"Communication Education's" commitment to publishing rigorous instructional communication research with a diversity of methods is clear in its publication of quantitative, qualitative, and critical articles (Witt, 2012). Here, Andrea Meluch argues that the trends in the most recent research published within this journal indicate a lack of use of mixed methods designs. Despite the clear benefits of using mixed methods in instructional research (Sammons, 2010), Meluch writes that mixed methods research is characterized by research designs using the combination of statistical data and personal stories to provide a more fully developed understanding of a research problem than can be achieved through solely using either quantitative or qualitative methods (Cresswell, 2015). She opines that the past five years of research published in "Communication Education" has had limited inclusion of mixed methods studies. Meluch says that calling for greater use of mixed methods research does not diminish the value of solely quantitative, qualitative, or critical studies; however, instructional communication researchers should consider incorporating both quantitative data and voices of students and educators in changing areas of instructional communication research (e.g., instructional technology). The inclusion of student and educator voices in studies that may otherwise only provide quantitative analysis may provide researchers with a clearer understanding of students' perceptions, which can be crucial when considering future research. Meluch concludes the article by suggesting that in the next five years, researchers may want to consider ways (e.g., including open-ended questions in surveys, providing surveys to members of focus groups) to incorporate and integrate both qualitative and quantitative data into their studies.