Revisiting the difference between mixed methods and multimethods: Is it all in the name?

Abstract The literature on mixed methods and multimethods has burgeoned over the last 20 years, and researchers from a growing number and diversity of fields have progressively embraced these approaches. However, rapid growth in any movement inevitably gives rise to gaps or shortcomings, such as “identity crises” or divergent conceptual views. Although some authors draw a clear and sometimes opinionated distinction between mixed methods and multimethods, for others, they are synonymous. The concepts underlying both terms therefore have become blurred and generated much confusion. The aim of this article is to explore the origins of the confusion, describe our view of mixed methods and multimethod studies, and by doing so, help to clearly delineate the two concepts. The authors have presented their opinion of how these terms and concepts should be distinguished and call for a constructive debate of the issues involved in the mixed methods and multimethod literature. This is a way truly to propel the field forward.