Ten years ago, the Southwest Workshop for Mixed Methods Research (SWMMR) was created to further social science’s understanding and use of mixed methods. As Seawright (Reference Seawright2016, 3) noted, the twenty-first century ushered in a wave of multi-method research. Nevertheless, the norms and expectations about its use—specifically, regarding how to combine different methods in a rigorous way—were at best unclear and at worst underdeveloped. SWMMR was created as a place where scholars could share their mixed methods work with the explicit intent of engaging in discussions of the chosen methodological approach.
The founding of this workshop in 2014 was auspicious. It was the first of its kind in terms of focusing exclusively on theories about and applications of mixed methods work. Additionally, it was founded by four newly tenure-track women academics—a risky endeavor for young scholars with little job security and incipient networks. The workshop also strived to be truly multidisciplinary. Since its first year, it has included scholars from all subfields in political science as well as sociology and urban planning. Moreover, it has sought to fund—as fully as possible—all costs associated with a two-day workshop, including room and board and travel expenses. SWMMR was designed to be accessible to as many academics as possible.
Since 2015, the workshop has discussed 144 manuscripts presented by 176 (mostly) junior scholars. It has helped produce at least: eight books; 27 peer-reviewed journal articles; two book chapters; a special issue on mixed methods in PS: Political Science & Politics (Brookes Reference Brookes2017); and seven working papers, papers under review, or dissertation chapters. Its territorial extension has far surpassed the Southwest United States—SWMMR’s origin and the region where all four founders began their tenure-track careers. The annual workshop also has furthered the profession’s goal of expanding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) by helping scholars from diverse backgrounds to develop as methodologists. Among other accomplishments, each year, a majority of participants identify as women in a field that is dominated by (white) men. As a result of an American Political Science Association (APSA) Special Projects Grant (2020–2023), the workshop was able to support the participation of individuals from various equity-seeking groups, including scholars of color and those from relatively underresourced colleges and universities. In 2024, SWMMR received a second grant to foster the inclusion of graduate students, who are vital for producing future work that theorizes about and uses mixed methods.
SWMMR’s mark on how we understand and apply mixed methods has been indelible and wide reaching. This article commemorates SWMMR’s impact 10 years after its founding and after the founding members have passed the organizing baton to the next generation. We contend that SWMMR has advanced mixed methods in political science by creating a dedicated space for structured discussion and debate, the core values of which are pushing the boundaries of methodological understanding while maintaining a firm commitment to methodological pluralism. To make this argument, the article first describes the origins and characteristics of SWMMR. We then discuss the contribution of SWMMR to—and from—DEI in the profession. Finally, we consider some of the debates that have been addressed during the past decade in our annual workshop. As we demonstrate, the nature of mixed methods—including what it entails and how it is practiced—has evolved and expanded during the past 10 years, and SWMMR is only one example of that change.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE WORKSHOP
The original organizers of the workshop (figure 1) were four assistant professors who had recently accepted positions in the US Southwest (hence, the workshop’s name): the University of Arizona (Jennifer Cyr); the University of California, Riverside (Marissa Brookes); and the University of New Mexico (Kendra Koivu and Sara [Sari] Niedzwiecki). Kendra Koivu, for whom SWMMR was a labor of love, tragically passed away in 2019 from cancer. Kendra was the link that connected all four of us. She had been trained as a methodologist at Northwestern University together with Marissa and Jen, and she began as an assistant professor at the University of New Mexico with Sari.
The idea for SWMMR emerged before we had finished graduate school. In 2005, Marissa and Kendra were two of the students in James Mahoney’s first-ever qualitative methods graduate seminar at Northwestern University, which—along with other methods courses—proved to be a formative experience for their understanding of the relationship between quantitative and qualitative methods of causal analysis. In 2011, Jen and Sari met at the two-week-long Institute for Qualitative and Multi-Method Research (IQMR) in Syracuse, New York. Along with other young Latin Americanists attending IQMR, they discussed the need to develop a qualitative and mixed methods institute in Latin America. These connections and conversations continued when, in 2014, Kendra and Sari met at the University of New Mexico (UNM) and proposed hosting a mixed methods workshop in Albuquerque. Together with Jen and Marissa, we organized the inaugural workshop at UNM only one year later, with the invaluable support of Professors Mala Htun and Bill Stanley. The original idea was to organize three workshops in three years (one at each founder’s university). The initial successes made it clear, however, that the workshop should occur annually beyond those first three years. After the 2015 inaugural conference, workshops took place at the University of Arizona (2016); the University of California, Riverside (2017); the University of California, Santa Cruz (2018); the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México in Mexico City (2019); Northwestern University (2021); the University of Notre Dame (2022); the University of Maryland (2023); the University of California, Riverside (2024); and the University of California, Irvine (2025).
The format of the workshop encourages both academic debate and networking opportunities. It involves two days in which no more than 30 junior (i.e., early-career scholars and “late-year” graduate students) and senior scholars discuss and debate the theory and practice of mixed methods research in an intimate workshop setting. Junior scholars present original working papers and receive feedback from senior counterparts who have an established record of mixed methods scholarship. The discussions provide specific, detailed feedback on original works that are in progress. To be considered for the workshop, these works explicitly must use, engage with, or theorize about mixed methods. The expectations of participants are high: they attend every presentation and read every paper. This allows for sustained conversations about methods over multiple hours.
Additionally, the workshop includes either a “master class,” an “author-meets-critics” segment devoted to the discussion of a recent or future book-length publication on mixed methods research, or a roundtable discussion on research methods featuring four or five senior scholars. SWMMR has featured master classes and roundtable discussions on positionality, how to mix methods, the merits and limitations of mixed methods, teaching mixed methods, field research, and research transparency.
SWMMR also includes opportunities for networking and community building through coffee breaks, meals (i.e., lunches and an extended dinner/social evening), and walks around the host campus. These informal encounters foster the growth of a diverse community of scholars. The networks endure after the workshop concludes. For example, many scholars stay in touch as they continue to improve their manuscripts and advance their careers. One example of this is the post-SWMMR writers’ workshop. Initiated by SWMMR participant (and later organizer) Young-Im Lee, this follow-up workshop allows participants to present revised versions of the papers they presented at SWMMR. More than one SWMMR senior scholar has written tenure letters for then-junior participants, and five prior senior or junior participants (i.e., Lee, Nicholas Weller, Laura García Montoya, Daniel Solomon, and Angie Jo) became part of the SWMMR organizing committee.
Overall, SWMMR is a remarkable opportunity for in-depth, extended feedback on methods-based work. Participants leave the workshop with specific ideas on how to improve their work. They also have a new network of friendly colleagues, including some of the most prominent names in mixed methods research. Indeed, senior scholars have been crucial to the success of SWMMR. Their participation lends credibility to the workshop and counts as a major incentive for younger scholars to apply. However, they also have been key as interlocutors with the administrative staff at each host university, and they always spread the word about future SWMMR workshops.
The organization of SWMMR has evolved in many ways during its 10 years of existence. First, it has evolved organizationally. In 2019, Nicholas Weller (University of California, Riverside) joined the organizing team. His wit and good humor were vital for moving SWMMR forward after Kendra’s tragic death. The 2022 workshop, held at the University of Notre Dame, marked the departure of Marissa and Sari from the team. Young-Im Lee (California State University, Sacramento) and Laura García Montoya (University of Toronto) took their place, bringing fresh ideas, impressive organizational skills, and enthusiasm to the workshop. In 2024, Daniel Solomon (US Holocaust Museum) joined the organizers, shortly before Jen Cyr and Nick Weller stepped down. Angie Jo (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) joined the team in preparation for the 2025 conference. Each of these newcomers was a SWMMR participant before joining the organizing team.
SWMMR has been a positive experience for the majority of our past participants. This is evidenced in part by the feedback we received. After each workshop, participants respond to a survey asking for suggestions on how SWMMR can be improved for the following year. Following is a selection of comments from the last open-ended question, illustrating some of their perspectives on the workshop. Specifically, in response to the statement, “We welcome your general comments, including suggestions for future workshops,” participants wrote:
I want to say thank you to all of the workshop founders and organizers. This was honestly one of the best workshops/conferences I’ve ever been to. It seemed like everyone had a real interest in providing helpful feedback, and there was a lot of positive energy. I’ll definitely encourage my friends and colleagues to submit an abstract the next time the call for papers comes out. (Assistant Professor, 2019 workshop)
The vibe of the workshop is extraordinary. Very positive and constructive. (Full Professor, 2021 workshop)
I loved this workshop! I appreciated the opportunity to present a methods-oriented paper and receive feedback from senior scholars whose work I regularly reference and cite. The quality of the feedback was terrific, and the workshop set a high standard for collegiality and engaged discussion. (Graduate Student, 2021 workshop)
It was a wonderful and welcoming conference. I thoroughly enjoyed the setup, got excellent feedback on my work, and was able to meet some fantastic early and advanced scholars. Thank you for making this happen! (Assistant Professor, 2022 workshop)
CONTRIBUTIONS TO AND FROM DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION
SWMMR’s evolution included an increasing commitment to diversifying the individuals who participate in methods work. The workshop regularly includes more women than men. As shown in table 1, the percentage of self-identified women participants ranges from 46% (2021) to 81% (2023). In eight of nine workshops (i.e., no workshop was held in 2020 due to COVID-19), women outnumbered men. SWMMR also prioritizes the participation of individuals from historically underrepresented groups, including minoritized scholars and individuals affiliated with minority-serving institutions, liberal arts colleges, and other teaching-intensive colleges outside the network of R1 universities in North America. For example, for the 2021 workshop at Northwestern University, of those who responded to our survey question about positionality, 52.4% identified as female; 47.6% identified as people of color; 14.3% were first-generation college students; 4.8% were immigrants; 19% were international scholars; 42.9% were graduate students; and 38% were assistant professors. The final panel that year was a roundtable on positionality in academia featuring senior scholars from diverse backgrounds with a distinguished track record of supporting DEI in scholarship and mentorship. These groups face systemic challenges in academia (Cameron, White, and Gray Reference Cameron, White and Gray2016; Martínez, Chang, and Welton 2017; Scharrón-Del Río 2020; Turner Reference Turner, Cyr and Goodman2024). Facilitating their participation in SWMMR has been one strategy for advancing the discipline’s goals of supporting DEI.
The Four Founders of SWMMR in Tucson, Arizona, in 2016
From left to right: Jennifer Cyr, Sara Niedzwiecki, Kendra Koivu, and Marissa Brookes.
Participation in Annual Southwest Workshop on Mixed Methods Research (2015–2024)
Notes: The first year, organizers emailed junior faculty members who were working on mixed methods projects to ask if they were interested in participating. In all other years, the organizers published a call for and received abstracts from interested scholars.
Financial support has been the main strategy for promoting the participation of minoritized scholars, graduate students, and faculty members from non-R1 universities. Every year, SWMMR does not charge a participation fee, and it funds part or all of participants’ expenses through host-institution contributions, an annual donation from the Consortium on Qualitative Research Methods, and the generous support of APSA’s Special Projects Grant. This has enabled SWMMR to cover most of the costs for scholars from equity-seeking groups and those from colleges and universities with fewer resources.
To be sure, there is still work to do. As shown in table 1, previous participants were mostly from research-focused institutions, although this trend has shifted slightly in recent years. The reality of the discipline is that most political scientists are based in various types of institutions other than R1s. Faculty members at liberal arts colleges and other teaching-intensive universities increasingly face higher expectations for research and publication for tenure and promotion with decreasing levels of financial support for these activities. Based on conversations with previous attendees and the organizers’ own experiences, the expenses and time burden of teaching requirements in non-R1 departments significantly limit the extent to which these scholars may access academic exchanges and networking opportunities.
The workshop is also committed to greater methodological and epistemological diversity and will continue to seek to include non-positivist, interpretivist approaches to mixed methods. The following discussion describes how there is no single approach to mixing methods. Consequently, scholars have considerable creativity in multi-method research designs. Future workshops should consider fostering this creativity and encourage greater dialogue with interpretivist scholars.
Moreover, SWMMR will continue to strive to diversify the group of participants who attend the workshop. Toward that end, it remains committed to integrating newer, different, and younger voices. This may include soliciting an optional diversity statement from applicants to the workshop and diversifying the organizational team, aligned with suggested best practices (Michelson and Wilkinson Reference Michelson and Wilkinson2023; Tormos-Aponte Reference Tormos-Aponte2021).
A particularly promising pattern in SWMMR participation is the increase in the number of graduate students who have taken part in the workshop. The first three workshop presenters were almost exclusively assistant professors, but the percentage of graduate students gradually increased to 65% in 2024. The unique focus of the workshop, as well as the lower financial barriers to participation, make it particularly attractive to and useful for graduate students. These younger scholars may not receive feedback on mixed methods research in their home department, and their more precarious financial situation may prevent them from participating in other academic conferences (Pashayan et al. Reference Pashayan, Kehlenbach, Ye, Mueller and Willis2023). SWMMR recently received an APSA Summer Centennial Center Research Grant to further its goal of including graduate students.
It is widely understood that political science—and the social sciences in general—have a diversity problem (Clark et al. Reference Clark, Block, Johnson, Minta, Baumgartner, Box-Steffensmeier, Christenson and Sinclair-Chapman2024). One approach to begin rectifying this problem is to include more historically underrepresented groups in our conferences. SWMMR has been explicit in this effort to include marginalized voices; it has been a part of the workshop’s mission from the beginning. However, the inclusion of these voices also should have its own positive consequences, over time, for the discipline. A diverse discipline should produce intellectual benefits for the discipline, as Clark et al. (Reference Clark, Block, Johnson, Minta, Baumgartner, Box-Steffensmeier, Christenson and Sinclair-Chapman2024) carefully highlighted.
It is difficult to measure the full impact of SWMMR’s diversity effort on mixed methods work. Certainly, diversifying SWMMR has made for a more robust debate about how to mix methods, one that broadens what should be considered “rigorous” political science research worthy of being published in top journals (Koivu and Hinze Reference Koivu and Hinze2017; Teele and Thelen Reference Teele and Thelen2017). As SWMMR participants return to their academic positions—or assume academic positions in the case of early-career participants—they are better equipped to evaluate qualitative and mixed methods work. They have more tools for valuing innovation alongside more conventional approaches to research. In other words, it is hoped that they will become better-skilled researchers, teachers, and reviewers. This undoubtedly will continue to have an important impact on intellectual production.
Certainly, diversifying SWMMR has made for a more robust debate about how to mix methods, one that broadens what should be considered “rigorous” political science research worthy of being published in top journals.
An important output that was informed directly by the DEI efforts at SWMMR has been the volume, Doing Good Qualitative Research, which was coedited by one of the SWMMR cofounders, Jennifer Cyr, with Sara Wallace Goodman. In organizing SWMMR, Cyr made great efforts with her co-organizers to convene a diverse group of senior scholars for each workshop. In a discipline long dominated by white cisgender men (Cyr and Goodman Reference Cyr and Goodman2024, 6), it became increasingly difficult to curate a diverse group of mentors, year after year. This difficulty was a principal impetus for their 2024 edited volume, which made the explicit choice to include only women and nonbinary scholars for the 40 chapters.
Additional impacts in terms of DEI are likely to increase over time as networking at SWMMR yields coauthored articles and as participating graduate students make their own contributions to the discipline. On this point, a real challenge is empowering individuals from marginalized groups to perceive themselves as methodologists (Barnes Reference Barnes2018, 580). SWMMR is an annual conference at which scholars of different age, gender, sex, race, religion, and socioeconomic backgrounds sit around a big table to discuss mixing methods. Inevitably, innovation occurs. Consider, for example, Tania Islas Weinstein’s (SWMMR 2024) paper—an interpretivist text that incorporates works of art into our study of politics—and Eun-A Park’s (SWMMR 2024) research design, which transforms the standard approach to mixed methods. Both of these papers embed an experiment into interviews rather than using interviews to inform an experimental protocol.
Ultimately, when Kenicia Wright and Jordin Tafoya (SWMMR 2024) offered new insights on how to measure Latino/a identities, and others at the table engaged with their insights (with those of Weinstein and Park), these scholars began to perceive themselves as methodologists-in-training. In this sense, SWMMR aligns with other efforts—including the Emerging Methodologists Workshop and the IQMR—that have adopted explicit strategies to empower historically marginalized scholars to write about and engage with methods. Following the argument of Clark et al. (Reference Clark, Block, Johnson, Minta, Baumgartner, Box-Steffensmeier, Christenson and Sinclair-Chapman2024), these efforts inevitably will improve the study of methodology as an approach to knowledge.
WHAT HAS SWMMR TAUGHT US ABOUT MIXING METHODS?
What does it mean to mix methods? We believe that continued interest in the workshop reinforces larger trends in the social science disciplines. Stated simply, social scientists are increasingly using mixed methods in their research designs (McKim Reference McKim2017; Niedzwiecki and Nunnally Reference Niedzwiecki and Nunnally2017; Seawright Reference Seawright2016). This type of research has proven useful for advancing our understanding of democratization, party systems, interstate conflict, development, inequality, identity, welfare states, and other perennial “big questions” in political science. Nevertheless, there is little consensus about what mixed methods entails. What does a mixed methods research project look like?
Recent publications offer similar but certainly not shared definitions. Many scholars assert that mixed methods research includes a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods (Caruth Reference Caruth2013; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie Reference Johnson and Onwuegbuzie2004; Lund Reference Lund2012; McKim Reference McKim2017). Indeed, on its website, the Journal of Mixed Methods Research defines it as research in which “the investigator collects and analyzes data, integrates the findings, and draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches or methods in a single study or program of inquiry.” Yet, should mixed methods be limited to this combination? Distinctions between what counts as “qualitative” and “quantitative” can be arbitrary. Moreover, differences between two “qualitative methods”—consider, for example, discourse analysis (Weinstein Reference Weinstein, Cyr and Goodman2024) versus qualitative social-network analysis (Spindel Reference Spindel, Cyr and Goodman2024) or process tracing (Liu Reference Liu, Cyr and Goodman2024) versus qualitative comparative analysis (Oana, Schneider, and Thomann Reference Oana, Schneider and Thomann2021)—can be stark and even epistemological in nature.
Seawright (Reference Seawright2016, 2) advanced a broader perspective, stating that multi-method (not mixed methods) research combines “data-gathering and -analyzing techniques from two or more methodological traditions”—without specifying what one or another tradition must look like. Goertz’s (Reference Goertz2017, 1) book on multi-method research also views mixing methods as broad in scope. He states that “multimethod [sic] can mean many things,” even as his focus is on research that combines “case studies with statistics, qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), experiments, or game theory models.”
The SWMMR annual workshops reveal this lack of consensus about what a mixed methods research design should entail. Every year, the organizing committee evaluates paper proposals to be included on different panels. The main criterion for accepting (or rejecting) an abstract is that the applicant makes (or does not make) explicit how different methods are theorized to mix or how and why the mixing of different methods is particularly useful for the stated research question. It is clear by the justifications employed that applicants at times have wildly diverging views about what mixing methods implies. Does a project that uses two types of qualitative data count as mixed methods? What if it uses two types of quantitative data analysis? Must a research design incorporate both qualitative and quantitative methods? What if a paper combines a survey and an experiment? Does triangulation count?
As we selected abstracts, we decided to incorporate almost any combination proposed by the applicants as long as they made a good case for the need to combine those particular methods. Authors presenting on a range of substantive issues have used case studies to explain the mechanisms behind regressions; focus groups to design survey experiments; Bayesian probability to process trace cases; quantitative data to select cases; quantitative measures of spatial dependence in qualitative studies; QCA for selecting cases to process trace; collaborative methodology to design projects; randomized priming experiments embedded in interviews; and art to inform politics. Approved papers included positivist as well as interpretivist and collaborative works. The list of mixed methods research designs, some more innovative than others, is long. Consequently, over 10 years, multiple scholars sat around a big table and provided constructive feedback on texts that used vastly different mixed methods designs. Despite this diversity—or, perhaps, because of it—the conversations were serious, nuanced, and extremely fruitful.
Indeed, the lack of consensus on a definition of mixed methods parallels existing disagreements on the best way to engage in the mixing of methods. SWMMR has reflected on at least some of the different perspectives in the field. Throughout the years, participants at the workshop have discussed the benefits and shortcomings of nested research designs (Lieberman Reference Lieberman2005, Reference Lieberman2010, Reference Lieberman, Mahoney and Thelen2015), integration (Seawright Reference Seawright2016), QCA (Ragin Reference Ragin1987), and triangulation—to mention only a few. Master classes and roundtable panels reflected these productive disagreements. The first two master classes in 2015 and 2016 were discussions of integration through the lenses of the then-forthcoming books by Seawright (Reference Seawright2016) and Goertz (Reference Goertz2017). Each lecture opened and shaped that year’s workshop, as discussions of subsequent manuscripts had to grapple with whether their work fit or did not fit integration. In 2017, Evelyne Huber and John Stephens made a convincing case for triangulation and nested designs, whereas Rudra Sil challenged the idea that mixed methods should be considered best practice by arguing for the benefits of single-method designs.
Sil’s criticism of the utility of mixing methods was welcome at SWMMR, if only to acknowledge the pitfalls of using more than one method in a research design. A common critique is that using multiple methods in a single project requires a scholar to excel at more than one method, achieving rigor and transparency in each one that is used. Many papers at SWMMR have been coauthored—undoubtedly due to the complexity of this type of research design. A second more existential critique is that mixed methods, even when well executed, do not always provide greater analytical leverage than single-method work. This critique more closely reflects debates about the supposed irreconcilability of different logics of causal inference and questions, variation in the goals of positivist versus interpretivist research questions, and other points of ongoing contention.
Annual workshop debates about what counts as mixed methods and how to best combine different methods generate the sense that no universal approach is possible or even necessary regarding mixed methods. Instead, it might be better to view mixed methods from a more ontological perspective—that is, as an umbrella category that allows for multiple (indefinite?) combinations. Mixed methods are not defined by which methods are used. Instead, what matters is how they are combined and, especially, that a researcher can demonstrate persuasively that the mixing of methods provides greater leverage to answer a research question. Mixing methods is a pluralist endeavor, but it requires explicit, careful engagement. Mixing methods is not an end in itself.
When we treat mixed methods as a means through which we can better answer specific research questions, then the “practice” of mixing methods becomes subject to the rules of rigor and transparency that we apply to many of our methodological tools (Cyr and Goodman Reference Cyr and Goodman2024). Rigor requires that we are systematic in our use of all methods and that each is carried out using the standards developed for single-method research designs. Transparency, in part, demands that we explain the utility of each method and that we tie its use to the specific goals that must be met to cogently “answer” a research question.
Transparency in mixing methods is about data analysis as much as data collection and sharing. The DA-RT initiative, spearheaded by Arthur Lupia and Colin Elman, pushed for greater transparency in political science. Since then, our discipline has had productive discussions and disagreements about what transparency should look like regarding qualitative and multi-method research. The “Qualitative Transparency Deliberations” and associated publications (Buthe et al. 2015; Jacobs et al. Reference Jacobs, Büthe, Arjona, Arriola, Bellin, Bennett, Björkman, Bleich, Elkins, Fairfield, Gaikwad, Greitens, Hawkesworth, Herrera, Herrera, Johnson, Karakoç, Koivu, Kreuzer, Lake, Luke, MacLean, Majic, Maxwell, Mampilly, Mickey, Morgan, Parkinson, Parsons, Pearlman, Pollack, Posner, Riedl, Schatz, Schneider, Schwedler, Shesterinina, Simmons, Singerman, Soifer, Smith, Spitzer, Tallberg, Thomson, Vázquez-Arroyo, Vis, Wedeen, Williams, Wood and Yashar2021), in particular, emphasized that transparency necessarily will look different across methodological traditions with different ontological and epistemological premises. In doing so, they challenge the idea of discipline-wide norms of transparency principles (Büthe and Jacobs 2015a, Reference Büthe and Jacobs2015b), especially given the ethical risks and epistemological caveats of sharing certain types of data (Jacobs and Büthe et al. 2021).
Colin Elman and Diana Kapiszewski made an excellent case for the centrality of transparency in our 2017 workshop at the University of California, Santa Cruz. They engaged with the challenges—both practical and ethical—of sharing data, especially for qualitative scholars and for scholars who mix methods. The debate about research transparency in that workshop was centered on the barriers that qualitative scholars faced for sharing data compared with quantitative scholars. Despite these difficulties, Elman and Kapiszewski advocated for the need for transparency and offered practical advice and platforms to partially lift some of those barriers. Since that discussion, the conversation around transparency has not reemerged. Instead, master classes and roundtable panels covered other topics. To be sure, this omission does not reflect the declining importance of the ongoing debate, especially with regard to differences between how positivist-versus-interpretative scholars conceptualize and practice transparency. For interpretative scholars, for example, a conversation about transparency should include a researcher’s positionality and influence on the social world, which is not expected of positivist scholars (Büthe and Jacobs Reference Büthe and Jacobs2015b). This debate—one of many that mixing methods evokes—may be readdressed in future workshops.
Mixing methods is difficult, which is why practical advice on how to mix methods always has been welcomed at the workshop. In Mexico City’s meeting in 2019, Lauren M. MacLean argued for appreciating “iteration,” or the process of “modifying, specifying, or fleshing out key research design parameters based on what one learns while confronting new realities and cycling between collecting and analyzing data” (Kapiszewski, MacLean, and Read Reference Kapiszewski, MacLean and Read2022, 646). Although the advice was geared toward the conversation between field research findings and analysis, it also can apply to the often difficult and contradictory conversation of including different methodologies within a single research design. Field research findings, for example, can change the planned treatment in a survey experiment.
Yet, despite how difficult it is to execute mixed methods research well, as Cyr and Goodman noted in their master class on the book, Doing Good Qualitative Research, in the 2024 SWMMR, recent trends in publishing suggest that good, single-method qualitative work that produces a cogent and well-supported argument is still less likely to be published than a poorly justified mixed methods project. This dynamic raises critical questions about how methods are incentivized and evaluated in the discipline. The growing prestige of mixed methods work can lead to its instrumentalization, in which scholars add a second method—not because it meaningfully improves their analysis but rather as an attempt to increase the likelihood of publication. In such cases, the value of methodological pluralism is undermined rather than advanced.
With SWMMR, we have sought to create a space where scholars are encouraged to reflect seriously on when, why, and how to mix methods—not as a performative gesture but rather as a strategic choice grounded in the logic of the research question and the theoretical and epistemological approach. Our application process requires explicit engagement with why mixed methods are used. The conversation continues at the workshop, where the mechanics of mixing methods are scrutinized and authors are called on to defend their choices. Each of these steps emphasizes the importance of directly explaining the methodological choices that we make. Consequently, SWMMR helps participants to avoid the pitfalls of methodological “window dressing” and fosters rigorous, intentional, and transparent mixed methods research. Therefore, our engagement with mixed methods—in SWMMR and in other venues—continues to be crucial for advancing the discipline and for understanding how we can build knowledge about the world around us.
With SWMMR, we have sought to create a space where scholars are encouraged to reflect seriously on when, why, and how to mix methods—not as a performative gesture but rather as a strategic choice grounded in the logic of the research question and the theoretical and epistemological approach.
CONCLUSIONS
Ten years after its founding, SWMMR has demonstrated the transformative potential of sustained, intentional engagement with the challenges and opportunities of mixed methods research. SWMMR has fostered a vibrant intellectual community, nurtured an intergenerational group of social and political science scholars, and broadened the field’s understanding of what it means to rigorously and transparently combine different methodological traditions.
SWMMR has fostered a vibrant intellectual community, nurtured an intergenerational group of social and political science scholars, and broadened the field’s understanding of what it means to rigorously and transparently combine different methodological traditions.
Ten years of workshops have reinforced the idea that methodological pluralism is both necessary and productive—but that it requires careful theorization, explicit engagement, and a deep commitment to rigor and transparency. Through annual workshops, debates, and informal networks, SWMMR has modeled how scholars can critically interrogate mixed methods, improve their research designs, and advance more nuanced approaches to causal inference and theory building.
SWMMR has contributed especially meaningfully to advancing DEI in the profession by providing financial support and creating a welcoming environment for scholars from historically underrepresented groups and a wide variety of institutional backgrounds. SWMMR’s ongoing efforts to diversify participants and leadership have strengthened the workshop’s intellectual vitality and ensured that a broader range of perspectives shapes the future of mixed methods research. Moreover, we have shown that methodological innovation and greater inclusion are mutually reinforcing. The diversity of participants has brought new questions, perspectives, and research ideas to the forefront of debates about mixed methods, enriching not only individual projects but also the very way we conceptualize rigor, causality, and evidence in political science and beyond. SWMMR’s commitment to methodological pluralism is inseparable from its commitment to social justice: advancing how we mix methods also must mean expanding who has the opportunity to do so, under what conditions, and with what recognition.
Beyond mentorship and network building, SWMMR has contributed to carving out intellectual space for qualitative and multi-method research in a discipline in which quantitative and positivist approaches continue to dominate. During the past decade, the workshops have provided participants with a venue to present qualitative and mixed methods work with rigor and transparency, on its own terms rather than as a defensive response to quantitative standards. At the same time, we recognize that challenges remain. Although there is more receptivity to qualitative and mixed methods work today than when SWMMR was founded, tensions between methodological communities are still evident, and many early-career scholars continue to feel pressure to focus primarily on quantitative research. In the future, one of the central intellectual challenges for SWMMR will be to continue supporting scholars in navigating this landscape, thereby fostering a community that not only strengthens qualitative and mixed methods research but also ensures that it is understood as a vital contributor to cumulative knowledge in political science.
As mixed methods scholarship continues to evolve, SWMMR’s legacy is a reminder that the work of developing and refining our methodological tools must be collective, iterative, and inclusive. There is no single formula for how best to utilize mixed methods, but there is great value in building spaces that allow scholars to experiment, learn, and grow together. In that sense, SWMMR’s first decade serves not only as a celebration of what has been accomplished but also as an invitation for the next generation of scholars to continue pushing the boundaries of methodological innovation in the years ahead.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Marissa, Jennifer, and Sara dedicate this article in loving memory to Kendra Koivu. Kendra was a bright star: a methodological powerhouse, a trusted colleague, and a dear friend. We thank her for her wisdom, her sense of humor, and her incomparable capacity to wryly observe and then astutely make sense of the world around her. We miss her terribly. We also thank the participants, organizers, and supporters of SWMMR. This article was inspired by their work and the discussions at the workshops.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there are no ethical issues or conflicts of interest in this research.
