原著
A Review of Mixed Methods Course Offerings at the U.S. Research Universities
2025 年 4 巻 2 号 p. 496-511
詳細
2025 年 4 巻 2 号 p. 496-511
Objective: The primary objective of this study was to investigate how well graduate students are prepared for doing mixed methods research (MMR) through exploring the offered courses on the topic of MMR at U.S. research universities.
Methods: This study utilized a convergent mixed methods research design, we collected and analyzed quantitative and qualitative data separately and integrated the results. This study reviewed the public data from the Carnegie Classifications research universities. We generated a list of 279 R1 and R2 national universities. Among the 279 research universities, 134 offer MMR courses, which highlights a growing emphasis on equipping students with diverse research methodologies and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration in academic institutions.
Results: The findings demonstrated a significant presence of MMR courses at R1 and R2 research universities, with R1 institutions having a significantly higher prevalence. This distribution suggests that research-intensive universities are more active in incorporating MMR into their curricula, possibly due to the higher demand for diverse research methods among senior researchers and their access to extensive resources to support scientific research. Our results show that the top departments that offer courses on MMR include education, public health, sociology, communication, nursing, social science, and administration health services.
Mixed methods research (MMR) approach, also referred to as the "third methodological" or "third research approach," entails the integration of quantitative and qualitative research methodologies (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2011, p. 170). As defined by Creswell (2015), in the fields of social, behavioral, and health sciences, researchers adopt a MMR approach, which involves both “quantitative (closed-ended) and qualitative (open-ended) data” (p. 2). In the past decades, MMR has become increasingly known to the public (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2009). There is a high demand for collecting different data sources since a single data source is insufficient to solve complex problems (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2008). Researchers from diverse disciplines and nations have extensively embraced this methodology (Molina-Azorin & Fetters, 2017; Zhou & Wu, 2022). MMR has been widely adopted in a variety of subject fields such as business, social studies, communication, sociology, education, health, medicine, geography, agriculture, psychology (Ivankova & Kawamura 2010; Zhou et al., 2020).
Poth (2014) suggested that students indicate a preference for earlier and sustained introduction to MMR in their academic pursuits. McKim (2017) investigated graduate students' perspectives on the utility of MMR and suggested that these methods have higher perceived usefulness scores compared to standalone quantitative or qualitative designs, highlighting the value and rigor of MMR in offering deeper insights and multiple perspectives. Toraman et al., (2020) explained that a rapidly increasing number of graduate students have adopted MMR in their theses and dissertations in recent decades. Although some past studies have explored the teaching of MMR in higher education, there is no comprehensive report on how many universities currently offer formal education and/or training about MMR to prepare their graduate students to conduct MMR.
A Review of Past Studies on Student Preparation for MMRAlongside the increasing demand and the number of publications, there has been a notable increase in the availability of formal courses on MMR in U.S. research universities (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). Poth (2014) brought attention to the increasing demand from students seeking opportunities to acquire knowledge and skills in MMR. However, both instructors and students often lack adequate professional training in quantitative and qualitative research methods (Gutterman et. al., 2018; Hesse-Biber 2015). According to Daniel et al. (2018), this literature raised apprehensions regarding students' limited familiarity with the intricacies of MMR within individual courses, expressing concerns about insufficient exposure to both qualitative and quantitative approaches, which may compromise their proficiency in applying MMR. In addition, there were concerns about the failure to distinguish between research courses designed to assist students in meeting dissertation requirements and those aimed at enhancing their understanding of published MMR more specifically (Earley, 2013; Ivankova & Clark, 2018).
Similarly, Poth (2014) identified a disparity between students' knowledge and their practical skills in conducting MMR. To address this, Poth (2014) proposed that instructors should explore effective strategies to include knowledge and skills related to MMR along with qualitative and quantitative methods in their teaching. Frias and Popovich (2020) highlighted the necessity and the challenging nature of training students to acquire a diverse range of knowledge and skills, enabling them to collect valuable information, making informed professional decisions, and proficiently analyzing and interpreting different types of data within today's complex economy.
As literature suggests, instructors who teach research methods have been aware of the importance of educating the next generation of MMR scholars through training workshops and programs. Yet, no literature has reviewed the formal education opportunities provided to graduate students at the U.S. universities. Accordingly, this study aimed to present a holistic view of MMR formal education at U.S. universities. The following research questions were used to guide this investigation:
To investigate the current status of MMR teaching at U.S. universities, we conducted a holistic review of 279 Carnegie R1 and R2 universities. This study utilized a convergent mixed methods design to evaluate the teaching of MMR at 279 Carnegie R1 and R2 universities in the United States. We gathered both quantitative and qualitative data simultaneously to gain a comprehensive understanding and deeper insights into MMR course offerings. The quantitative component provided a broad descriptive analysis of the presence and distribution of MMR courses across these institutions, while the qualitative component involved a detailed examination of the course syllabi to understand the specific content and instructional methodologies used. By combining the findings from both approaches, our study synthesized diverse perspectives to present a detailed understanding of how MMR is currently taught at these universities. Please see Figure 1 for this design.
In this study, we used a full sample of U.S. research universities based on the Carnegie Classifications (R1 and R2, N=279). The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education organizes U.S. universities into different types primarily based on their research activity levels. Doctoral Universities categorized as R1, or "Very High Research Activity," represent the highest level of research-intensive institutions.
According to the Carnegie Classifications official website description, to be classified as an R1, universities must have granted at least 20 doctoral degrees in research or scholarship and reported at least $5 million in total research expenditures for the updated year, based on the National Science Foundation's Higher Education Research & Development Survey (HERD). There are 146 R1 institutions in 2023, known for their extensive doctoral programs and substantial federal research funding. Doctoral Universities classified as R2, or “High Research Activity," also offer numerous doctoral programs but exhibit slightly less research activity compared to R1 universities. The 133 institutions classified as R2 are involved in significant research efforts. R1 and R2 universities have a notable impact on the academic research landscape, often establishing standards in research practices and trends. They cater to large, diverse student populations and support complex research projects with robust infrastructure. The focus on these institutions in academic studies is due to their influential role in advancing scholarly and professional research nationwide.
Quantitative Data Collection ProcedureWe first generated a codebook to collect related information, including school name, department, course number and name, website address, syllabus/course description, course’s offered time, and school address. The instructors' name, academic level, and contact information were also included in the codebook (see Table 1). If any related information was not available at a particular university, the entry was marked as "NA" in the Excel sheet, ensuring consistency and facilitating subsequent analysis.
The second step involved accessing the official websites of each university (a total of 279 universities) categorized as Carnegie Classifications R1 and R2 universities. We searched for the keywords "mixed methods research course" on each university’s homepage and retrieved the data with more details about MMR courses and MMR projects conducted by the faculty and students at the university. All the information we found was added to the codebook.
In the process, we found that the course titles themselves might not provide explicit information about the department that offers the courses. However, in the online course catalogues of U.S. universities, the department's initials are often included before the course number and title. To determine the department, an additional search was conducted using the department's initials as keywords. This search enabled the retrieval of specific department-related information. See Figure 2.
Quantitative Data AnalysisThe data was imported into the Jamovi statistics software for quantitative data analysis. The universities offering MMR courses were converted into a "school count" variable, where 1 represented "yes" (universities with MMR courses) and 2 represented "no" (universities without MMR courses). The "Department" column was transformed into "course count" variable, where 1 indicated "solely MMR courses," 2 represented "no MMR courses," and 3 denoted "mixed courses" (courses combining other research methods such as qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research). “Course information” variable was converted to “1=yes” if the universities have course description (or syllabus) available, and “0=no” means there is neither course description nor course syllabus available. The other variables are the same as the column headings from the codebook.
The primary data analysis for the quantitative strand centered on employing descriptive statistics to gather counts, percentages, frequencies, and bar plot distributions for each variable. These results provided a comprehensive picture of the prevalence of MMR courses across diverse departments and universities. Descriptive statistics frequency tables were utilized to categorize departments and states based on their names, enabling a more organized analysis of their distribution.
| Vital Elements | Description |
|---|---|
| School name | To gather how many universities offer MMR |
| Departments | To examine which departments offer MMR |
| Course number and name | To examine how many MMR courses are offered by these universities |
| Course description/syllabus | To gather the specific content of each MMR course |
| School website | For future review |
| Course offered time | To examine the course availability time |
| School address | To examine the location to obtain which states are more likely to offer MMR courses |
| Instructors’ information (name, academic level, and email address) | It enabled potential researchers to connect with instructors for further inquiries or collaboration related to MMR courses. |
In the qualitative phase of this convergent mixed methods study, we examined the syllabi of MMR courses offered at R1 and R2 universities. This in-depth analysis delved into the instructional strategies, course content, and learning outcomes associated with MMR at these institutions. By examining the nuances of how MMR is taught across different universities, we aimed to gain a valuable insight into the landscape of MMR education.
Qualitative SampleA purposive sampling strategy was employed to select syllabi from both R1 and R2 universities, focusing on a diverse range of disciplines, geographic locations, and course types. Disciplines such as Education, Social Sciences, Public Health, and Nursing were chosen based on their prominence in the quantitative findings, highlighting their relevance to the research. The sample included both standalone MMR courses and those integrating MMR with other methodologies, facilitating a comparative analysis of instructional approaches. Syllabi were selected from various U.S. regions, with particular emphasis on states like California, New York, and Texas, where MMR courses are more concentrated, to capture regional variations. Only publicly available syllabi were included, with a preference for those offering detailed course objectives, weekly topics, readings, and assessment methods. The focus was primarily on graduate-level courses, where MMR is more commonly taught.
Data SourceThis study includes a total of 17 syllabi from R1 universities and six syllabi from R2 universities, representing disciplines such as Public Health, Sociology, Education, Journalism, Social Work, Nursing, Social Sciences, and Psychology. The selected geographic regions encompass California, Arizona, Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Oregon.
Qualitative Data AnalysisThe qualitative data were analyzed using a document analysis approach, which involves systematically evaluating and interpreting written materials to gain insights into the research topic (Bowen, 2009). In this study, the focus was on the collected syllabi from R1 and R2 universities. A total of 23 syllabi were coded using MAXQDA software. Pre-defined themes guided the coding process, including learning objectives, required textbooks, weekly learning content, and assessment methods. The analysis aimed to identify patterns and themes that reveal how MMR is taught across different institutional contexts.
Based on the findings derived from the Jamovi descriptive statistics results, a total of 97 out of 146 R1 universities offer MMR courses. Within this subset of 97 universities, 15 institutions present a curriculum comprising multiple courses that seamlessly integrate MMR with other research methods courses. This integration has led to a cumulative count of 117 courses, collectively providing formal education in MMR within R1 universities. Certain MMR courses are instructed alongside other methodologies, including qualitative or quantitative integration, or a blend of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. 83 courses were exclusively dedicated to MMR, featuring titles like "Mixed Methods Research" or similar. 34 courses were categorized as research methods courses, showcasing a combination of qualitative, quantitative, and MMR approaches within their curriculum. See Table 2 and Table 3 results.
| University counts | Counts | % of total (N=146) |
|---|---|---|
| R1 Universities provide MMR courses | 97 | 66% |
| R1 Universities do not provide MMR courses | 49 | 34% |
| total | 146 | 100% |
| MMR Courses counts among the 97 R1 universities | Counts | % of total (N=117) |
|---|---|---|
| R1 Universities provide MMR courses | 83 | 71% |
| R1 Universities provide MMR courses integrated with other research methods | 34 | 29% |
| Total courses provided in R1 universities | 117 | 100% |
Note: Some universities provide more than one MMR course, the total courses count is larger than the universities’ count
These courses were found to be offered by diverse departments, such as Education, Sociology, Nursing and Health, Social Science, Psychology, Administration Health Service, Global and International Studies, Management Sciences and Information Systems, Geography, Humanities, Arts and Sciences, Urban Studies and Planning, and Social Welfare, etc. See Table 3.
Of the universities offering MMR courses (N=117), 89 courses provided comprehensive course descriptions, whereas 17 of 117 courses had their syllabi available. On the other hand, there were 11 out of 117 courses that offered information on the course titles without additional descriptive content. See Table 4 and Table 5.
| Colleges/Department | Counts | % of total (N=117) |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 46 | 39% |
| Public Health | 9 | 8% |
| Nursing | 4 | 3% |
| Sociology | 3 | 3% |
| Administration Health Service | 3 | 3% |
| Social Science | 3 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 2% |
Note: this table only lists the top seven colleges/ departments that offer MMR courses
| Course information | Counts | % of total (N=117) |
|---|---|---|
| Course description | 89 | 76% |
| Syllabus Available | 17 | 15% |
| No syllabus/no description | 11 | 9% |
According to the Carnegie Classifications R2 list, a total of 133 universities were reviewed. Among these universities, 37 universities offer MMR courses, while the remaining 96 universities do not provide MMR courses. Among the 37 R2 universities that offer MMR courses, a total of 42 courses were identified. Among these courses, 31 courses were explicitly titled "Introduction to MMR" or had similar titles, suggesting a significant emphasis on introducing students to the fundamental principles and approaches of MMR. The other 11 courses out of the 42 courses integrated MMR with other research methods, demonstrating a diverse and integrative approach to research education. These courses provide students with the opportunity to gain a more nuanced understanding of MMR and to enhance students’ understanding of other research methodologies as well. See Table 6 and Table 7.
Table 8 demonstrates that disciplines that notably offer MMR training encompass education, communication, nursing, public health, and more. Among MMR courses in R2 universities, 31 courses feature a comprehensive course description, and six courses offer students with a syllabus before enrollment. However, five courses neither provide a course description nor offer syllabuses to prospective students (see Table 9).
| University counts | Counts | % of total (N=133) |
|---|---|---|
| R2 Universities provide MMR courses | 37 | 28% |
| R2 Universities do not provide MMR courses | 96 | 72% |
| R2 universities total | 133 | 100% |
| MMR Courses counts among the 37 R2 universities | Counts | % of total (N=42) |
|---|---|---|
| R2 Universities provide solely MMR courses | 31 | 74% |
| R2 Universities provide MMR courses integrated with other research methods | 11 | 26% |
| Total courses provided in R2 universities | 42 | 100% |
| Department | Counts | % of total (N=42) |
|---|---|---|
| Education | 18 | 43% |
| Public Health | 5 | 12% |
| Nursing | 4 | 10% |
| Communication | 2 | 5% |
Note: this table only lists top frequency departments
| Course information | Counts | % of Total (N=42) |
|---|---|---|
| Course description | 31 | 74% |
| Syllabus available | 6 | 14% |
| No description or no syllabus | 5 | 12% |
The findings from the R1 and R2 lists unequivocally demonstrate the cross-disciplinary nature of MMR. This emphasizes its increasing recognition as a pivotal approach for researchers across diverse fields. The results above highlight that R1 universities are more inclined to offer MMR courses to students compared to R2 universities. Specifically, among the 146 R1 universities, 97 (66%) provide MMR courses, whereas, among the 133 R2 universities, only 37 (28%) offer such courses.
Within the subset of R1 and R2 universities offering MMR courses, the department of Education emerges as the most prominently represented discipline. R1 universities boast 46 courses, constituting 39% of their offerings, while R2 universities have 18 courses, making up 41% of their educational offerings. This prominence underscores the dedication of the education departments in both R1 and R2 universities to embrace innovative research methodologies and advance the field of education research.
Regarding geography, states such as California, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Illinois, and New Jersey emerged as outstanding regions where a higher number of universities are more likely to offer MMR courses, showing the growing acceptance and adoption of this versatile research approach in these states. (See Figure 3).
The qualitative strand can help to investigate how these courses are taught through analyzing the syllabi. In the combined analysis of R1 and R2 universities, a total of 23 syllabi were available and utilized for coding purposes. The syllabi were coded in MAXQDA using pre-planned themes and codes, including if the course include a title with “mixed methods research”, required textbook information, the learning objectives and detailed weekly learning contents of MMR.
Course Title With “Mixed Methods Research”As R1 universities offer a greater number of MMR courses and have more syllabi available, 10 syllabi from R1 universities specifically address MMR education under titles such as “Mixed Methods Research” or similar. For example, the course “AEC 6932 Mixed-Method Research” from the University of Florida. In contrast, only two syllabi from R2 universities are available under the title “Mixed Methods Research”.
Required Textbook and ResourcesTextbooks are the most important sources that students can learn MMR as they will equip students with foundational knowledge, theoretical frameworks, and practical applications. According to the coding results from the R1 universities, the primary author of required textbooks frequently used by professors in their classrooms is J.W. Creswell. Most of these books are titled "Mixed Methods Research" or have related titles (e.g., Creswell, J.W. & Plano Clark, V.L. Designing and conducting mixed methods research.). Based on the other syllabus, we found that most of the R1 universities professors more tend to use the textbooks by “Creswell, J.W”. This highlighted the significance of Creswell’s contributions in this field. Alongside Creswell’s works, other prominent authors in R1 universities such as E.G Creamer and Vicki L. Plano Clark are also featured, contributing to the comprehensive understanding of MMR principles. Other than textbooks, professors actively utilized academic journals like the Journal of Mixed Methods Research as supplementary readings for students. However, in R2 universities syllabus, we only found one university using a textbook by Creswell.
Learning ObjectivesR1 universities emphasized several distinct learning objectives aimed at enhancing students' practical skills in using mixed methods. For instance, students were expected to seamlessly integrate qualitative and quantitative methods in MMR, distinguish between qualitative, quantitative, and MMR approaches, understand the evolution of MMR, and describe various methods employed in MMR, with a solid grasp of the fundamental principles being another crucial learning objective. In contrast, R2 universities' syllabi required fewer objectives, focusing primarily on critical tasks such as analyzing published mixed methods research, developing research proposals and discussing key issues and future directions in MMR. This indicates that although R2 universities provide essential aspects of MMR education, they do not demand the same breadth of learning as seen in R1 universities.
Both R1 and R2 universities’ professors emphasize students with empirical research projects that incorporated MMR as the primary research methodology, offering students opportunities to gain practical experience in using MMR in real-world settings. As illustrative instances, at the University of Florida, the course titled "MMC 6936: Mixed Methods" mandates students to undertake a comprehensive research proposal. This research proposal is designed to assist students in preparing for future conference presentations or journal submissions. Similarly, at the University of Texas at Austin, in the course "EDC 389R - Mixed Research Methods," students are obligated to formulate an individualized research proposal focusing on MMR.
The syllabi from both R1 and R2 universities cover similar topics and course content. Key areas include foundational aspects of MMR, introduction to different MMR approaches, MMR data collection and analysis techniques, integration of qualitative and quantitative methods, interpreting and reporting MMR results, addressing challenges in MMR, evaluating quality of MMR, understanding validity and reliability in MMR, and exploring motivations for utilizing MMR. R1 universities frequently involve more interactive elements, such as student-led discussions and critiques, fostering deeper critical engagement. Meanwhile, R2 universities may rely more on structured assignments and discussion boards to ensure consistent student participation and progression.
In summary, R1 universities offer a more intense and extensive MMR education compared to R2 universities. R1 institutions have a research-focused approach that allows students to deeply engage in complex, interdisciplinary research, fostering critical and innovative perspectives essential for addressing real-world problems. They also provide a wider range of applications and diverse delivery methods that equip students to apply MMR methods across various fields such as public health, business, and education. On the other hand, R2 universities, while still offering valuable MMR education, focus more on practical application and structured learning, making their programs more accessible to a broader student base. This approach, while effective for those seeking to apply MMR in professional settings, may not offer the same depth of research training and interdisciplinary exploration found at R1 universities.
Converge Quantitative and Qualitative resultsThe integration of quantitative and qualitative findings reveals a significant distinction in R1 and R2 universities’ MMR education (see Table 10). Quantitative results demonstrate that R1 universities offer a total of 117 MMR courses across 97 institutions, while R2 universities provide only 42 courses across 37 institutions. This numerical disparity indicates that R1 universities provide a broader trend of institutional commitment to MMR education.
Qualitative findings further support this result by highlighting key differences in how MMR is taught. R1 universities focus on comprehensive and detailed learning objectives, advanced theoretical frameworks, and rigorous project-based learning. In addition, resources such as required textbooks, particularly works by Creswell and Plano Clark, and the academic MMR journals play a vital role in supporting solid MMR learning in R1 universities. We found that these institutions often require more complex research assignments. For example, in the course AEC 6932: Mixed-Method Research from the University of Florida, the professor not only requires students to post on the discussion board to facilitate peer-to-peer learning but also assigns students to critique MMR journal articles. This approach allows students to learn from established research and apply these methodologies to their own MMR projects, fostering both critical thinking and practical research skills. In contrast, R2 universities focus on introductory concepts and essential MMR skills. While their syllabi still reflect a commitment to MMR education, they typically feature fewer detailed learning objectives and rely more on structured assignments. For example, in the syllabus for Sociology 538/638: Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods from Portland University, the assignments are limited to tasks related to students’ final research projects, with no explicit requirement to engage with published journal articles. This distinction highlights differing institutional priorities, with R2 universities concentrating on practical applications and essential methodologies, likely influenced by varying resource allocations and program structures.
The integration of both quantitative and qualitative findings indicates that R1 and R2 universities’ approaches vary significantly due to differing institutional priorities, resource availability, and program objectives. R1 universities tend to be more research-intensive and offer a more advanced and comprehensive learning environment. In contrast, R2 universities focus on providing a foundational MMR education that emphasizes core principles and essential research techniques. These findings suggest that R1 universities are better equipped to prepare students for roles that require advanced methodological expertise, significant original research contributions, and leadership in academic or professional research settings. Meanwhile, R2 universities play a vital role in establishing foundational knowledge and fostering applied research skills that can be immediately utilized in professional contexts.
| Theme/Research Question | Quantitative Findings (QUAN) | Qualitative Findings (QUAL) |
|---|---|---|
| Availability of MMR Courses | 97 (66%) of R1 universities vs. 42(28%) of R2 universities offer MMR. MMR courses were offered in diverse disciplines, such as education, nursing, and public health etc. | The syllabus also confirmed the results from our quantitative findings, revealing a diverse landscape of MMR courses. Both R1 and R2 universities offer MMR courses in a variety of departments such as education, nursing, and public health. However, the data showed a clear disparity in the number of disciplines offered, with R1 universities having a more extensive range. |
| Course Offerings and Integration | In R1 universities, 83 courses provided solely MMR education, 34 courses provided MMR education with other research methods; In R2 universities, 31 courses solely teach MMR, and 11 offer MMR with other research methods | According to the R1 and R2 syllabus, we observed that some courses focus exclusively on teaching Mixed Methods Research (MMR), while others incorporate MMR alongside other research methods. These courses are typically titled “Research Methods,” and in this context, professors often cover quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research together. As a result, MMR is usually taught over 2 to 3 weeks rather than throughout the entire semester. |
| Course Content and Descriptions | 89 with course descriptions, 17 with syllabi in R1 universities vs 31 with Course descriptions and 6 syllabi in R2 universities | R1 syllabi offer detailed learning objectives. Professors in R1 universities often require textbooks from more professional authors and give access to more professional MMR journals than in R2 universities. Students will have more resources after class to learn MMR. |
| Geographic Distribution | States like CA, TX lead in MMR courses | We can find more syllabuses in these states, and most of the syllabuses are from R1 universities. R1 universities in these states offer more highly structured, research-focused syllabi than R2 universities. |
The results of this study indicated the growing importance of MMR across diverse disciplines. The findings demonstrated a significant presence of MMR courses at R1 and R2 research universities, with R1 institutions having a greatly higher prevalence. This distribution suggests that research-intensive universities are more active in incorporating MMR into their curricula, possibly due to the higher demand for diverse research methods among senior researchers and their access to extensive resources to support scientific research. As Chen et al. (2023) discussed in their study, "universities with better scientific research performance tend to have more valuable, rare, imitable, and ambiguous resources, which include high-level researchers, highly competitive funding, and physical and virtual resources" (p. 12). However, variability in course availability, content, and departmental focus raises questions about the uniformity and depth of MMR training offered to graduate students at different institutions.
College of Education is the predominant provider of MMR courses, surpassing other fields. Other disciplines like public health, nursing, sociology, social sciences, psychology, health administration, and communication are notable, offering MMR courses more frequently in R1 and R2 institutions than in other academic areas. This finding aligns with the literature, acknowledging the broad adoption of MMR across diverse subjects. However, contrary to Ivankova and Kawamura's (2010) and Zhou's et al. (2020) findings, fields such as geography, anthropology, and business did not integrate MMR into their curricula significantly.
The geographic distribution of MMR courses is significantly skewed toward states with more research universities. States like California, which has the most R1 and R2 universities, exemplifies this trend, showing a strong correlation between the number of research universities and the inclusion of MMR in academic programs. Other states, including New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Illinois, and New Jersey, are also recognized for the intensity of their research on the Carnegie Classification List. They emphasize the collective priority of research within their educational frameworks, thus making the inclusion of MMR in their curricula a natural extension of their academic ethos. Furthermore, funding allocation serves as a determining factor in whether universities offer MMR courses. With federal funding being the primary resource for research universities to support their projects, institutions with a strong focus on research tend to receive more substantial grants from federal agencies (Gibbons, 2022). Consequently, these universities have financial resources to develop and sustain comprehensive academic programs, including those centered around mixed-methods research.
The detailed analysis of course syllabi, particularly the emphasis on foundational MMR concepts, methodologies, and practical application, indicates the effort to equip students with both theoretical understanding and practical skills especially at R1 universities. Using Creswell and other authors' works and including empirical research projects in course requirements underscore the commitment to grounding students in established MMR principles while also encouraging hands-on experience. This balance between theory and practice is crucial for preparing competent mixed-methods researchers to address the multifaceted challenges of contemporary research landscapes.
Despite these positive findings, the study also reveals gaps and inconsistencies in MMR education that are more worthy of further attention. Although we found that many research-focused universities (R1 and R2) offer MMR courses, not all universities provide opportunities to students to learn this methodology especially R2 universities. Additionally, the variability observed in course availability, depth of content, and teaching methods suggests that graduate students may need more equitable access to comprehensive MMR training experiences. The lack of uniform standards in MMR education has significantly impacted the development of skilled researchers. Without consistent, high-quality MMR teaching, students may use a mixed approach to graduate with different ability levels. This difference could undermine the integrity and innovation of MMR generated by academia.
Based on the findings from this study, considering other countries may have similar issues as the United State. We suggest that internationally research-intensive universities can serve as leaders in incorporating MMR into their curricula, as seen with R1 and R2 universities in the United States. By showcasing the benefits of mixed methods in various fields, such as public health, sociology, psychology, and education, these institutions can inspire others to follow suit.
Despite the valuable insights gained from R1 and R2 universities, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of this study. The focus on identifying the presence of MMR courses and their distribution across research universities provided valuable information about their prevalence. However, this study did not explore the specific pedagogical approaches or the effectiveness of these courses in fostering students' proficiency in MMR. Therefore, further research is necessary to examine the qualitative aspects of MMR courses and their impact on students' learning experiences and outcomes. Additionally, expanding the scope of future studies to include a broader range of higher education institutions will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the overall landscape of MMR education in the United States.
This study reveals the prevalent presence of MMR courses in national research universities. Among the 279 research universities reviewed, as many as 134 universities were found to offer MMR courses. R1 universities are more likely to provide formal education to their students and in a wider range of disciplines than R2 universities. This distinction emphasizes the prominent role that research-intensive universities provide in incorporating and promoting MMR as an integral part of their academic offerings. Academic institutions play a pivotal role in fostering interdisciplinary collaboration and cultivating the next generation of researchers who embrace MMR to advance their respective fields of study. The growing availability of MMR courses in the United States signals a promising upward trend in the quality and depth of scholarly inquiry, ultimately contributing to the advancement of knowledge and understanding across various academic domains.
The findings of this study highlight the increasing acceptance and utilization of MMR across diverse academic disciplines. The growing popularity of MMR courses in U.S. universities reflects higher education’s commitment to providing students with a diverse array of research methodologies, equipping them with the essential skills to address intricate research challenges effectively.
