Division of Global Public Health, Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0507, La Jolla, CA 92093-0507, USA.
Int J Drug Policy. 2012 Jan;23(1):54-61. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2011.05.009. Epub 2011 Jun 15.
Mixed methods research is increasingly being promoted in the health sciences as a way to gain more comprehensive understandings of how social processes and individual behaviours shape human health. Mixed methods research most commonly combines qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis strategies. Often, integrating findings from multiple methods is assumed to confirm or validate the findings from one method with the findings from another, seeking convergence or agreement between methods. Cases in which findings from different methods are congruous are generally thought of as ideal, whilst conflicting findings may, at first glance, appear problematic. However, the latter situation provides the opportunity for a process through which apparently discordant results are reconciled, potentially leading to new emergent understandings of complex social phenomena. This paper presents three case studies drawn from the authors' research on HIV risk amongst injection drug users in which mixed methods studies yielded apparently discrepant results. We use these case studies (involving injection drug users [IDUs] using a Needle/Syringe Exchange Program in Los Angeles, CA, USA; IDUs seeking to purchase needle/syringes at pharmacies in Tijuana, Mexico; and young street-based IDUs in San Francisco, CA, USA) to identify challenges associated with integrating findings from mixed methods projects, summarize lessons learned, and make recommendations for how to more successfully anticipate and manage the integration of findings. Despite the challenges inherent in reconciling apparently conflicting findings from qualitative and quantitative approaches, in keeping with others who have argued in favour of integrating mixed methods findings, we contend that such an undertaking has the potential to yield benefits that emerge only through the struggle to reconcile discrepant results and may provide a sum that is greater than the individual qualitative and quantitative parts.
混合方法研究越来越多地在健康科学中得到推广，作为一种更全面地了解社会过程和个人行为如何塑造人类健康的方法。混合方法研究通常将定性和定量数据收集和分析策略结合在一起。通常，假设整合来自多种方法的发现可以用另一种方法的发现来确认或验证一种方法的发现，从而寻求方法之间的收敛或一致性。来自不同方法的发现一致的情况通常被认为是理想的，而冲突的发现乍一看可能会出现问题。然而，后一种情况为一个过程提供了机会，通过这个过程，明显不一致的结果可以得到调和，从而有可能对复杂的社会现象产生新的涌现理解。本文介绍了三个案例研究，这些案例研究来自作者关于注射吸毒者中 HIV 风险的研究，其中混合方法研究产生了明显不一致的结果。我们使用这些案例研究（涉及在加利福尼亚州洛杉矶使用针头/注射器交换计划的注射吸毒者；在墨西哥蒂华纳试图从药店购买针头/注射器的注射吸毒者；以及在加利福尼亚州旧金山的年轻街头注射吸毒者）来确定整合混合方法项目结果时遇到的挑战，总结经验教训，并就如何更成功地预测和管理结果的整合提出建议。尽管在调和定性和定量方法中明显冲突的发现方面存在挑战，但与其他支持整合混合方法结果的人一样，我们认为，这样的努力有可能产生只有通过努力调和不一致的结果才能产生的益处，并且可能提供一个比单个定性和定量部分更大的总和。
