quantitative and qualitative. In something
of an overstatement, it is claimed that human geography claims to be an “inherently [mixed method] practice.” This view suggests
that closer engagement of human geography with the wider body of mixed method specialists would be mutually beneficial, with
geographers set to gain from the priority themes identified by the methodologists, that is, using multimethod for social justice,
improving teaching, professional development, and embracing wider methodological advances in multimethod frameworks.
Multimethod research continues to be something of an absent presence within human geography. That is, it is widely practiced
but is not openly discussed in methodological debates. Multimethod research presents a range of opportunities, both substantive
and strategic, and methodologically is an approach that is both tenable and viable. Multimethod research fulfills a number of
research objectives are consistent with traditional models of scholarship, offers a model of research which destabilizes methodo-
logical dualisms, and, perhaps most importantly of all, provides the means to improve the effectiveness with which these issues
are addressed.

See Also: Quantitative Methodologies.

Further Reading

Bagheri, N., 2014. What qualitative GIS maps tell and don’t tell: insights from mapping women in Tehran’s public spaces. J. Cult. Geogr. 31, 166–178.
Charman, A.J., Petersen, L.M., Piper, L.E., Liedeman, R., Legg, T., 2017. Small area census approach to measure the township informal economy in South Africa. J. Mix. Methods
Res. 11, 36–58.
Fetters, M.D., Molina-Azorin, J.F., 2017. The journal of mixed methods research starts a new decade: perspectives of past editors on the current state of the field and future
directions. J. Mix. Methods Res. 11, 423–432.
Gallaher, C.M., WinklerPrins, A.M., 2016. Effective use of mixed methods in African livelihoods research. Afr. Geogr. Rev. 35, 83–93.
Gamlen, A., 2012. 15 Mixing methods in research on diaspora policies. In: Vargas-Silva, C. (Ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Migration. Edward Elgar Publishing,
pp. 319–344.
Graham, E., 1999. Breaking out: the opportunities and challenges of multi-method research in population geography. Prof. Geogr. 51, 76–89.
Hoggart, K., Lees, L., Davies, A., 2002. Researching Human Geography. Arnold, London.
Kochan, D., 2016. (Re) placing migrants’ mobility: a multi-method approach to integrating space and mobility in the study of migration. Migr. Stud. 4, 215–237.
Kuliga, S., Standfest, M., Bielik, M., Schneider, S., König, R., Donath, D., Schmitt, G., 2017. From Real to Virtual and Back: a multi-method approach for investigating the impact of
urban morphology on human spatial experiences. In: Yamu, C., Poplin, A., Devisch, O., De Roo, G. (Eds.), The Virtual and the Real in Planning and Urban Design. Routledge,
London, pp. 151–169.
Livingston, K., Padilla, M., Scott, D., Colón-Burgos, J.F., Reyes, A.M., Varas-Díaz, N., 2016. Methods of mapping ethnographic data on migration, tourism labor, and health risk in
the Dominican Republic. Fla. Geogr. 47, 1–16.
Lopez, J.M.R., Heider, K., Scheffran, J., 2017. Frontiers of urbanization: identifying and explaining urbanization hot spots in the south of Mexico City using human and remote
sensing. Appl. Geogr. 79, 1–10.
McKendrick, J.H., 1999. Multi-method research: an introduction to its application in population geography. Prof. Geogr. 51, 40–49.
McKendrick, J.H., Bradford, M.G., Fielder, A.V., 2000. Kid customer? Commercialisation of playspace and commodification of childhood. Childh. Glob. J. Child Res. 7, 295–315.
Mertens, D.M., Bazeley, P., Bowleg, L., Fielding, N., Maxwell, J., Molina-Azorin, J.F., Niglas, K., 2016. The Future of Mixed Methods: A Five Year Projection to 2020. MMIRA.
Available online. https://mmira.wildapricot.org/resources/Documents/MMIRA%20task%20force%20report%20Jan2016%20final.pdf.
Pánek, J., Pászto, V., Perkins, C., 2018. Flying a kite: playful mapping in a multidisciplinary field-course. J. Geogr. High. Educ. 42, 317–336.

Related Websites

Mixed Methods International Research Association: http://www.mmira.wildapricot.org/.

Journal of Mixed Methods Research: https://journals.sagepub.com/home/mmr.