Using Mixed Methods Research in Anatomy Education: The Relevancy, Challenges, and Benefits

Mixed methods research in academic medicine is becoming more prominent and has the potential to offer unique and important insights into the challenges surrounding the education of our doctors. Mixed methods accomplishes this by utilizing the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative approaches, particularly when the research question and data are complex and the use of either singular approach is inadequate to address the complexity. Even though mixed methods research poses unique challenges, including the time‐commitment to collect and analyse both inductive and deductive data, it has great potential due to its ability to combine the what, who, and when with the why and how. Using an illustrative case study that employed a two‐phase, sequential explanatory mixed methods design, this study demonstrates the relevancy, challenges, and benefits of mixed methods research in anatomy education. With gross anatomy an integral part of medical education, and considerable variability present in student performance and retention of the subject, it suggests there is potential in using a mixed methods approach to better understand the complex factors that contribute to these inconsistencies. This study explored the relationships between three areas: first, how medical students conceptualize intelligence, referred to as their implicit theory of intelligence (ITI), which reflects if they believe their intelligence is fixed (reflective of an entity theorist ), or if they believe their intelligence to be malleable (reflective of an incremental theorist ); second, a novel character trait coined “grit” (defined as the passion and perseverance for long‐term goals); and third, individual self‐regulatory processes involved in learning gross anatomy. Medical students (n=382) completed the validated ITI and Grit Scales in order to identify their ITI and grit score. Subsequent interviews (n=25) were conducted to explore how medical students set goals, operated while reaching those goals, and monitored their progress in achieving those goals. Entity and incremental theorists with high grit performed significantly better in gross anatomy when compared to those with low grit. Highly gritty incremental and entity theorists were hard workers and showed resilience in the face of challenges. Conversely, low grit individuals became overwhelmed by challenges, were more likely to show an inconsistent work ethic, and questioned their ability to master the material. An individual's ITI, more so than grit, drove the presence of negative emotions, with entity theorists feeling anxious and vulnerable, and incremental theorists feeling fewer negative emotions. Findings reinforce the value of using mixed methods in examining and understanding how medical students learn, and not just in anatomy. A mixed methods approach can provide educators with necessary tools to gain insight into complex, non‐academic factors that drive learning, factors that may otherwise remain hidden.