Mixed methods in health care research: A Q&A with EBHC Master's student and postdoctoral researcher Karen Richmond

About the author:

Karen Richmond is an MSc in Evidence-Based Health Care student and postdoctoral researcher conducting interdisciplinary studies in law, science and technology. Her prior research has focussed on resolving problems relating to forensic DNA transfer (Leverhulme Research Centre for Forensic Sciences), developing evaluative methods to measure the weight of expert evidence (iCourts, University of Copenhagen) and using case-based reasoning to develop a predictive AI algorithm for use in asylum adjudication (XAIfair, University of Copenhagen). She also teaches bachelor's, master's and doctoral students across a wide range of courses from international law and evidence to scientific method. When she’s not working on her research Karen can be found snorkeling and kayaking at the beach, or hillwalking on the Isle of Arran.

where are you currently working and studying, and what does your work and study involve?

My current research seeks to develop a fully scientific basis for evaluating the weight of legal evidence, using evidence-based practices. This marks a departure from the usual means of computing probative weight using narrative and/or probabilistic approaches. Therefore, through joining the Master’s course in Evidence-Based Health Care I aim to address a gap in my knowledge that will allow me to meet a number of research goals. Specifically, the course is enabling me to deepen my understanding of the epistemological principles on which evidence-based health care is founded. Furthermore, it provides the means to gain a comprehensive overview of the role of systematic reviews and evidence syntheses within the EBM schema. Finally, it provides me with practical competences in mixed methods approaches and an understanding of the strengths and limitations of particular methodological and systematic approaches to evidence analysis and grading.

Where did you study and work previously?

My central discipline is law, though my ongoing interest in the interactions between law and science have led me to spend the past decade studying and working across a diverse range of higher education institutions, from the University of Edinburgh (Faculty of Law) to the University of Dundee (Faculty of Science and Engineering) to Technical University Graz (Institute for Advanced Studies in Science and Technology Studies). I also have a background in biotechnology and forensic medical sciences (University of Glasgow).

What were your experiences in your previous studies?

My doctoral research at the University of Strathclyde explored the effects of marketisation on forensic science in England and Wales, based upon empirical research in Forensic Science laboratories across Oxfordshire and the North of England, as well as Forensic Science Northern Ireland (FSNI), which I used as a control. I also sourced data from semi-structured interviews with the Forensic Science Regulator, the Metropolitan Police and various members of the judiciary.

Through my research I became acutely aware of the ways in which 'siloing' and epistemic rigidity interfered with professionals’ joint capacities to address complex interdisciplinary phenomena. In response, I sought to develop teaching methods and courses which would overcome these disciplinary barriers, arming tomorrow’s lawyers and (forensic) scientists with a sound grasp of scientific and legal methods, alongside a reflexive ability to work across the ontological and epistemic boundaries that separate science and law.

Why did you choose to take the Mixed Methods in Health Care module as part of the MSc in Evidence-Based Health Care?

Primarily, I was motivated to address particular knowledge gaps in order to overcome not only disciplinary boundaries but the epistemic and methodological boundaries that separate qualitative and quantitative research. Therefore, having enrolled on the Master’s course in Evidence Based Health Care, I applied to study the Mixed Methods in Health Care module. Studying this module confirmed that, whilst all researchers tend towards either a qualitative or quantitative approach, through studying mixed methods approaches we can derive maximal meaning from data, enabling us to address complex phenomena in a far more rounded and rigorous manner.

What was your experience of the module?

This module has proven immediately beneficial. Studying mixed methods allows me the option to open up a multifaceted approach to inquiry that combines qualitative and quantitative methodologies, providing me (or my research team) with a comprehensive toolkit to explore complex phenomena. I am now able to integrate diverse data collection and analytical techniques, uncovering nuanced insights that may have been overlooked by employing a mono-method approach. Thus, I now have the versatility to triangulate diverse categories of data, enhancing the validity and reliability of my findings. And mixed methods research further encourages and enables the sorts of interdisciplinary collaboration and flexibility that are at a premium in my field.

What did you enjoy?

There were a number of aspects of the module which I enjoyed, from exploring the diverging philosophical perspectives of qualitative and quantitative researchers to familiarising myself with the various critiques of mixed methods approaches which have emerged.

However, I particularly enjoyed the group-work tasks which helped to contextualise our daily lectures and activities. Our group focussed on designing a mixed methods approach for developing an intervention to reduce smoking during pregnancy. This required us to work closely on specifying the background and rationale of the project, ascertaining the study setting and population and elaborating upon the quantitative and qualitative phases of the project, as well as the data integration and analysis phase that is essential to mixed methods research.

What surprised you?

Just as my research has sought to overcome the barriers between law and science, so the module in mixed methods research overcomes the methodological barriers between qualitative and quantitative approaches in a complementary way. The integration of quantitative and qualitative methods now seems a far more natural way to approach many complex phenomena than to stick with a mono-method approach (though the latter may still be the best option in some instances). 

How will the module contribute to your current study and work?

Studying the mixed methods module has already begun to pay dividends. My final piece of postdoctoral research for the Copenhagen XAIfair project involved an exploration of ‘agentivity’ as a determining factor in asylum applications, focussing on the ‘credibility assessment’ phase of the asylum application.

My initial study design was centred around qualitatively coding for agentivity indicators, across a sample of cases drawn from a dataset of 15,000 Danish asylum decisions. However, having studied the mixed methods module it became immediately apparent that my research, addressing a complex and multi-faceted legal phenomenon, would benefit from being reframed as an explanatory sequential mixed methods study. Therefore, I redeveloped the design to reflect this new approach. The results were far more multi-faceted.

What was the main benefit to you of taking the course?

The benefits have been twofold. First, the opportunity to broaden my methodological competences across a palette of qualitative and quantitative approaches has already proven useful within the context of my postdoctoral research. More broadly, my engagement with the mixed methods module has opened up new opportunities for interdisciplinary research and generated new questions regarding the most rigorous and comprehensive means to explore complex legal and scientific phenomena.

Were there any barriers for you or things that could be improved?

Of course, there are aspects of health care practice that are familiar to those working in the field and less so to lawyers like myself. But there is no sense of exclusion and the teaching staff and students are mindful and willing to explain these technicalities where necessary.

What was your experience of academic support?

The academic support is excellent. Without exception, the course instructors have been happy to give of their time and experience, answering detailed questions and guiding students to further articles and resources. However, I would also highlight the highly collegiate nature of the course and the ongoing opportunities for peer-to-peer learning and feedback.    

Anything else you would like share with us?

If your commitments allow, then do try to take part in the post-Oxford activities, occurring after the in-person Oxford week of the course. They offer students a weekly opportunity to complete a range of exercises, elaborating upon particular elements of the course. These activities also allow for peer-to-peer feedback and the opportunity to source further expert advice and feedback from the course instructor.

What would your advice be to students considering studying your module/short course?

I would reiterate the advice which most students are familiar with: prepare to work with an enthusiastic cohort of fellow students who are willing to put a great deal of effort into the modules in order to derive the most benefit from working constructively with their peers and with expert instructors at the pinnacle of their fields. That means asking questions, joining discussions and enjoying the lively conversations and debates that inevitably extend across lunch and breaktimes.

Do you have any specific tips or recommendations when considering or taking the course?

Apply! Whether you apply for a single module to expand your methodological competences or a full Master's in Science that will furnish you with a comprehensive knowledge of Evidence-Based Health Care practices, the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine offers a wealth of opportunity for students from all backgrounds and all disciplines.

Click here to learn more about the Mixed Methods in Health Care module, next running 2-6 February 2026. More information about the MSc in Evidence-Based Health Care can be found on the course webpage.