Mixed Methods Research in Library and Information Science: A Methodological Review

Abstract

Abstract

Objective - To review mixed methods research trends in the field of library and information science (LIS). In particular, we examine the extent to which research about or using mixed methods has been occurring in library and information science over the past decade (2008-2018), and how much of that mixed methods research is done in health contexts.

Methods - We conducted a methodological review and analysis of mixed methods research (MMR) in LIS for published articles indexed in LISTA and Web of Science. After deduplication and verification for inclusion, we coded 417 articles to identify contributions using or about MMR. Given the connections between evidence based practice in health and LIS, we also identified whether articles about or using mixed methods were health-focused.

Results - We found MMR to be a tiny proportion (less than 0.5%) of the overall LIS research literature. In terms of observable trends, while contributions about MMR remain fairly static, there has been an increase in articles using mixed methods. Of the 417 included articles, 373 (89.5%) primarily used mixed methods and 44 (10.5%) were primarily about MMR. Results also demonstrated that health-related research both using and about mixed methods has a strong presence in the LIS literature, with 136 published articles (32.6% of the total).

Conclusion - Confirming findings of prior analyses of research methods in LIS, our methodological review shows current opportunities to adopt and expand the use of mixed methods research processes. Further contributions about mixed methods research, and ideally connecting research and practice in LIS, are needed. Despite the small proportion of MMR in LIS research, there is an observable increase in the number of publications using mixed methods during this timeframe. The LIS research community can promote additional growth by leveraging this momentum around using mixed methods, and look to translate lessons learned about mixed methods research and practice in health contexts to other LIS settings. Recommendations include developing educational opportunities and learning resources that facilitate wider engagement with MMR in LIS contexts.

Full text

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2020, 15.1
106
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
Review Article
Mixed Methods Research in Library and Information Science: A Methodological Review
Richard Hayman
Associate Professor & Digital Initiatives Librarian
Mount Royal University
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Email: rhayman@mtroyal.ca
Erika E. Smith
Assistant Professor & Faculty Development Consultant
Academic Development Centre
Mount Royal University
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Email: eesmith@mtroyal.ca
Received: 12 Sept. 2019 Accepted: 6 Jan. 2020
2020 Hayman and Smith. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐
Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0 International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
sa/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under
the same or similar license to this one.
Data Availability: Hayman, R., & Smith, E. E. (2019). Mixed methods in library and information science bibliographic
records (2008-2018) [Data set]. Edmonton, Canada: UAL Dataverse, ver. 1.0, https://doi.org/10.7939/dvn/cxuw6a
DOI: 10.18438/eblip29648
Abstract
Objective - To review mixed methods research trends in the field of library and information
science (LIS). In particular, we examine the extent to which research about or using mixed
methods has been occurring in library and information science over the past decade (2008-2018),
and how much of that mixed methods research is done in health contexts.
Methods - We conducted a methodological review and analysis of mixed methods research
(MMR) in LIS for published articles indexed in LISTA and Web of Science. After deduplication
and verification for inclusion, we coded 417 articles to identify contributions using or about

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2020, 15.1
107
MMR. Given the connections between evidence based practice in health and LIS, we also
identified whether articles about or using mixed methods were health-focused.
Results - We found MMR to be a tiny proportion (less than 0.5%) of the overall LIS research
literature. In terms of observable trends, while contributions about MMR remain fairly static,
there has been an increase in articles using mixed methods. Of the 417 included articles, 373
(89.5%) primarily used mixed methods and 44 (10.5%) were primarily about MMR. Results also
demonstrated that health-related research both using and about mixed methods has a strong
presence in the LIS literature, with 136 published articles (32.6% of the total).
Conclusion - Confirming findings of prior analyses of research methods in LIS, our
methodological review shows current opportunities to adopt and expand the use of mixed
methods research processes. Further contributions about mixed methods research, and ideally
connecting research and practice in LIS, are needed. Despite the small proportion of MMR in LIS
research, there is an observable increase in the number of publications using mixed methods
during this timeframe. The LIS research community can promote additional growth by
leveraging this momentum around using mixed methods, and look to translate lessons learned
about mixed methods research and practice in health contexts to other LIS settings.
Recommendations include developing educational opportunities and learning resources that
facilitate wider engagement with MMR in LIS contexts.
Introduction
For those interested in evidence based practice
(EBP), there is an increasing array of research
methods, strategies, and approaches available
today that can be leveraged to foster praxis.
Various analyses of the literature point to
untapped opportunities for researchers and
practitioners in the field of library and
information science (LIS) to expand the range of
research methods and methodologies utilized,
including mixed methods approaches (Aytac &
Slutsky, 2014; Chu, 2015; Gauchi Risso, 2016;
Ullah & Ameen, 2018). In prompting those in
LIS to ask “are we there yet?” regarding
adoption of mixed methods research, Fidel’s
(2008) analysis demonstrated that MMR was not
commonly used or discussed in LIS, concluding
that increased awareness would be
advantageous to the field. We revisit this
overarching question regarding whether LIS has
been using or discussing mixed methods during
the decade following Fidel’s work. As
researcher-practitioners who have realized the
value of using mixed methods research (MMR)
for scholarship and evidence based practice in
our own contexts, we see benefits to an evidence
based discussion of current trends and the
potential value of MMR. With the goal of
exploring ways to expand engagement with
mixed methods research in LIS contexts in mind,
the purpose of this article is to take stock of
mixed methods research trends and issues
through a broad methodological review of the
LIS literature over a ten-year span.
Aims
To support mixed methods practice Plano Clark
and Ivankova (2016) argued that there is great
value in consulting literature analyses about the
status of mixed methods in the context of a
particular research community, especially in the
form of methodological reviews and discipline-
based discussions. With this in mind, we
conducted a methodological review and analysis
of mixed methods research in LIS published
over the past decade (2008-2018) to address the
following research question:

108
RQ1: To what extent is research about or
using mixed methods occurring in
library and information science?
Additionally, given the established connections
between evidence based practice and evidence
based medicine, and their intersection in health
librarianship, we also explored the following
related research question:
RQ2: Over the same decade, what
literature about or using MMR in library
and information science has occurred
within health contexts?
In light of these research questions, our
approach specifically sought to capture the
breadth of mixed methods research occurring
over time and across a considerable,
representative dataset. Adopting this broader
approach enabled us to compare findings from
other LIS research methods analyses, and using
a larger sample than if we had focused on a
particular subset of journals.
To encourage further development and
application of MMR in ways that are clear and
relevant for this disciplinary context we outline
recommendations connected to LIS practice. Our
goal is to promote further consideration of
mixed methods research in ways that can
beneficially inform new ways of collecting,
using, and integrating evidence in LIS contexts.
Defining Mixed Methods Research
There are several definitions of mixed method
research, but a common component of most
definitions is that researchers must deliberately
combine two or more (usually qualitative and
quantitative) research methods in a single study
to provide the most comprehensive means of
addressing the research problem and questions
at hand. Recognizing mixed methods as a
research process, Creswell (2008) defined MMR
thus:
a broad umbrella term encompassing
perspectives that see it as a research
method of data collection and analysis, a
methodology that spans the process of
research from philosophical
assumptions to interpretations, a
philosophy of research, and a set of
procedures used within existing
research designs such as case studies,
experiments, and narrative projects. (p.
2)
Mixing methods increases our ways of viewing
issues, providing more evidence than we would
using a single method. In their seminal work on
MMR, Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, and Turner
(2007) argued that MMR was increasingly being
understood as a third research paradigm
alongside existing qualitative and quantitative
research paradigms, providing opportunities “to
consider multiple viewpoints, perspectives,
positions, and standpoints” (p.113). MMR helps
bridge the divide between quantitative and
qualitative research (Creswell & Plano-Clark,
2018), and many researchers relate these aspects
of MMR to triangulation, a way of cross-
validating information from several sources
(Gorman & Clayton, 2005; Connaway &
Radford, 2017; Wilson, 2014).
Methods
To examine current research trends surrounding
mixed methods, we integrated key strategies
outlined by MMR experts Plano Clark and
Ivankova (2016) for methodological reviews.
They reinforce the value of such work for
research and practice, acknowledging the “long
history of scholars conducting disciplinary-
based methodological reviews in the field of
mixed methods research” (p. 256). We follow
their recommendation to report the procedures
used for identifying the sample of published
mixed methods research, and analyze specific
dimensions and features reported within those
publications to provide insights into patterns
and trends, such as the prevalence rate of mixed
methods. Our methodological review also draws

109
Table 1
Searches Conducted within LISTA
Search
Terms and limits
Results
S1
(No keyword/phrase used to find all results)
Limiters:
● Publication date: 2008-01-01 to 2018-12-31
● Publication type: Academic journal
● Document type: Article
● Language: English
98,343
S2
(DE "Mixed methods research") OR "mixed methods research" OR mmr OR
"mixed methodology" OR "mixed research" OR "mixed methods sampling" OR
"mixed design" OR "mixed method design" OR "combined methods" OR
"mixed methods approach" OR "mixed methods study"
504
S3
S1 AND S2
354
on useful scoping and mapping review
techniques (Grant & Booth, 2009) to illustrate
issues over the course of a decade through
figures and diagrams.
In examining evidence from the literature in
ways that are relevant for those in the field, a
methodological review should outline strengths
and weaknesses and how these may “constrain
or open up opportunities for learning” (Elsevier,
n.d., p. 4). Huynh, Hatton-Bowers, and Smith
(2019) remind us that conducting a
methodological review within a disciplinary
context helps identify trends and opportunities
for using and improving MMR practices.
Finally, Onwuegbuzie, Leech, and Collins (2011)
noted that a methodological review can be an
end in itself, highlighting the benefit of such
reviews for informing practice and
understanding the topic being explored.
Sources and search strategies
Our search focused on two primary information
resources that index research from LIS contexts:
Library, Information Science & Technology
Abstracts with Full Text (LISTA, from Ebsco),
and Web of Science Core Collection (WoS, from
Clarivate Analytics). We selected these based on
their disciplinary coverage and the fact that both
were accessible through our current institutional
subscriptions. To be exhaustive with our WoS
search we included six main indices from the
WoS Core Collection: Science Citation Index
Expanded; Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts &
Humanities Citation Index; Conference
Proceedings Citation Index-Science; Conference
Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science &
Humanities; and Emerging Sources Citation
Index.
To maintain our focus on the use of MMR in
current research while also ensuring feasibility
and manageability of the project, we restricted
all searches to English-language journal articles
published from 2008-2018. We identified and
used a variety of phrases to describe our
primary topic based on our own knowledge of
the subject and research being explored. These
phrases reflect the popular terminology used
extensively in existing MMR literature, and in
many cases echoed the language and labels that
authors had used in their studies. Test searches
allowed us to refine this list, leading to the
search strategies outlined below.

110
Search strategy for LISTA
As a discipline-specific database, LISTA was our
starting place to test keywords/phrases and to
focus on LIS-related literature.
Search strategy for WoS
As a large, interdisciplinary index, we relied on
built-in tools for limiting to only those
publications that belong to LIS. Since WoS has a
specific subject category for “Information
Science & Library Science” we used this for our
first search before searching for
keywords/phrases.
Together LISTA and WoS revealed 636 results
for further analysis. Figure 1 is a high-level
illustration of our process starting from the
point when these results were combined,
deduplicated, and then checked against
include/exclude criteria. Only the final 417
included articles were subsequently coded.
Deduplication
We imported the 636 citations into citation
management software Zotero
(https://www.zotero.org/), which includes a
built-in deduplication function that compares
several metadata fields and flags suspected
matches. We reviewed each flagged match
before removing items that were duplicates,
then reviewed the full list again to manually
remove additional duplicates that were not
flagged as part of the automatic deduplication.
The remaining 473 items were sent to the
include/exclude process.
Table 2
Searches Conducted within WoS
Search
Terms and limits
Results
S1
(No keyword/phrase used to find all results)
WC=(Information Science & Library Science) AND LANGUAGE: (English)
AND DOCUMENT TYPES: (Article) Indexes=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI,
CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, ESCI Timespan=2008-2018
51,873
S2
TS="mixed methods research" OR ALL="mixed methods research" OR
ALL=mmr OR ALL="mixed methodology" OR ALL="mixed research" OR
ALL="mixed methods sampling" OR ALL="mixed design" OR ALL="mixed
method design" OR ALL="combined methods" OR ALL="mixed methods
approach" OR ALL="mixed methods study"
18,518
S3
S1 AND S2
282
Figure 1
Process for methodological review starting with records captured from LISTA and WoS.

111
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Both authors reviewed the 473 potential articles
remaining after deduplication to determine
whether they met our inclusion criteria. We
examined each study for the following:
● a research article published in a journal;
● situated in library or information
science contexts, as determined by the
subject matter or source publication;
and
● evidence that the study involved MMR
processes, whether
○ reporting on an original study
using MMR; or
○ discussing MMR as part of a
larger methodological
discussion; or
○ a protocol study wherein MMR
was part of the proposal and the
MMR process was evident.
While titles and abstracts typically served as
primary sources of information to determine the
MMR processes involved, in several cases these
provided insufficient evidence that the study
was in fact MMR-based. In such cases we then
examined the full text, focusing on the methods
section, which proved a reliable way to
determine each study’s MMR status. We used
traditional subscription databases, open access
resources, and third-party tools (e.g.,
ResearchGate) to find full-text versions.
In the rare circumstance where we were unable
to locate full text, we decided to err on the side
of caution. In these very few cases we based our
decision to include or exclude using the
available abstract in tandem with their peer-
reviewed status. If the abstract described these
works as mixed-methods, and reviewers and
journal editors had deemed them fit to be
published as such, then we would include these
few publications in our sample.
While screening articles for inclusion or
exclusion, we identified several articles where
authors indicated their study used MMR, but
upon reading the article it was clear that they
reported on only a single phase or method. For
example, we found several studies using a
survey or questionnaire with closed- and open-
ended questions that described themselves as
mixed methods. However, Creswell and Hirose
(2019) mark the distinction between survey
methodologies, which can include open- and
close-ended questions, and mixed methods
research proper, which may involve a survey or
questionnaire but ultimately requires a
combination and integration of multiple
research approaches. Based on this definition,
we excluded survey-only MMR reports from
our dataset. Similarly, since intentionally mixing
methods is an essential characteristic of MMR,
we excluded studies that merely reported on a
single stage of a larger MMR project (e.g., only
reporting the qualitative or quantitative phase)
when they did not situate or report that data
within the wider context, methods, and findings
of the rest of the MMR study.
We also excluded obvious false hits, such as a
few articles that used our MMR acronym
keyword for something other than mixed
methods research (e.g., articles discussing
vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella). Since
published research articles were our focus, we
removed results that had been tagged as articles
in their source database but were merely
conference abstracts or grey literature reports.
The include/exclude process resulted in 417
articles that were sent for coding.
Coding
Since our approach specifically sought to
capture the breadth of mixed methods occurring
in this dataset, both researchers were in
agreement that coding of the remaining articles
should be sufficiently high-level in order to
support feasibility of this wide scope of
research. We aimed to generate a general picture
and position of MMR in LIS research over the
last decade, rather than focus on the specifics of
how MMR manifests. Both authors reviewed the

112
Table 3
Top Five Publication Sources by Number of MMR Articles Published
Publication title
No. of articles
Journal of Medical Internet Research
62
Qualitative Health Research
20
Information Research
10
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
10
Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology
(formerly Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology)
10
Table 4
Number and Percentage of Each Article Type
Type
No. of articles
% of total
All "using" articles
373
89.45%
Articles using MMR
255
61.15%
Articles using MMR in health contexts
118
28.30%
All "about" articles
44
10.55%
Articles about MMR
26
6.24%
Articles about MMR in health contexts
18
4.32%
417 included articles and independently coded
each according to whether it was a study that
used MMR or whether it was about or
discussing MMR. Within these two main
categories we also identified those that involved
medical- or health-related research. Both
researchers reviewed and discussed these
categorizations to ensure consensus.
Results
Publication Sources
We briefly explored the source publications for
these 417 articles. Concerning RQ1, MMR
articles appeared in 121 different publications
representing the breadth and depth of LIS
research over the past decade. The top five
publications and the number of articles from
each are in Table 3.
We accounted for identifiable journal title
changes that occurred during the decade in
question and standardized for slight differences
in journal titles within citation information (e.g.,
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice vs.
Evidence Based Library & Information Practice). A
full list of publication titles and article counts is
available as Appendix A.
Prevalence of MMR
Concerning RQ1 and the extent that research
using or about MMR is occurring in LIS, the
main results are reported in Table 4 below. We
identified 373 (89.5%) articles that primarily used
mixed methods as part of the research process,
and another 44 (10.5%) articles were that were
primarily about MMR and related methodological
discussions. Addressing RQ2, nearly one-third
(n=118, 31.6%) of the 373 articles using mixed
methods processes were situated in a health

113
context. Similarly, more than one-third (n=18,
40.9%) of the 44 articles about mixed methods or
research methodologies occurred in health
contexts. When combined, these health-focused
articles comprised 136 published articles (32.6%
of the total) related to health or medical sciences
within the overarching LIS literature.
MMR over time
We tracked the number of articles published per
year to look for developmental trends over the
decade (Figure 2). This distribution
demonstrates an increasing trend in the use and
discussion of mixed methods processes within
LIS research. We also combined the articles
using MMR with those using MMR in health
contexts, to compare them against all of the
articles about MMR combined with those about
MMR in health contexts. This comparison,
shown in figure 3, reveals that the trend in
research about MMR is fairly static, and that it is
the studies using MMR that drive the overall
increasing trend.
Figure 2
Distribution by publication year for all included articles (n=417).

114
Figure 3
Distribution by publication year comparing articles using MMR (n=373) and articles about MMR (n=44).
Discussion
MMR trends and patterns
As shown in our search strategies for LISTA and
WoS we could isolate the total results for LIS
generally before including our MMR-related
phrases and keywords. We found that
proportionally MMR makes up a tiny fraction of
the corpus of LIS research literature. Consider
that:
● the 354 results found in LISTA represent
0.36% of the 98,343 total LISTA results
when searching with search limiters, but
not using keywords; and
● the 282 results found in WoS represent
0.52% of the 51,873 total WoS results
when searching with search limiters, but
not using keywords.
While this is an imprecise measure, our use of
disciplinary and other search limiters (i.e., date
range, language, document type, publication
type) together help us significantly refine the
corpus of available, published LIS literature.
These figures provide a compelling case for
identifying an overall lack of MMR processes
within LIS research.
Despite the small number of MMR contributions
overall, the upward trend does show some
growth in the use of MMR within LIS (see figure
2). We see this as a promising area for future
research. However, in contrast with the growth
seen via the increase in the number of articles
where MMR was used, we found that much
fewer articles discussed mixed methods as a
research process, and those that did most often
occurred in health contexts. The prevalence of
articles about MMR has remained relatively
static (see figure 3), an indication that, in

115
addition to fostering momentum around
expanded use of MMR, there are likely
opportunities for further research contributions
aimed at discussing mixed methods processes
and related meta-research aspects within LIS. As
an example, Venkatesh, Brown, and Bala’s
(2013) guidelines for conducting MMR in
information systems appears to have met, or
created, an appetite for contributions about
mixed methods, with their article having
received nearly 2,000 citations according to
Google Scholar at the time this article was
drafted. Our methodological review indicates
that further scholarly contributions that
intentionally and explicitly connect MMR with
LIS would be valuable, and likely necessary.
Focusing again on health contexts (RQ2), our
analysis shows that health-related mixed
methods research appears to be prominent, with
31.6% of articles using MMR and 40.9% of
articles about mixed methods or methodologies
being situated in a health context. Within the list
of top ten publications containing MMR articles
there is a substantial representation of MMR
with a health focus. Within the top five journals
with MMR publications (see table 3), three of
these are health-focused, and collectively, these
three journals published 92 (22.1%) of the
articles we examined. Since EBP in LIS has
known connections to evidence based medicine
(EBM) and EBP in health settings, perhaps this is
unsurprising. However, these results do
underscore that health-related research has a
strong presence in the LIS literature that either
uses or is about mixed methods.
Researchers and practitioners in LIS who are
interested in MMR may look to health-related
research to determine practices that could help
bolster MMR in other topic areas or contexts.
For example, O’Cathain, Murphy, and Nicholl
(2008) identified that collaboration is often an
important part of mixed methods research,
emphasizing that MMR in health settings often
involves large interdisciplinary or
multidisciplinary teams bringing together
people with a variety of expertise. It could be the
case that engagement with MMR is occurring in
health contexts to a large extent due to the
involvement of experts within and beyond LIS
on these larger interdisciplinary teams. Further
exploration of the role of LIS researchers and
other information professionals on such MMR
teams could provide insights into effective
research practices and other lessons learned that
could help extend mixed methods approaches
(and MMR in EBP) from these health-focused
research projects to the broader LIS research
community.
Connections to the research methods literature
To place our findings in the context of wider
work on research methods we consulted the LIS
literature generally, seeking connections
between our methodological review of MMR to
overall research trends in LIS via a discipline-
focused discussion. The literature reveals that
the discipline draws heavily on quantitative
research approaches and surveys, though there
are some signs that this could be changing.
Booth and Brice (2004) found that “LIS research
typically utilizes designs of limited applicability,
such as the user survey” (p. 91), while
Koufogiannakis, Slater, and Crumley’s (2004)
content analysis of librarianship research found
that descriptive research, mainly using a survey
or questionnaire method, was the highest
proportion of research published (p. 232). Such
points have been an ongoing refrain in the field
of library and information science.
A decade later, Turcios, Agarwal, and Watkins
(2014) demonstrated that surveys were still the
most popular research method used. Similarly,
Aytac and Slutsky’s (2014) analysis of LIS
research published from 2008-2012 found very
few studies (1%) using multiple or combined
method approaches. Descriptive research and
surveys remained the most popular in LIS, with
a majority of the studies employing solely
quantitative analysis (69%). They predicted an
ongoing growth in practitioner research, but
cautioned against over-use of descriptive
statistical analysis, instead encouraging

116
practitioners “[to] seek out training in more
advanced statistical methods” (p. 152).
These and other authors contend that, although
there are a variety of research methodologies
employed across LIS, mixed methods
approaches have not gained adequate
recognition in the field. Gauchi Risso’s (2016)
analysis of research methods from 1970-2010
similarly showed the prevalence of descriptive
methodologies while stating that “LIS needs
new methodological developments, which
should combine qualitative and quantitative
approaches” (p. 74). Likewise, Ullah and
Ameen’s (2018) analysis demonstrated a
predominance of quantitative, descriptive, and
empirical methodologies in LIS, with survey
research still being the most widely used
method.
All of this points to the need for LIS researchers
to give more consideration to, and increase their
awareness of, other research approaches,
including mixed methods. Wilson (2013)
advocated that those who support evidence
based practice in LIS would benefit from
expanding their methodological approaches to
include mixed methods, that approaching “a
research question from multiple methodological
perspectives in the same study will add a depth
and breadth to the findings, and open up
options for data collection and analysis” (p. 277).
Studies exploring MMR approaches in LIS
continue to show low uptake of MMR. Fidel
(2008) found that only 5% of LIS articles
employed mixed methods and that “recognition
of MMR by name or as a research method was
absent from these articles and from the
methodological literature in LIS” (p. 265). This
5% figure was also reported by Venkatesh et al.
(2013). Chu’s (2015) analysis found somewhat
more variety in research methods used in the
field, but the overall results underscored a need
to continue expanding and developing research
methods and their application to LIS. Chu
concluded that “more efforts in the form of
education, training, and advocacy are needed to
promote the use of multiple methods” (p. 40).
Research methods trends have implications for
research of specific topics in LIS today.
Matusiak’s (2017) analysis of methodologies in
information behaviour research reflected the
same themes of overall LIS research practices,
finding a majority studies were quantitative and
used the common approaches (i.e., surveys).
This shows a lack of growth in qualitative and
mixed methods, ultimately reinforcing the need
to increase awareness in LIS about these
research areas. Moreover, in exploring the long-
standing over-reliance on surveys and
quantitative methodologies for research of
technology-acceptance models and information
systems (IS) generally, Wu (2012) emphasized
that “a mixed methods approach combining
both qualitative and quantitative techniques
deserves more attention from IS researchers” (p.
175). These trends from the wider research
methods literature support our findings and
confirm the underexplored opportunities for
current LIS researchers and practitioners to
consider ways to expand their suite of
approaches to adopt MMR (and other methods),
increasing and enhancing strategies available for
collecting, analysing, and using evidence in
research and practice.
This is not to say that quantitative
methodologies, descriptive research, and survey
methods do not have their place, as we know
they can be valuable. Koufogiannakis et al.
(2004) noted that LIS is not unique in its
tendency toward descriptive research,
explaining that these approaches are likely
ubiquitous in the field because “they are
inexpensive and relatively easy to conduct, can
be carried out in a short period of time, and the
results are generally easy to analyze” (p. 233).
Common research approaches such as surveys
likely continue to be popular within and beyond
LIS precisely because they offer an appropriate
means of addressing particular research
questions and problems.

117
Ultimately, it is important for those conducting
any research to consider whether and how a
particular methodology and the related
method(s) are aligned with, and appropriate for,
understanding the phenomenon being explored.
We see merit in MMR and join our voices with
those arguing for increased adoption of MMR
processes for EBP, yet we also recognize that
MMR is not always the best or most appropriate
choice. We strongly agree with scholars such as
Venkatesh et al. (2013) that “the decision to
conduct mixed methods research should hinge
on the research question, purpose, and context”
(emphasis in original, p. 22). Nevertheless, the
findings from our methodological review of
MMR, as well as the experiences described by
researcher-practitioners such as ourselves,
together inform our assertion that there are
untapped opportunities and potential within LIS
to continue to go beyond traditional research
approaches and increase the adoption of MMR
processes. The field can benefit from
engagement with MMR as a way to facilitate
creative research and to rigorously combine
approaches that can and will foster new forms of
inquiry.
Limitations
We have presented a broad methodological
review examining mixed methods research
within LIS published from 2008 through 2018.
We did not set out to employ the methods of a
focused systematic review or meta-analysis, nor
did we complete detailed quantitative or
qualitative analyses of all of the included
research artifacts, though future research
employing these strategies would certainly be
valuable. Instead, our comprehensive “wide
lens” approach addresses a gap in the extant
literature and enables us to better position our
findings alongside other methodological and
disciplinary discussions. Though we limited our
searches to discipline-specific databases
available through our current institutional
subscriptions and note that both LISTA and
WoS provide significant coverage of LIS
research publications, these sources are not
exhaustive. We acknowledge that other
subscription products (e.g., Library &
Information Science Abstracts), indexing
services (e.g., Google Scholar), web search
engines, and other tools may reveal additional
published and grey literature that are relevant.
Also, we note that though it appears to be the
most common terminology used today, the term
mixed methods research is not universally used
across the discipline. Our search strategies
focused on phrases rather than keywords to
reflect the reality that MMR studies are
sometimes mislabelled, and that this term may
not appear on mixed methods work at all. This
leads to the possibility that the growing trend
identified in the results could be due to
improvements toward consistent labelling
strategies and terminology for MMR that are
otherwise difficult to capture. Like all research
projects, this study may have benefitted from a
larger research team, particularly for greater
access to search indices and sources, increased
scope including grey literature and conference
materials, and additional experts participating
in verification and consensus steps.
Conclusions
Our findings show that there are still untapped
opportunities to extend scholarly contributions
about and using mixed methods in research for
library and information science contexts, and
further confirms findings from the wider LIS
research methods literature. It is our hope that
by outlining the following recommendations for
developing MMR in EBP, we can encourage
other researchers and practitioners in their
developing their understanding of mixed
methods processes, ideally embracing the
benefits and opportunities that MMR offers.
Recommendations
The methodological review of the MMR
literature, as well as the authors’ own
experiences conducting mixed methods research
(Hayman, Smith, & Storrs, 2019; Smith, 2016),
inform our outline of current needs and related

118
recommendations to extend the development
and application of mixed methods in LIS. One
recommendation is to encourage researchers
and researcher-practitioners to undertake MMR
when appropriate. We echo the calls from Chu
(2015) and others to promote further
understanding of MMR through education,
training, and advocacy. Efforts to expand
engagement with MMR through informal, non-
formal, and formal education, including in
graduate curriculum for library and information
schools, could help to develop scholarship not
just using MMR, but also about mixed methods
processes and aspects of meta-research.
Intentionally integrating such pedagogical
strategies aligns with Crumley and
Koufogiannakis’ (2002) assertion that learning
research skills is “essential for the growth of EBL
[evidence based librarianship] within the entire
profession” (p. 69). We note that this need to
support the teaching and learning of research
methods that includes MMR is not limited to
LIS. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010) created their
handbook on MMR for the social sciences
broadly, and the field of education specifically,
based on their practical experience working with
graduate students on research methods training.
They include a section with specific
recommendations for pedagogy since this topic
emerged “as one of the most difficult and
controversial areas in mixed methods” (p. xi).
Given these complexities are widespread, LIS
could certainly take advantage of emerging and
established educational developments through
cross-disciplinary collaborations with other
areas such as health and education. Our findings
showing the prevalence of MMR research in
health-related contexts makes this point clear.
Resources such as handbooks and toolkits from
mixed methodologists can be helpful. A related
recommendation is for graduate-level research
methods courses to explore ways to enhance
their coverage of mixed methods research.
While some graduate programs may
increasingly recognize the use of MMR in the
research process, further scaffolding and
building of expertise within and across
disciplines, including those in LIS, is warranted
as a means of mitigating the challenges of MMR
with the goal of realizing the benefits. As MMR
evolves, the creation of courses and open
resources that outline the theoretical, empirical,
and practical considerations for mixed methods
and its designs that can be easily accessed
beyond the academy would also be beneficial in
this regard. So would continuous professional
development (CPD) opportunities on evolving
research methods and MMR – for example, CPD
connected to professional associations,
conferences, and journals – that provide venues
for LIS researchers and practitioners at all levels
who wish to reflect the principles of EBP and
expand their methodological repertoire.
Summary
In returning to Fidel’s question of whether LIS is
“there yet” in engaging with MMR, we find that
while there has been some growth in the use of
mixed methods over the past decade, our
methodological review demonstrates that MMR
still represents only a small fraction of current
LIS literature. These findings indicate that
further contributions about MMR processes and
approaches are still needed, including those
explicitly connecting research with practice. Our
results also show some momentum in MMR use,
with an observable increase in the number of
publications using mixed methods in LIS during
the decade in question, and that there is room
for future research to explore this trend. Health
research contexts have a particularly strong
presence in scholarship using and about MMR
in LIS, highlighting an opportunity to translate
lessons learned about MMR and practice from
health-focused areas into other LIS settings.
Based on our findings, we recommend that the
LIS research community look to actively
facilitate greater engagement with mixed
methods, so that wider awareness and
understanding of MMR can be fostered through
educational development initiatives that build
pedagogical strategies and resources for MMR,
especially those supporting graduate programs
and bridging academic and practitioner

119
communities. Enhancing ways to develop and
apply mixed methods research in LIS contexts in
ways that take advantage of the affordances of
MMR will benefit evidence based library and
information practice.
Data availability statement
A dataset (Hayman & Smith, 2019) including the
combined 636 citations exported from LISTA
and WoS is available in BibTex (.bib) format.
References
Aytac, S., & Slutsky, B. (2014). Published
librarian research, 2008 through 2012:
Analyses and perspectives. Collaborative
Librarianship, 6(4), 147-159. Retrieved
from
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collabor
ativelibrarianship/vol6/iss4/6/
Booth, A., & Brice, A. (Eds.). (2004). Evidence-
based practice for information professionals:
A handbook. London, UK: Facet.
Chu, H. (2015). Research methods in library and
information science: A content analysis.
Library & Information Science Research,
37(1), 36-41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2014.09.003
Connaway, L. S., & Radford, M. L. (2017).
Research methods in library and
information science. Santa Barbara, CA:
Libraries Unlimited.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Mixed methods research.
In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE
encyclopedia of qualitative research methods
(pp. 527-530).
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.n
269
Creswell, J. W., & Hirose, M. (2019). Mixed
methods and survey research in family
medicine and community health. Family
Medicine and Community Health, 7(2),
e000086.
https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2018-
000086
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018).
Designing and conducting mixed methods
research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
SAGE.
Crumley, E., & Koufogiannakis, D. (2002).
Developing evidence-based
librarianship: Practical steps for
implementation. Health Information and
Libraries Journal, 19(2), 61-70.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-
1842.2002.00372.x
Elsevier. (n.d.). A guide for writing scholarly
articles or reviews for the Educational
Research Review. Retrieved from
https://www.elsevier.com/__data/promi
s_misc/edurevReviewPaperWriting.pdf
Fidel, R. (2008). Are we there yet? Mixed
methods research in library and
information science. Library &
Information Science Research, 30(4), 265-
272.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2008.04.001
Gauchi Risso, V. (2016). Research methods used
in library and information science
during the 1970-2010. New Library World,
117(1/2), 74-93.
https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-08-2015-
0055
Gorman, G. E., & Clayton, P. (2005). Qualitative
research for the information professional: A
practical handbook (2nd ed.). London, UK:
Facet.
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of
reviews: An analysis of 14 review types
and associated methodologies. Health
Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-
108.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-
1842.2009.00848.x

120
Hayman, R., & Smith, E. E. (2019). Mixed methods
in library and information science
bibliographic records (2008-2018) [Data
set]. Edmonton, Canada: UAL
Dataverse, ver. 1.0,
https://doi.org/10.7939/dvn/cxuw6a
Hayman, R., Smith, E. E., & Storrs, H. (2019).
Information behaviour of
undergraduate students using Facebook
Confessions for educational purposes.
Information Research, 24(3), paper
rails1809.
http://informationr.net/ir/24-
3/rails/rails1809.html
Huynh, T., Hatton-Bowers, H., & Smith, M. H.
(2019). A critical methodological review
of mixed methods designs used in
mindfulness research. Mindfulness, 10(5),
786-798.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-1038-
5
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L.
A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed
methods research. Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
https://doi.org/10.1177/155868980629822
4
Koufogiannakis, D., Slater, L., & Crumley, E.
(2004). A content analysis of
librarianship research. Journal of
Information Science, 30(3), 227-239.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016555150404466
8
Matusiak, K. K. (2017). Studying information
behavior of image users: An overview of
research methodology in LIS literature,
2004-2015. Library & Information Science
Research, 1(39), 53-60.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.01.008
O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2008).
Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or
dysfunctional? Team working in mixed-
methods research. Qualitative Health
Research, 18(11), 1574-1585.
https://doi.org/10.1177/104973230832553
5
Onwuegbuzie, A., Leech, N. & Collins, K. (2011).
Innovative qualitative data collection
techniques for conducting literature
reviews/research syntheses. In M.
Williams & W. P. Vogt (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of innovation in social research
methods (pp. 182-204). London, UK:
SAGE.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446268261.n
13
Plano Clark, V., & Ivankova, N. (2016). Mixed
methods research: A guide to the field.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483398341
Smith, E. E. (2016). “A real double-edged
sword:” Undergraduate perceptions of
social media in their learning. Computers
& Education, 103, 44-58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.0
9.009
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). The SAGE
handbook of mixed methods in social &
behavioural research (2nd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193
Turcios, M. E., Agarwal, N. K., & Watkins, L.
(2014). How much of library and
information science literature qualifies
as research? The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 40(5), 473-479.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.06.0
03
Ullah, A., & Ameen, K. (2018). Account of
methodologies and methods applied in
LIS research: A systematic review.
Library & Information Science Research,
40(1), 53-60.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2018.03.002

121
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013).
Bridging the qualitative-quantitative
divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed
methods research in information
systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21-54.
https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.1.
02
Wilson, V. (2013). Research methods: Mixed
methods research. Evidence Based Library
and Information Practice, 8(2), 275-277.
https://doi.org/10.18438/B8801M
Wilson, V. (2014). Research methods:
Triangulation. Evidence Based Library and
Information Practice, 9(1), 74-75.
https://doi.org/10.18438/B8WW3X
Wu, P. F. (2012). A mixed methods approach to
technology acceptance research. Journal
of the Association for Information Systems,
13(3), 172-187.
https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00287

122
Appendix A
List of publication titles and corresponding number of articles published that were included in the
findings (n=417)
Publication title
No. of articles
Journal of Medical Internet Research
62
Qualitative Health Research
20
Information Research
10
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
10
Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology (formerly Journal
of the American Society for Information Science & Technology)
10
Aslib Journal of Information Management (formerly Aslib Proceedings)
8
Internet & Higher Education
8
Journal of Health Communication
8
Information Technology & People
7
Journal of Librarianship & Information Science
7
MIS Quarterly
7
South African Journal of Information Management
7
College & Research Libraries
6
Education for Information
6
Evidence Based Library & Information Practice
6
First Monday
6
Information Development
6
Journal of Documentation
6
Qualitative & Quantitative Methods in Libraries
6
Electronic Library
5
Information, Communication & Society
5
Journal of the Association for Information Systems
5
Mousaion
5
New Review of Academic Librarianship
5
Technology, Pedagogy & Education
5
Health Informatics Journal
4
Health Information & Libraries Journal
4
Information and Learning Science (formerly New Library World)
4

123
International Journal of Information Management
4
Journal of Enterprise Information Management
4
Journal of the Medical Library Association
4
Library & Information Science Research
4
Library Management
4
Public Library Quarterly
4
South African Journal of Libraries & Information Science
4
African Journal of Library, Archives & Information Science
3
Canadian Journal of Information & Library Sciences
3
European Journal of Information Systems
3
IFLA Journal
3
Information & Management
3
International Information & Library Review
3
Internet Research
3
Journal of Education for Library & Information Science
3
Journal of Information & Knowledge Management
3
Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing
3
Journal of Strategic Information Systems
3
Library Hi Tech
3
Library Trends
3
Online Information Review
3
portal: Libraries & The Academy
3
Reference Services Review
3
Research Evaluation
3
Telematics and Informatics
3
Transforming Government: People Process and Policy
3
Information Processing & Management
2
Information Systems Journal
2
Information Technology for Development
2
Innovation
2
International Journal of Information & Communication Technology Education
2
Journal of Academic Librarianship
2

124
Journal of the Australian Library & Information Association (formerly Australian
Library Journal)
2
Journal of Information Science
2
Journal of Information Technology & Politics
2
Journal of Organizational & End User Computing
2
Journal of Technology in Human Services
2
Library Review
2
Libri: International Journal of Libraries & Information Services
2
New Zealand Library & Information Management Journal
2
Open Learning
2
School Libraries Worldwide
2
Social Science Computer Review
2
Accountability in Research: Policies & Quality Assurance
1
Archival Science
1
Archives & Manuscripts
1
Behaviour & Information Technology
1
College & Undergraduate Libraries
1
Communications in Information Literacy
1
Community & Junior College Libraries
1
Computers in the Schools
1
Data Base for Advances in Information Systems
1
Data Technologies and Applications
1
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management
1
Hypothesis: Journal of the Research Section of MLA
1
IASSIST Quarterly
1
Informatics for Health & Social Care
1
Information & Organization
1
Information Discovery and Delivery
1
Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the
Information Age
1
Information Services & Use
1
Information Society
1
Information Systems Research
1

125
Information Technology & Management
1
International Journal of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning
1
International Journal of Electronic Government Research
1
International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction
1
International Journal of Web Based Communities
1
Journal of Access Services
1
Journal of Information Systems Education
1
Journal of Information Technology
1
Journal of Informetrics
1
Journal of Intellectual Capital
1
Journal of Knowledge Management
1
Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning
1
Journal of Library Administration
1
Journal of Library Metadata
1
Journal of Scholarly Publishing
1
Knowledge Organization
1
Learned Publishing
1
Library Philosophy & Practice
1
Music Reference Services Quarterly
1
New Review of Information Networking
1
Pakistan Library & Information Science Journal
1
Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library & Information Practice & Research
1
Performance Measurement & Metrics
1
Public Services Quarterly
1
Publications
1
Publishing Research Quarterly
1
Reference & User Services Quarterly
1
Teacher Librarian
1
Universal Access in the Information Society
1
Vine: The Journal of Information & Knowledge Management Systems
1
Total no. of articles
417