Foreword: Moving from discourse to practice

In the special issue of the International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches (ISSN 1834-0806) Teaching Mixed Methodologies, Jennifer Greene (2010) described 'beginning the conversation' (p. 2) for influencing the future of mixed methods research (MMR). Considering the discourse surrounding the epistemology, ontology, and axiology of two seem- ingly different research traditions (i.e., quantitative and qualitative), I am reminded of the late roman- tic composer Gustav Mahler (1860-1911), who often received strong oppositions to his music due to his innovations in the use of unexpected weaving melodies, dissonant suspensions, and both joyful and tragic moods - often presented simultaneously. In his early career, his music was deemed complicated, tenuous, and quite lengthy for the common listener. Yet, he was a 'romantic with a difference' (Cooke, 1980, p. 5) and similar to mixed methods researchers in education, Mahler's vision was interpreted as one that was 'after the big picture' (Alsop, 2005, para 2).Educational research embodies various disci- plines with rich histories of perspective and prac- tice and is linked directly to the human condition simply because it involves people 'who are by far the most complex of all organisms' (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2012, p. 5). As I reflect on this undeni- able dimension in research and take a step back to look at a bigger picture, I realize that it is difficult to separate our human-ness, which is also much like the unexpected weaving melodies of Gustav Mahler. Recently, Skidmore and Thompson (2012) emphasized the role of human error and the importance of critically evaluating educational research to avoid the trappings and natural human tendency toward confirmation bias, especially in light of the resurgence and emphasis on evidence- based practices. These authors further cautioned us as educational researchers to be good consum- ers -that is, to 'actively foster a culture that actively encourages the active exercise of thoughtful judg- ing and criticism' (Skidmore & Thompson, 2012, p. 168, [emphasis added]). Clearly, this is a call for action that supersedes the discourse of methodolo- gies and bridges theory to practice in the bigger picture. Although their discussion targeted experi- mental designs in educational research, it resonates with mixed methods researchers who engage in the active and critical examination to answer the ques- tion: Why mixed methods? Indeed, MMR is a cre- ative and active series of decisions that oftentimes reveal paradoxes and contradictions, much like Gustav Mahler explored tensions, voices, and the frailty of the human condition. These decisions are the crux of what is meant by mixed methods- like thinking, or the way that conflicting positions can lead to new learning (Johnson & Gray, 2010). In this special issue of the International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches (ISBN 978-1- 921729-39-3), I am drawn to the idea of MMR as a natural extension of our human nature in inquiry in seeking answers to practical questions - including the very active task of recognizing and negotiating the trappings of human error. As explained by Tashakori and Teddlie (2010)Everyday problem solvers use multiple approaches (similar to qualitative and quantitative pathways) con- currently or closely in sequence and examine a vari- ety of sources of evidence in decision making (and in forming impressions). As na3ive researchers, individu- als question the credibility of the existing evidence on which their impressions are based, and they evaluate the conclusions and decisions that emerge in response to this active process of seeking, evaluating, organiz- ing, and interpreting the evidence. We contend that mixed methods emphasizes this humanistic concep- tualization of the research process more so than the other two monolithic methodological approaches/ movements. In such a humanistic framework, incom- patibility issues are irrelevant. (p. …