Mixed methods in sport management: A review and directions for future research

ABSTRACT

Mixed methods research integrates qualitative and quantitative methods into a harmonised approach. Over time, conducting mixed methods research has become increasingly popular within sport management scholarship. Since applications differ across fields, it is imperative to review the state of mixed methods research within sport management to consolidate our current knowledge and enhance future practices and contributions. The aim of this study is to review the prevalence of mixed methods research in sport management scholarship, assess its quality and methodological contributions, and provide direction to help scholars write (and review) mixed methods research in our field. We conduct a scoping review of 133 sport management related mixed methods studies. Our analysis identifies the prevalence of authors, journals, year, design, samples, data collection, and data analysis. Borrowing from critical insight within mixed methods scholarship, we assess each study’s mixed methods quality (i.e. justification, type, distinct results, and mixing) and methodological contributions. Our review yields three novel contributions. First, we provide an overview of mixed methods research in sport management scholarship, highlighting a substantial publication increase since 2020. Second, despite the increasing frequency of mixed methods research, we identify that sport management scholarship infrequently produces high-quality studies relative to common standards developed by leading mixed methods scholars. The final contribution of this study is that we provide direction for writing (and reviewing) mixed methods research in sport management scholarship. To do so, we present four paths with indicative questions to help scholars develop stronger mixed methods sections, integrations, visualisations, and contributions.

KEYWORDS:

• Mixed methods
• research methods
• research design

Introduction

As sport’s influence on society has evolved, the field of sport management has increasingly been faced with complex problems that require comprehensive solutions (Gammelsæter, 2021). The complex problems sport management researchers, practitioners, and policymakers face, intersect with some of our world’s grandest challenges. Given the inherent complexity of these problems, the need to advance and apply research approaches that considers and synthesises multiple perspectives is becoming increasingly paramount (Fink et al., 2022).

In recent years, sport management’s leading journals have advanced special issues dedicated to improving the rigour and application of methodological approaches. On one hand, Hoeber and Shaw (2017) encouraged scholars to embrace contemporary qualitative methods and methodologies, like indigenous methodologies and digital ethnography. On the other hand, Watanabe et al. (2021) highlighted the emergence of big data within sport management, bringing awareness to new quantitative data collection and interpretation techniques. Taken together, these special issues have helped push our field forward by advancing the rigorous application of qualitative and quantitative approaches. The gap in our methodological discourse exists in the space between these two approaches, or more specifically, how sport management scholarship can enhance our methodological toolkit regarding the art (and science) of mixing qualitative and quantiative approaches in order to answer increasingly complex problems via mixed methods research.

Mixed methods triangulates diverse perspectives to advance the understanding of a given phenomenon beyond individually applied qualitative or quantitative approaches (Hurmerinta-Peltomäki & Nummela, 2006). By mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches (e.g., data collection, analysis, and inference techniques), mixed methods can provide a greater understanding of complex problems and offer more comprehensive research solutions (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Mixed methods applications differ across research fields, making it not only imperative to understand field-related applications but also reflect on the prevalence, quality, and contributions of applications within that field and determine how to advance that field (Molina-Azorin & Fetters, 2016).

To date, two previous studies have reflected on mixed methods research in sport management scholarship (Abeza et al., 2015; van der Roest et al., 2015). Both studies examined characteristics of mixed methods (e.g., timing, priority, and data collection methods) and highlighted that few scholars consistently applied these approaches. While these studies provided some relevant insights, they focused on reviewing the prevalence of mixed methods within limited journals,¹ largely omitting the appraisal of quality criteria and methodological contributions salient to conducting high-quality mixed methods research. Not to mention, these reviews were conducted nearly a decade ago, and mixed methods research in sport management scholarship has grown exponentially since.

Given the limitations of past reviews and the emergence of mixed methods research in sport management scholarship, it is imperative we assess this state of play and provide guidance to help scholars to conduct high-quality studies that advance our field. To do so, we extend on these previous reviews in three ways. First, we move beyond journal-specific reviews to provide a comprehensive review of the prevalence of mixed methods research in sport management scholarship, using a widely accepted scoping review approach. Second, building on calls to better assess mixed methods research within emerging fields (Perez et al., 2023), we assess the sport management literature against key mixed methods quality criteria (i.e., type, justification, distinct results, and mixing) and examine the extent of stated methodological contributions (Bergh et al., 2022). Finally, we reflect on our field’s mixed methods applications to provide direction to help sport management scholars write (and review) mixed method research in the future. As such, the aim of this paper is to review the prevalence of mixed methods research in sport management scholarship, assess its quality and methodological contributions, and provide direction for writing (and reviewing) mixed method research in sport management. Our study is guided by the following research questions: (1) how has mixed methods research been applied within sport management scholarship? (2) what is the quality and methodological contributions of mixed methods studies in sport management scholarship? and (3) how can sport management scholars conduct high-quality mixed methods research to advance our field?

To establish the necessary foundations for assessing mixed methods quality and methodological contributions in sport management scholarship, we begin by reviewing considerations drawn from mixed methods and broader management literatures. We then provide an overview of the scoping review approach employed before presenting our findings from the prevalence, quality, and contribution assessments, and discussing common challenges observed within this scholarship. We close by providing direction to help sport management scholars write (and review) mixed methods research in the future.

Mixed methods research

Known as the third methodological movement, mixed methods research can be defined as empirical research that “combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g., use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the broad purpose of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration” (Johnson et al., 2007, p. 123). The benefits of mixed methods have been realised over time by scholars from various social science domains, advocating the approach can provide a more comprehensive understanding of phenomena leading to greater research impact (Dahler-Larsen, 2022; Molina-Azorin & Fetters, 2016). Designed to break the polarizing dichotomy of qualitative and quantitative debates, mixed methods synthesises qualitative and quantitative approaches to amplify their respective benefits and minimise their respective weaknesses into one research approach (Johnson et al., 2007).

Qualitative (e.g., rigor, credibility, and coherence; Tracy, 2010) and quantitative approaches (e.g., convergent and discriminant validity; Fornell & Larcker, 1981) each have specific criteria to identify and enhance the methodological quality relative to the paradigmatic positions adopted by scholars. Mixed methods is no different. Like qualitative and quantitative criteria, criteria for mixed methods research have been developed and refined over time (Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2019b). Accordingly, scholars have identified key factors that must be met to ensure mixed methods studies go beyond simply adding qualitative and quantitative findings together (i.e., qual + quant = 2) and ensure they are effectively integrating these approaches to form new insights (i.e., qual + quant + integration = 3) (Fetters & Freshwater, 2015). However, these criteria are not always well understood nor applied, reinforcing the need for researchers to “scrutinize the actual content of all studies identified as mixed methods studies, since not all studies claimed as being mixed methods research will actually meet criteria for a [mixed methods] study” (Molina-Azorin & Fetters, 2016, p. 126, emphasis added). As such, the following sections review two key considerations which guide our study: quality criteria and methodological contributions.

Quality criteria

Methodological quality criteria enhance the design, procedure, and ultimately the contribution of mixed methods research (Bryman et al., 2008). Quality “refers to how well a mixed methods study was conducted through scientifically accepted design and procedures” (Guetterman et al., 2023, p. 7), where each criterion acts as an indicator of high-quality. Determining quality criteria is vital to conducting and evaluating mixed methods research (Perez et al., 2023), as well as ensuring methodological rigor is maintained as the approach becomes more frequent in emerging fields such as sport management (Fàbregues et al., 2021). By reviewing and synthesising foundational quality criteria frameworks within the mixed method literature (i.e., Hirose & Creswell, 2023; Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2010; Levitt et al., 2018; O’Cathain et al., 2008; Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007) we identified four quality criteria that collectively signal high-quality mixed methods research: justification, type, distinct results, and mixing (see Table 1).

Table 1. Mixed methods research quality criteria.

	Justification	Type	Distinct results	Mixing
Creswell and Tashakkori (2007)	Demonstrate need for mixed methods.	Identify mixed methods design and qualitative and quantitative approaches applied.	Present distinct results for each qualitative and quantitative approach applied.	Integrate qualitative and quantitative findings into coherent discussion.
O’Cathain et al. (2008)	Describe justification for mixed methods approach to answer research question(s).	Describe design in terms of purpose, priority, and sequence of approaches.	Describe sampling, collection, and analysis for each approach.	Describe where integration has occurred, and how it has occurred.
Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2010)	Identification of goal, objective, rational, purpose, and/or question(s).	Identify sampling design and mixed methods design.	Describe data collection, analysis, validation or legitimisation, and interpretation.
Levitt et al. (2018)	Provide rationale using philosophical assumptions or theoretical models to inform mixed methods design.	Explain qualitative and quantitative research approaches.	Present qualitative and quantitative data in response to research aims.	Integrate qualitative and quantitative data to generate new insights.
Hirose and Creswell (2023)	Advance rational for use and appropriateness of mixed methods.	Name and identify mixed methods type and present design figure.	Report qualitative and quantitative data separately.	Present integration in joint display.

First, justification, suggests that for mixed methods research to be deemed of high quality, scholars must explain why they are applying a mixed methods design and how the selected design aligns with their research purpose. Justification can stem from previous theoretical, empirical, or methodological insights, where applying a specific design will create new knowledge that contributes to the greater understanding of the investigated phenomenon (O’Cathain et al., 2008). Scholars might explain that they conducted a mixed methods study because combining select qualitative and quantitative approaches would provide important insights unattained by previous individual qualitative or quantitative investigations.

Second, type, scholars must identify the type of mixed methods design (e.g., sequential explanatory design) and the respective qualitative and quantitative approaches being applied (e.g., semi-structured interviews and questionnaire). Identifying type is important because it guides scholars towards developing research questions and mixing their qualitative and quantitative approaches (Creswell & Tashakkori, 2007). The type stems from a researcher’s timing and priority choices. Timing refers to whether the qualitative and quantitative phases happen concurrently (i.e., qualitative and quantitative approach conducted simultaneously) or sequentially (i.e., multiple phases where each phase includes a single qualitative or quantitative approach) (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). Priority refers to the importance of qualitative and quantitative approaches within the design. Terms such as parallel, equal, and triangulation explain that the design gives equal priority to the qualitative and quantitative approaches, while terms including exploratory (qualitative), explanatory (quantitative), and nested or embedded (researcher’s choice) indicate one data approach is prioritised over the other (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). Table 2 exemplifies how timing and priority can lead to different types by presenting Creswell et al. (2003) mixed methods typology – one of the first and most popularly applied design typologies.

Table 2. Mixed methods research type examples (adapted from Creswell et al. (2003)).

Mixed methods type	Timing	Priority	Characteristics
Concurrent Triangulation	One data phase collecting qualitative and quantitative data.	Qualitative and quantitative data is considered equal.	Challenging to apply two different approaches to equally study one phenomenon.
Concurrent Embedded	One data phase collecting qualitative and quantitative data.	Qualitative, quantitative, or both data can be prioritised.	Unequal importance of data can result in unequal evidence within the study, challenging interpretation.
Concurrent Transformative	One data phase collecting qualitative and quantitative data.	Qualitative, quantitative, or both data can be prioritised.	Often applied to help theoretical perspectives that guides study.
Sequential Exploratory	Two data phases: qualitative data followed by quantitative data.	Qualitative data is prioritised and informs quantitative data.	Advantageous for identifying and testing new elements of theory.
Sequential Explanatory	Two data phases: quantitative data followed by qualitative data.	Quantitative data is prioritised and informs qualitative data.	Transitioning from quantitative to qualitative can help identify taken-for-granted assumptions.
Sequential Transformative	Two data phases: either qualitative or quantitative collected first followed by other approach.	Qualitative, quantitative, or both data can be prioritised.	Two stages offer an approachable design to collect and interpret data.

Third, distinct results, scholars must report their qualitative and quantitative data separately. Studies which prioritise data (e.g., quantitative data in a sequential explanatory design) will present the prioritised data first followed by the supplemental data; while studies which equally prioritise qualitative and quantitative data will present whichever data is more appropriate to be presented first based on the research purpose, question(s), or narrative. Presenting distinct results is important as it helps scholars ensure a rich understanding of how each individual research approach contributed to the overall study (Hirose & Creswell, 2023).

Finally, mixing, scholars must mix their qualitative and quantitative findings into an integrated discussion. Mixing is necessary because it enables researchers to generate insights beyond those attained from engaging with separate qualitative and quantitative data (Fetters & Freshwater, 2015). To effectively form an integrated discussion, several integration strategies have been developed to guide scholars in the implementation and presentation of mixing qualitative and quantitative data (see Tunarosa & Glynn, 2017 for a review of integration strategies in mixed methods research). Admittedly, while the mixing quality criteria is outlined as part of a study’s discussion in the respective quality criteria frameworks, mixing is a fundamental element to conducting mixed methods research that is not bound to the discussion (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). Mixing can occur at various levels, understood as mixed methods lite or mixed methods heavy (Greene, 2012). Mixed methods lite involves mixing at the method level, within the same research paradigm,² while mixed methods heavy involves crossing, mixing, or matching of research paradigms (Greene, 2012). Thus, given the importance of paradigms, we will also assess the prevalence of mixed methods lite and heavy studies to bolster our review findings.

We apply these four quality criteria (i.e., justification, type, distinct results, and mixing) to assess the quality of mixed methods research in sport management scholarship, where meeting all four quality criteria will be considered high-quality. Figure 1 presents the process for conducting high-quality mixed methods research that embodies these four criteria and positions paradigm as an overarching part of the process in dotted lines to advocate its importance but nonessential nature.

Figure 1. Process model for high-quality mixed methods research.

Methodological contribution

An integral part to conducting mixed methods research is the opportunity it creates for researchers to identify and present methodological contributions (Molina-Azorin et al., 2017). While not required to conduct high-quality studies, articulating how the approach has helped understand the phenomenon investigated is strongly encouraged by mixed methods pioneers (Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2019b). However, unlike theoretical and practical contributions – which have become pillars within sport management scholarship (Stenling & Fahlén, 2022) – identifying methodological contributions has often been overlooked within (sport) management studies to date (Bergh et al., 2022) and were not considered or examined in previous mixed methods reviews of sport management scholarship (cf. Abeza et al., 2015; van der Roest et al., 2015).

Recognising this limitation, Bergh et al. (2022) identified four types of methodological contributions: major, incremental, modest, and minor. First, major methodological contributions, have the power to dramatically change how fields apply a research approach – formed through the development of a new method, data analysis, collection, or inference technique (Bergh et al., 2022). For instance, Glaser and Strauss (1967) developed a commonly applied qualitative research approach – grounded theory approach – to help social scientists understand phenomena through inductive reasoning.

Second, incremental methodological contributions are rich contributions in-and-of themselves but unlike major methodological contributions they only lead to, or only target, a field-level application change (Bergh et al., 2022). Through consolidating and disseminating approach knowledge, scholars can identify application challenges, address knowledge gaps, and determine best practices for how an approach should be applied through the form of a field-level guide (Bergh et al., 2022). For example, Prat (2009) identified common challenges scholars face when writing (and reviewing) high-quality qualitative research in management scholarship. In many ways, this is the aim of our review – to consolidate methodological knowledge, identify application challenges, and enhance the toolkit for sport management scholars to write (and review) mixed methods research in sport management.

Third, modest methodological contributions, advance a methodological approach in conjunction with a theoretical and/or practical contribution (Bergh et al., 2022). Several sport management scholars have provided such contributions by making our field aware of emerging research approaches, including narratives (Stewart-Withers et al., 2017) and critical discourse analysis (Sveinson et al., 2021); and emerging challenges related to big data (Watanabe et al., 2021) and the adoption of large-scale qualitative-temporal research (Hoeber et al., 2017).

Finally, minor methodological contributions, are meaningful contributions that stimulate a small change within a niche area of research (Bergh et al., 2022). Building from previous modest methodological contributions, scholarship applying these approaches create methodological contributions by establishing boundary conditions for that approach (i.e., limitations and enablers). For instance, Misener’s (2020) autoethnography exemplifies how lived experiences and personal perspectives led to a deeper understanding of parent well-being within community youth sport and challenged taken-for-granted assumptions of well-being overlooked by other research approaches.

Based on Bergh et al.’s (2022) typology, our field typically concentrates on modest or minor methodological contributions. This is not to be discouraging, as sport management journals inherently aim to contribute both theoretically and practically (Stenling & Fahlén, 2022), relative to other journals whose raison d’être may more strongly emphasise methodological contributions (e.g., Journal of Mixed Methods Research; Organizational Research Methods). Thus, this typology helps us understand what type of methodological contributions we might anticipate in our review. We apply Bergh et al.’s (2022) typology to assess the methodological contribution of mixed methods research in sport management scholarship. Figure 2 presents these contributions on a continuum.

Figure 2. Methodological contribution continuum for mixed methods research (adapted from Bergh et al., 2022).

Taken together, these quality criteria (i.e., justification, type, distinct results, and mixing) and Bergh et al.’s (2022) typology of methodological contributions establish how this study will assess the quality and methodological contributions of mixed methods research in sport management scholarship. In addition, this framing will help inform how sport management scholars can conduct high-quality mixed methods research to advance our field. The following section outlines the scoping review process.

Methods

Scoping reviews adopt a systematic approach that enables scholars to summarise and disseminate research findings, identify gaps within the existing literature, and establish a foundation of knowledge to guide future research (Tricco et al., 2018). Accordingly, we adopted a scoping review protocol to guide our assessment of the prevalence, quality, and methodological contribution of mixed methods research in sport management scholarship. Following previous scoping reviews in sport management (i.e., Sant et al., 2023), we applied Peters et al. (2020) framework, which extends Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) original framework. In addition, we applied the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) (Tricco et al., 2018) – a 20-point checklist to guide and present our scoping review.

Defining the research questions

Consistent with our study aim, we embarked on answering the following research questions: (1) how has mixed methods research been applied within sport management scholarship? (2) what is the quality and methodological contributions of mixed methods studies in sport management scholarship? and (3) how can sport management scholars conduct high-quality mixed methods research to advance our field?

Eligibility criteria

To eliminate irrelevant articles, we developed explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria. Records were included if they were published in English and self-identified as mixed methods. Records were excluded if they were not substantively focused on the phenomena of sport management (i.e., not sport science, sport medicine, etc.) or did not apply mixed methods (i.e., qualitative and quantitative research approaches). For instance, following previous reviews (van der Roest et al., 2015) and editorials (Bryman, 2006; Fetters & Freshwater, 2015), records were excluded if they applied open-ended questionnaires as their only form of qualitative research.

Search process

On 6 January 2023, the first author searched three electronic databases (Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) to ensure a comprehensive coverage of mixed methods research within sport management scholarship. We limited our search to peer-reviewed English-language journal articles, published up until 31 December 2022 (including any that were in press at this time). Our electronic database search used the terms “mixed method*” AND “sport*” (title, abstract, or keywords) and yielded a total of 3979 records (Scopus = 985; SPORTDiscus = 497; Web of Science = 2497). Once duplicate records were removed, a total of 2819 articles were identified for further analysis.

Selection of sources and evidence

To ensure the reliability of our selection, the first and second author conducted an inter-coder reliability test on 100 articles from the SPORTDiscus database (first 100 automatically sorted by relevance according to EBSCO Host’s algorithm). This process yielded a 97% agreement score, with our team rectifying minor differences through discussions. The first author then independently conducted a title, abstract, and keyword review to identify records that met the inclusion criteria. A total of 171 articles were selected for full-text analysis. Through full-text analysis, an additional 38 articles were removed for applying open-ended questionnaire items as their only qualitative research approach. Consequently, 133 articles were included in data extraction and analysis (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Scoping review flow diagram.

Data extraction and analysis

The first author extracted information from each article aligned with our research aim and questions. First, article characteristics were extracted, including author(s), publication year, journal, and qualitative and quantitative research approaches (including sample, method and approach). Then, data from each article was extracted to assess their mixed methods quality (i.e., type, justification, distinct results, and mixing) and for any methodological contributions presented. The research team met regularly throughout this process to ensure data was being extracted accurately and consistently.

Aligned with previous sport management reviews (e.g., Sant et al., 2023), we performed multiple frequency analyses to answer our research questions. Frequency analysis is a descriptive statistical technique that shows the number of occurrences for each variable. First, to assess the prevalence of mixed methods research in sport management scholarship, we examined the frequency of authors, journals, and year of publication. We also examined the frequency of type, as well as the sample, method, and analysis for each qualitative and quantitative research approach applied. Second, to assess the quality of these studies, we examined the frequency of articles adhering to justification, type, distinct results, and mixing quality criteria. This enabled us to examine the frequency of high-quality studies (i.e., articles which met all four quality criteria). We also examined the frequency of integration strategy and research paradigm. Finally, to assess the methodological contributions of studies, we examined the number of articles presenting a methodological contribution and identified the type of methodological contribution.

Findings and discussion

Prevalence

Findings indicated 364 scholars had (co)authored 133 studies since 2002. Indicative of the expanding reach of sport management scholarship and mixed methods research, studies were published in 49 different journal outlets. The most prominent journal outlets included: European Sport Management Quarterly (n = 15, 11.3%), Sport Management Review (n = 12, 9.0%), and Journal of Sport Management (n = 10, 7.5%).

Although the first mixed methods study in sport management scholarship identified was published in 2002 (Bennett, 2002), on average, only 1.69 studies were published each year between 2002 and 2014. However, a surge of mixed methods publications has occurred in the last three years with over half (n = 75, 56.4%) of studies published between 2019 and 2022. In 2022, 24.1% of all studies reviewed were published (n = 32; see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Mixed methods research publications in sport management scholarship over time.

Despite the popular uptake of mixed methods research in sport management scholarship, the types of designs applied have remained relatively similar. Scholars have mostly relied on sequential (n = 97, 72.9%) more than concurrent timing (n = 36, 27.1%) and have prioritised quantitative (n = 68, 51.1%) over qualitative (n = 46, 34.6%) and equal perspectives (n = 19, 14.3%). These design choices have led to most studies applying either a sequential explanatory (n = 54, 40.6%) or sequential exploratory (n = 31, 23.3%) design.

In a similar fashion, findings revealed a concentration on research methods and analyses. For qualitative research methods, interviews (n = 102, 76.7%) and focus groups (n = 28, 21.1%) were most applied while surveys (n = 119, 89.5%) were the dominant quantitative research method applied. Interestingly, 17 studies incorporated multiple qualitative research methods, in addition to their quantitative research method; all of which combined interviews with another qualitative method (e.g., focus groups). For qualitative research analyses, thematic analysis (n = 56, 42.1%), coding (e.g., axial; n = 40, 30.1%), and content analysis (n = 29, 21.8%) were most applied while descriptive statistics (e.g., frequency analysis; n = 66, 49.6%), variance analyses (e.g., ANOVA; n = 22, 16.5%), and modelling techniques (e.g., SEM; n = 19, 14.3%) were the most applied quantitative research analyses.

Regarding study samples, although the most common participants investigated for qualitative and quantitative approaches were similar, no one sample type eclipsed 24% of all participant types studied. For qualitative samples, managers (n = 31, 23.3%), athletes (n = 20, 15.0%), and general populations (n = 15, 11.3%) were most common while managers (n = 27, 20.3%), athletes (n = 23, 17.3%), and fans (n = 22, 16.5%) were most common for quantitative approaches. Despite this sample diversity, only 28 studies (21.1%) investigated different samples through their respective qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Quality criteria

Studies were assessed based on their adherence to justification, type, distinct results, and mixing criteria, where meeting all quality criteria designated a study as high-quality. Findings indicated that a mere 25 high-quality mixed methods studies (18.8%) have been produced in sport management scholarship, with most studies falling below this high-quality threshold (n = 108, 81.2%). Specifically, our findings indicated three common challenges faced by scholars related to quality criteria.

First, our assessment indicated that most studies met quality criteria for justification (n = 78, 58.6%), distinct results (n = 85, 63.9%), or mixing (n = 67, 50.4%). However, they less frequently identified the type (n = 57, 42.9%); rather, scholars often identified their study as “general mixed methods” (e.g., applying a mixed methods research design). This was problematic because studies that did not identify type (n = 76) were substantially less likely to meet related quality criteria such as justification (−41.7%), mixing (−31.6%), or distinct results (−14.0%).

This finding highlights a common challenge for mixed methods research in sport management scholarship. Type is paramount because it guides researchers towards making timing (i.e., sequential or concurrent) and priority decisions (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, or equal); developing research questions to guide the analyses; and mixing qualitative and quantitative findings to form insights that go above and beyond the individual approaches. Consequently, not identifying the mixed methods type is problematic as scholars may be pursuing research without being cognisant of accepted approaches to research design, potentially leading to suboptimal mixing of qualitative and quantitative methods or the misinterpretation of findings (Levitt et al., 2018).

Second, while most studies provided some form of justification for their mixed methods investigation (n = 78, 58.6%), most scholars did this based on calls from previous research. Although these arguments provide a (basic) justification for conducting mixed methods research in sport contexts, this line of justification omits important knowledge that scholars should provide to conduct rigorous mixed methods research. For instance, why mixed methods was chosen to investigate a given phenomenon relative to previous qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods research.

This finding further signals a lack of engagement with available mixed methods resources and highlights that the importance of justifying mixed methods research is not well understood within our field. Consequently, how sport management scholars justify their mixed methods design needs to be strengthened. Doing so would ensure mixed methods is applied purposefully and thoughtfully, rather than as a catch-all for studies with multiple methodological approaches that do not necessarily speak to each other or clearly contribute to our knowledge base above and beyond what could be gleaned from a single method (or multi-method) study. Justifying why a given design was chosen and how the selected design aligns to the research purpose and phenomena being investigated would go a long way to shielding scholars from this critical viewpoint.

Finally, while majority of studies included distinct results or mixing, only 40.6% of studies (n = 54) adhered to presenting distinct results and mixing them into an integrated discussion. On one hand, scholars that presented distinct findings but did not mix those findings failed to produce a “strong mixed methods article” (Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007, p. 207). Such investigations simply presented independent qualitative and quantitative studies within the same publication (Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2017). On the other hand, scholars that did mix their findings often did so after presenting limited interpretations of their qualitative and quantitative findings. This led to discussions that focused on qualitative and quantitative interpretations, where mixing became an afterthought oppose to the core of the conversation.

This limited finding on mixing is further highlighted by our frequency analysis of integration strategies applied and research paradigms stated. Only one study (0.5%) identified their integration strategy and a mere 12 (9.0%) stated their research paradigm; five indicated a pragmatic stance, six selected a purist stance (e.g., constructivist epistemology), and one crossed multiple paradigms. Of the 12 articles that stated their research paradigm, 11 could be classified as mixed methods lite (i.e., mixing methods within one research paradigm) while only one study explicitly stated the crossing of multiple paradigms (i.e., mixed methods heavy). Connected to van der Roest et al. (2015) review, which first examined the frequency of mixed methods lite and heavy, two findings are pertinent. First, a decline in paradigmatic positioning over time is signalled (i.e., 11.6% in van der Roest et al., 2015 review and 9.0% in this review), suggesting that a growing number of sport management scholars are focused on mixing methods without consideration of their research paradigm. Second, van der Roest et al. (2015) could not identify any mixed methods heavy studies and only one study in this review did identify the crossing of multiple paradigms. Consequently, these findings highlight the limited mixing conducted by sport management scholars and the need for our field to engage with integration strategies and paradigm reflections more strongly.

This finding highlights the third common challenge identified – the difficulty of developing and presenting qualitative, quantitative, and integrated data interpretations into a singular study. Coined by Fetters and Freshwater (2015) as the “integration challenge”, this is a common challenge to mixed methods that perpetuates underdeveloped (opposed to rich) integration insights that do not exceed the sum of the individual qualitative and quantitative approaches. Consequently, and like the two common challenges previously discussed, this challenge illuminates how scholars can successfully navigate the complexities of mixed methods research is not well understood in our field.

Methodological contributions

Beyond prevalence and quality criteria, we also assessed if studies delivered a methodological contribution, and for studies that did, the type of contribution they delivered. In total, 11 studies (8.3%) offered a methodological contribution; 4 of which were published in Sport Management Review (36.4%), the only journal to publish multiple studies with a methodological contribution. Of the 11 studies that delivered a methodological contribution, each study established boundary conditions (i.e., benefits and limitations) of the mixed methods design applied in relation to the investigated phenomenon (i.e., minor methodological contribution; Bergh et al., 2022). For instance, Rossi et al. (2020) highlighted in their limitation section how their application of a quantitative prioritised mixed methods design complimented “the small number of interviews” conducted but how without that rich qualitative insight, their quantitative interpretations would have been limited (p. 748). Additionally, Paek et al. (2022) indicated in their discussion that “due to the study design, we were able to discover the participants’ rationale for an unexpected result … such inferences would have been difficult to discover with a single method” (p. 16).

Nevertheless, and overwhelmingly, scholars struggled to articulate their methodological contributions from applying mixed methods research in sport management. This is problematic because methodological contributions are not simply siloed to methodological understandings, they affect our field’s theoretical, practical, and methodological advancements (Bergh et al., 2022). Given that methodological contributions have only recently become formalised within the Journal of Mixed Methods Research (Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2019b) and broader management scholarship (Bergh et al., 2022), we venture most sport management scholars have simply focused on producing theoretical and practical contributions (Stenling & Fahlén, 2022), unaware of methodological contribution opportunities. This presents an opportunity for sport management scholars to reflect on their mixed methods application and present its contribution in a methodological implications section parallel to more accepted theoretical and practical contributions. Doing so would help advance our field’s application of mixed methods, its methodological rigor, and the theoretical and practical insights derived from it.

Paths to improve writing (and reviewing) mixed methods research in sport management scholarship

Typical reviews of sport management scholarship have focused on a particular research setting or theory application, and appropriately, have followed their review findings by offering an agenda for future research (e.g., Robertson et al., 2021; Thomson et al., 2023). This review is different. Rather than reviewing an empirical or theoretical arena, we reviewed a methodological arena by evaluating the quality criteria and methodological contributions of mixed methods research. Inspired by Prat (2009), we outline four paths for improving how sport management scholars can write up (and review) mixed methods research: sections, integrations, visualisations, and contributions. Extending our path metaphor, we equip each path with an inductive question to help sport management scholars on their journey to improve the writing (and reviewing) of mixed methods research.

Sections

The first, and perhaps most important, path to consider is writing up (and reviewing) the “methods section”. A mixed methods research methods section should reflect the mixed methods process, taking the reader (and reviewer) through design, data collection, data analysis, data integration, and research paradigm(s) (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Overwhelmingly, when assessing the mixed methods studies in this review, we found most studies included details about data collection and data analysis of their respective qualitative and quantitative approaches but overlooked design, data integration, and research paradigm(s) – three fundamental parts to conducting mixed methods research (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). Accordingly, we focus our attention on the design, data integration, and research paradigm.

Design

Detailing mixed methods design should answer two quality criteria: justification and type (Fetters & Freshwater, 2015). Admittedly, the justification of a mixed methods design does not have to begin in the methods section; it may be relevant in the introduction or literature review (Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2019b). Nevertheless, the methods section should begin with a succinct and logical argument that justifies the need for mixed methods research or summarises the previous justification presented. An adequate justification should explain what is motivating the mixed methods application and why the design, qualitative approach, quantitative approach, and integration is being applied (see Bryman, 2006 for a review of justification types). These explanations might relate to the theoretical framework, focused problem, previous empirical research (and limitations), and previous methodological applications (and limitations). Following, like a well-formed purpose statement, the mixed methods type should be identified (e.g., sequential explanatory mixed methods research design) and key characteristics presented. The type should be logical and align with the argument presented.

Data integration

Detailing the integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches is the lynchpin of conducting and publishing mixed methods research (Fetters & Freshwater, 2015). However, almost all studies reviewed did not identify their integration strategy. Hence, detailing how scholars would integrate qualitative and quantitative data was not explicitly presented. Through our analysis we identified that most studies endorsed a relationship perspective to integrating data. This perspective describes the relationship between qualitative and quantitative data (e.g., complimentary, competing, transitional) and is often presented through a joint display (Moran-Ellis et al., 2006). Identifying and applying a mixed methods integration strategy is vital because it helps scholars navigate how qualitative and quantitative data will be compared when they are formed from different paradigms and enable scholars to form integrative insights that go beyond the accumulation of individual qualitative and quantitative interpretations.

Research paradigm

Mixed methods research does not only integrate qualitative and quantitative approaches but it pushes scholars to consider the integration, crossing, or selection of paradigmatic perspectives (Ghiara, 2020). On one hand, scholars can form a paradigmatic perspective through integrating or applying multiple perspectives. On the other hand, scholars can select a single paradigm to investigate their mixed methods study. Navigating these paradigm choices can be especially challenging for mixed methods research teams which often contain scholars with varying perspectives. Thus, research teams conducting mixed methods studies should establish a clear understanding from the study’s outset regarding what paradigm(s) will be applied, how and why they will be applied, and the role each research team member will have in relation to these choices. By establishing research roles from the outset, scholars will be able to effectively present their research paradigm, the rationale for their decision, and connect this perspective throughout the broader study (Molina-Azorin & Fetters, 2020).

While we have presented design, data integration, and research paradigm in that order, it is important to understand that any of these three elements may be used as a starting point. For instance, some scholars may wish to first determine their paradigm, while other scholars may use their design and data integration decisions to inform what paradigm align best with the investigation. To help sport management scholars write (and review) mixed methods research methods sections, we pose the following question:

• (1) Has each element of the mixed methods process been identified and justified in the methods section?

Integrations

In many ways, while integration is understood as the final step in the mixed methods process, it must be the centrepiece of a high-quality mixed methods paper (Creswell & Tashakkori, 2007). High-quality mixed methods research does not simply discuss qualitative and quantitative findings and then tie the two together in a closing paragraph (Creswell & Tashakkori, 2007). Rather, to conduct high-quality mixed methods research, authors must first present the key qualitative and quantitative findings that directly align with the mixed methods purpose, research question(s), and narrative. While it is inevitable that qualitative and quantitative analyses will present interesting findings beyond the scope of the mixed methods investigation, authors must be critical and ask why and how these findings matter for the mixed methods investigation (Mertens, 2011). Only findings which directly benefit the mixed methods investigation should be discussed as this lays the foundation for a more substantive discussion to commence – the integrated discussion (Fetters & Freshwater, 2015).

To write (and review) an integrated discussion, scholars should follow the integration strategy applied within their methods section. Previous decisions (e.g., timing and priority) will help inform the structure and flow of this discussion. For instance, sequential-based discussions may focus on how understandings from phase one allowed for a greater understanding of phase two findings; while concurrent-based discussions may present narratives around how qualitative and quantitative findings overlapped, competed, and complimented each other. Regardless of the discussion style, it is imperative that scholars ensure their integrated discussion advances our understanding of the findings beyond the sum of the qualitative and quantitative parts. To help sport management scholars write (and review) integrated discussions, we pose the following question:

• (2) Have insights on the investigated phenomenon been presented which go beyond the sum of the qualitative and quantitative approaches applied?

Visualisations

As the age old saying goes, “a [figure] is worth a thousand words”. Taken quite literally, visualisation, “the use of figures and images to represent findings and conceptual models” (Pradies et al., 2023, p. 1231), can help convey the overall complexity of mixed methods research (Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2019a). Like mixed methods research, visualisation has the power to capture comprehensive and simultaneous forms of rich data that can be challenging to harmonise but are essential to answer complex problems (Pradies et al., 2023). Thus, building from previous suggestions (Hirose & Creswell, 2023), we endorse the idea that scholars can form figures to help conceptualise, operationalise, and if appropriate, present their mixed methods process.

Distinctly different than conceptual and theoretical frameworks, a mixed methods figure should logically and aesthetically outline the mixed methods process and findings. Whether as a guide to help conceptualise, operationalise, or present mixed methods research, sport management scholars can develop mixed methods visuals to help navigate it challenges (Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2019a). To develop mixed methods visuals, we point scholars to the Journal of Mixed Methods Research which commonly publishes empirical studies that incorporate visual representations of the mixed methods process (e.g., Alexander et al., 2019; Drury et al., 2023). To help sport management scholars craft (and review) mixed methods visuals, we pose the following question:

• (3) Has a visual been developed to help explain the mixed methods research process and findings?

Contributions

To develop methodological contributions, scholars need to be aware of what constitutes a methodological contribution, how to identify methodological contributions, and how to present methodological contributions (Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2019b). Given our previous review of what constitutes a methodological contribution (see Bergh et al., 2022 for a comprehensive review), we focus this practice on identifying and presenting methodological contributions.

To identify methodological contributions, authors should endorse a methodological perspective that critically considers what methods and paradigms have been applied in past investigations, what has been enabled and limited in doing so, and what methodological questions need to be answered to advance our field (Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2019b). Accordingly, for sport management scholars seeking to advance methodological contributions, we encourage the pursuit of two types. First, scholars can introduce a new type of mixed methods design or new mixture of qualitative and quantitative approaches applied in other fields to our field (i.e., modest methodological contribution; Bergh et al., 2022). Second, scholars can present boundary conditions (i.e., enablers and limitations) of the applied design or mixture of qualitative and quantitative approaches (i.e., minor methodological contribution; Bergh et al., 2022). We encourage the pursuit of these two types because they advance methodological contributions in conjunction with theoretical and/or practical contributions (Bergh et al., 2022), central to sport management scholarship (Stenling & Fahlén, 2022).

To present methodological contributions, we endorse the stance that authors should dedicate space in their article to present their methodological contribution (e.g., methodological implication section; Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2019b). A methodological implication section can help authors highlight their methodological contribution and present recommendations for how to refine and apply the mixed methods design in the future (Bergh et al., 2022). To effectively do this, authors might explicitly discuss how the applied mixed methods design has advanced what we know, how we know it, and why we know it – complimenting theoretical and practical contributions (Bergh et al., 2022).

While we encourage sport management scholars conducting mixed methods research to form methodological contributions and develop methodological implication sections, in the hope that doing so will aid our field’s ability to better inform theory and practice, we recognise that to conduct high-quality mixed methods research in sport management scholarship it is not necessary for scholars to form methodological contributions. Thus, for scholars not focused on forming methodological contributions, we hope this discussion has inspired positive sentiment towards how applying mixed methods can advance our field theoretically, practically, and methodologically. To help sport management scholars write (and review) methodological contributions from mixed methods research, we pose the following question:

• (4) Does the study present how the mixed methods design has advanced sport management scholarship and/or the investigated phenomenon?

Conclusion

Mixed methods research has become a widely applied methodological approach in sport management scholarship. Yet, mixed methods can be a daunting landscape for authors (and reviewers) to traverse (Creswell & Tashakkori, 2007). Despite this, no comprehensive review of mixed methods research in sport management scholarship has been attempted to date, with past reviews being limited in their scope of focus (cf. Abeza et al., 2015; van der Roest et al., 2015). Thus, by reviewing mixed methods research in sport management scholarship, we hope to advance knowledge and support sport management scholars to effectively and impactfully apply mixed methods approaches in sport management contexts. To this end, our review offers an incremental methodological contribution (Bergh et al., 2022) by consolidating knowledge on the application of mixed methods research in sport management scholarship, identifying common application challenges, and outlining a range of paths to advance our field.

First, we organised and synthesised mixed methods research in sport management scholarship. While scoping reviews are beneficial to systematically map the landscape of research, they are subject to search limitations (Tricco et al., 2018). Our search was limited to journal articles written in English and focused specifically on research in sport management. In addition, our search did not consider each study’s research question(s) which may have valuable insights for researchers and reviewers to enhance mixed methods research (see Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007). Second, we answered previous calls to assess the prevalence, quality, and methodological contribution of mixed methods research in emerging fields (Fàbregues et al., 2021; Molina-Azorin & Fetters, 2016). Our findings highlighted the common challenges scholars faced to identify and justify their mixed methods design, discuss findings in a distinct and integrated manner, and present methodological contributions. Finally, we developed four paths to help sport management scholars write (and review) high-quality and impactful mixed methods research in sport management scholarship: sections, integrations, visualisations, and contributions.

We have conducted this study to help our field enhance its methodological rigor, improve the quality and contributions of its mixed methods publications, and provide authors (and reviewers) with direction to advance future mixed methods research in sport management scholarship. In doing so, we hope this review stimulates methodological conversation within our field. Specifically, to consider how our institutions can better train doctoral students in the art and science of mixed methods research; how our core conferences can enable mixed methods discussions and development through symposiums, roundtables, forums, or workshops; and how our leading journals, like those of other fields (Molina-Azorin & Guetterman, 2023), can advance high-quality and impactful mixed methods research in sport management scholarship through special issues. In closing, we hope this review has inspired fellow sport management scholars to engage with mixed methods research, become curious about methodological contributions, and eager to advance our field through this approach.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

¹ Abeza et al. (2015) examined a single journal, Sport Marketing Quarterly; van der Roest et al. (2015) examined four journals, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, Journal of Sport Management, Sociology of Sport Journal, and Sport Management Review.

² The term paradigm, or in some instances within the mixed methods literature, worldviews, is understood as a “framework that reflects researchers’ assumptions about reality, methodology, and epistemology” (Ghiara, 2020, p. 12).