A Comprehensive Taxonomy of Research Designs, a Scaffolded Design Figure for Depicting Essential Dimensions, and Recommendations for Achieving Design Naming Conventions in the Field of Mixed Methods Research

and or , I of how of designs has and provide arguments for creating naming conventions. I believe the variation in naming re fl ects a broader problem of confusion relative to mixed methods design naming and a unifying and comprehensive mixed methods design taxonomy based on the Linnaean classi fi cation system from the biological sciences. I illustrate how multiple design dimensions could be depicted using a scaffolded design fi gure. I argue that authors using a primary-secondary methodological ordering in design components could begin moving the fi eld toward greater consistency in naming. I to submitting to JMMR an approach for thinking comprehensively about naming of designs and suggestions for the next for the Fetters The scaffolded design concept provides a heuristic for envisioning multiple dimensions of mixed methods research studies three dimensionally, and emphasizing a foundational interconnectivity with other dimensions. Authors can exercise discretion relative to their own perception about the most foundational elements of their studies. That is, the number of scaffolds varies with extent the researchers explicitly include foundational design elements in their study. The range can vary from study to study. Seemingly, the only resistance to the designation of a scaffolded designs categorization comes from educational researchers who already use scaffolding for a different purpose, namely, as a theory for teaching to improve retention of knowledge. In this sense, the term evokes also a well-established meaning from another fi eld already in use, much like the use complex designs and complexity theory.