Search

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.

ABSTRACT: Background: About a third of the world's population is estimated to suffer from anaemia, and iron deficiency is expected to account for about half of all anaemia cases. This study was designed to get an estimate of the proportion of patients with iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) who have a significant gastrointestinal (GI) pathology, in particular a GI malignancy, and to identify any risk factors or predictors for the same. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted at a hospital in Eastern India. The study population comprised males above the age of 18 and postmenopausal females with IDA, excluding those haemodynamically unstable or with chronic diseases. Data collection included a detailed history, sociodemographic details, dietary habits, GI symptoms, and severity of anaemia. Faecal occult blood tests (OBTs) were conducted, and patients were referred for upper and lower GI endoscopy with biopsies. Results: Out of the 257 patients, 50.97% (n = 131) had a significant GI pathology, and 25.68% (n = 66) had a GI malignancy. Male gender (AOR: 5.203, 95% CI: 1.725–15.698) and a positive stool OBT (AOR: 6.516, 95% CI: 2.255–18.828) were found to be independent risk factors for any GI pathology. Age 40 years or above (AOR: 11.376, 95% CI: 1.199–107.946), loss of appetite (AOR: 15.548, 95% CI: 1.416–170.735), pain abdomen (AOR: 5.566, 95% CI: 1.149–26.953), dysphagia (AOR: 7.945, 95% CI: 1.036–60.915), family history of malignancy (AOR: 46.726, 95% CI: 4.076–535.645), and positive OBT (AOR: 22.430, 95% CI: 3.933–127.915) were found to be independent risk factors of GI malignancy. Conclusions: This study shows that a large proportion of adult males and postmenopausal females presenting with IDA in India have significant GI pathology. Furthermore, a significant proportion of them have GI malignancies. Thus, bidirectional endoscopy should be considered for these patients. Male patients, age >40, those with history of loss of appetite or weight, pain abdomen or dysphagia, positive family history, and positive OBT should be prioritised for the investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past 30 years, red tape has emerged as a key concept in public management. Yet, researchers continue to debate the relative merits of system‐centric versus individual‐centric approaches. In this article, we articulate an individual‐centric psychological process theory, a theory that confronts the 'modularity assumption' relegating the subjective individual experience as inconsequential in much red tape research. We theorize that the appraisal mechanism influences the meaning attached to external compliance demands. Our process theory advances the claim that experience, emotion, and expectancy influence one's perceptions of, and behavioral response to, red tape. Thus, compliance expectations in rules are informed by other social demands embedded in roles, identities, and collective interests in ways that influence the perceived legitimacy of rules and the compliance burdens they impose. The psychological process theory offers a holistic perspective on red tape by treating the subjective individual experience as consequential for understanding red tape. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]