Validity criteria in mixed-methods educational research: Canada and the USA experience

Abstract

Abstract: In the third decade of the 21st century, Mixed Methods Research (MMR) has firmly established itself as the "third methodological movement" in educational sciences, offering integrated approaches to studying complex socio-educational phenomena. The purpose of this article is to conduct a comprehensive comparative analysis of the conceptual frameworks, institutional mechanisms, and practical tools for ensuring the quality of educational research in Canada and the United States. The study aims to identify ways to overcome the problem of "methodological waste"—a phenomenon where the increasing volume of publications is accompanied by a decline in attention to fundamental issues of validation and the integrative integrity of research projects. Particular focus is placed on how national academic traditions influence the formation of standards for evidence-based education. Methods. The methodological foundation of the work is based on a systems approach and a comparative analysis of quality assurance strategies. The study is grounded in a critical review and synthesis of leading validation tools, specifically the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards, and the criteria of the prominent field-specific journal, the Journal of Mixed Methods Research (JMMR). The source base consists of the results of the latest systematic methodological reviews, which allowed for a comparison of empirical data regarding the state of educational research in these two North American countries. Results. The study revealed that despite shared global challenges, the Canadian and American academic environments exhibit significant differences in their approaches to assessing the quality of educational research. It was established that a pragmatic paradigm dominates in the U.S., where the emphasis shifts toward rigid standardization and the use of results to shape state educational policy through tools like the WWC. In contrast, the Canadian research tradition demonstrates a higher level of sensitivity to social justice, inclusivity, and decolonial methodologies, which is reflected in a more flexible application of validation tools. A critical gap was identified between the theoretical requirements for the "integration" of qualitative and quantitative components and actual publishing practices, where the mixing of methods often remains superficial. Source analysis confirms that a significant portion of authors ignore formal triangulation procedures and meta-inferences, which calls into question the validity of the findings. Conclusions. It is concluded that despite the exponential growth in the popularity of mixed methods research, the level of formal methodological validation and critical reflection in educational research remains insufficient. The study proves that fostering an intensive dialogue between Canadian and American research schools is a necessary condition for improving the quality of the educational evidence base. Implementing rigorous quality assessment protocols and developing a metacognitive culture among researchers will minimize methodological risks and ensure the robustness of scientific conclusions. Future research prospects lie in the development of unified yet context-sensitive criteria for assessing the quality of educational research that account for the ethical and social dimensions of modern education amidst global transformations.