Mixed Methodology

  • Alison MackeyEmail author
  • Lara Bryfonski


There has been a slow but steady increase in the number of mixed methods research studies in the social sciences over the last decade (see Creswell, A concise introduction to mixed methods research, SAGE, 2015) as well as in the applied linguistics literature in general. A major advantage of mixed methods research is the ability to gain a rich, complete picture of the phenomenon under investigation, usually through the triangulation of data obtained through different qualitative sources with descriptive and quantitative data. The careful combination of both approaches can allow the research to examine a problem from a range of complementary angles. In this chapter we demonstrate how different approaches can be used together in applied linguistics research and provide practical advice on how to conduct a mixed methods study along with some suggestions for design and data analysis.


Mixed methods Design Methodology Qualitative Quantitative Second language learning 


  1. Abbuhl, R., & Mackey, A. (2015). Second language acquisition research methods. In K. King & Y. Lai (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 10. Research methods in language and education (3rd ed.). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Cekaite, A. (2007). A child’s development of interactional competence in a Swedish L2 classroom. Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  4. Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  5. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  6. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., & Garrett, A. L. (2008). Methodological issues in conducting mixed methods research designs. In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 66–83). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  7. Demmen, J., Semino, E., Demjen, Z., Koller, V., Hardie, A., Rayson, P., & Payne, S. (2015). A computer-assisted study of the use of violence metaphors for cancer and end of life by patients, family carers and health professionals. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(2), 205–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2016). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Hashemi, M., & Babaii, E. (2013). Mixed methods research: Toward new research designs in applied linguistics. Modern Language Journal, 97(4), 828–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jick, T. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Qualitative methodology (pp. 135–148). Beverly Hills: SAGE.Google Scholar
  12. Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 60–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. King, K. A., & Mackey, A. (2016). Research methodology in second language studies: Trends, concerns, and new directions. Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee, E. (2016). Reducing international graduate students’ language anxiety through oral pronunciation corrections. System, 56(1), 78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2012). Instructed second language acquisition. In A. Mackey & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (1st ed., pp. 55–73). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  16. Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mackey, A. (2015). Methodological practice and progression in second language research. AILA Review, 27, 80–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second language research: Methodology and design (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  20. Moeller, A. J., Creswell, J. W., & Saville, N. (Eds.). (2015). Language assessment and mixed methods. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mroz, A. (2015). The development of second language critical thinking in a virtual language learning environment: A process-oriented mixed-method study. CALICO Journal, 32(3), 528–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Préfontaine, Y., & Kormos, J. (2015). The relationship between task difficulty and second language fluency in French: A mixed methods approach. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 96–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pritchard, R. M. O., & Nasr, A. (2004). Improving reading performance among Egyptian engineering students: Principles and practice. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 425–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Riazi, A. M. (2016). Innovative Mixed-methods Research: Moving Beyond Design Technicalities to Epistemological and Methodological Realizations. Applied Linguistics, 37(1), 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Riazi, A. M., & Candlin, C. N. (2014). Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning: Opportunities, issues and challenges. Language Teaching, 47(2), 135–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Richards, L. (1999). Using NVivo in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  27. Smith, B. (2012). Eye tracking as a measure of noticing: A study of explicit recasts in SCMC. Language Learning & Technology, 16(3), 53–81.Google Scholar
  28. Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Editorial: The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Trochim, W. M. (2006). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Retrieved from

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georgetown UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations