Although there is increasing recognition of the value of mixed-methods research, many publication spaces remain methodologically siloed, primarily publishing either qualitative or quantitative research studies. This methodological siloing presents a risk to coherence in the psychological sciences if qualitative and quantitative research traditions continue to exist and develop in disconnected spaces. In this commentary, we share our editorial experience while editing this special section via a case study of the process of publishing qualitative research in a traditionally quantitative publication venue. Our central goal is to describe how we aimed to increase contact between qualitative and quantitative research traditions during the editorial process and the unique challenges and opportunities that arose as a result. We hope that this case study of how the special section was produced will help spark discussion and debate about the roles of qualitative and quantitative methods in educational psychology and about how research communities can transform the ways in which they publish and evaluate research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

中文翻译：

---

在“教育心理学杂志”上发表定性研究：跨方法学孤岛综合研究观点。

尽管人们越来越认识到混合方法研究的价值，但许多出版空间在方法论上仍然是孤立的，主要发表定性或定量研究。如果定性和定量研究传统继续存在并在不连贯的空间中发展，这种方法论的孤立会给心理科学的连贯性带来风险。在这篇评论中，我们通过对在传统定量出版场所发表定性研究的过程的案例研究来分享我们在编辑这一特殊部分时的编辑经验。我们的中心目标是描述我们如何在编辑过程中增加定性和定量研究传统之间的联系，以及由此产生的独特挑战和机遇。我们希望这个关于特别部分如何产生的案例研究将有助于引发关于定性和定量方法在教育心理学中的作用以及研究团体如何改变他们发表和评估研究的方式的讨论和辩论。（PsycINFO 数据库记录 (c) 2020 APA，保留所有权利）