Mixed methods research (MMR) designs are well suited for answering policy-relevant questions, yet they remain underutilized in public policy and public administration scholarship. To provide a deeper understanding of the effective use of such designs, this article examines the prevalence of MMR in public policy and public administration journals, drawing a key distinction between “canonical” and “non-canonical” MMR. Canonical mixed methods studies are characterized by (1) an explicit rationale for using mixed methods (i.e., a clear connection between methodological decisions and research questions), (2) effective integration of qualitative and quantitative strands, and (3) design transparency. We demonstrate the value of a canonical approach in public policy and public administration research by highlighting differences in quality between canonical and non-canonical mixed methods studies. Our findings indicate that a canonical approach to mixed methods research makes positive contributions to methodological quality and knowledge development.

中文翻译：

---

定义和评估规范混合方法研究设计在公共政策和公共管理中的价值

混合方法研究 (MMR) 设计非常适合回答与政策相关的问题，但它们在公共政策和公共管理学术研究中仍未得到充分利用。为了更深入地了解此类设计的有效使用，本文研究了公共政策和公共管理期刊中 MMR 的流行情况，并对“规范”和“非规范”MMR 进行了关键区分。典型的混合方法研究的特点是（1）使用混合方法的明确理由（即方法决策和研究问题之间的明确联系），（2）定性和定量链的有效整合，以及（3）设计透明度。我们通过强调规范和非规范混合方法研究之间的质量差异来证明规范方法在公共政策和公共行政研究中的价值。我们的研究结果表明，混合方法研究的规范方法对方法学质量和知识发展做出了积极贡献。