Although more time consuming and costly, mixed-methods research can also be more fruitful than either qualitative or quantitative methods alone. Mixed methods combine qualitative and quantitative in ways that are suitable for answering a complex set of research questions. Because the researcher can use more than one research design in the same study, mixed methods can “answer a broader range of research questions,” (Center for Innovation for Research and Teaching, n.d., p. 1). However, mixed methods can be like performing two separate studies at once, which does require more resources and time. Commonly used in the social sciences and in public health research, mixed methods should be employed when it is feasible and warranted (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2013). Researchers should always endeavor to approach a problem from as many angles as possible, and consider the way their choice research methods might impact interpretation of a problem and more importantly, impact public policy.Mixed methods extend understanding of a research problem in several ways. Case studies and other qualitative methods offer an in-depth and also personalized, humanized insight into how public health or social problems impact the lives of individuals and families. Likewise, interviews and focus groups can offer policymakers insight into how certain policies and programs are being perceived to determine why compliance rates or customer satisfaction rates are low. However, qualitative...

Mixed methods, on the other hand, can offer the type of global, statistical, and data-driven information that policymakers need while also offering insight into some of the more nuanced implications of any problem, program, or policy. The data collected is “rich and comprehensive,” (AHRQ, 2013) as well as more generalizable and even potentially more valid (CIRT, n.d.).
For example, mixed methods approaches have been fruitful when studying public health interventions for patients with HIV/AIDS. In one study, mixed-methods approaches illuminated what elements of an HIV care center were working, and which elements were not meeting the needs of patients (Chow, Quine, & Li, 2010). Chow, Quine & Li (2010) found that mixed-methods “increased the comprehensiveness of overall findings, by showing how qualitative data...provided explanations for statistical data,” (p. 491). Second, Chow, Quine, & Li (2010) point out how using mixed methods allowed the researchers to “expand the dimensions of the research topic,” prevented an overly and artificially narrow view of the issues (p. 491). In fact, mixed methods can even “increase methodological rigor,” because the results of each component of the mixed methods verify the other (Chow, Quine &…