Adopting a multimethods approach

The TCAS study has adopted a multimethod approach, using more than one method of data collection in order to answer the research questions (quantitative and qualitative). For example, the quantitative element of the study is exploring to what extent participants complete the outcome measure, as well as the promise of Tai Chi as an effective intervention for a future RCT, whereas the qualitative element is exploring participants’

perceptions of the acceptability, practicality, demand, implementation and integration of the Tai Chi programme, as well as outcome measures.

Although each paradigm is separate, the combining of the two is a planned and deliberate synthesis aiming to improve knowledge around the topic under investigation (Brewer &

Hunter, 1989). A multimethod approach offers an alternative to mixed methods. It involves different methods for separate purposes within the same study and may only include one paradigm (quantitative only or qualitative only) or both paradigms (quantitative and qualitative) (Morse, 2003). Therefore, a multimethod approach was taken for the TCAS study, using both quantitative and qualitative paradigms involving separate methods. The multimethod approach has been adopted to overcome each paradigm’s weaknesses and limitations by combing the two approaches together in the same study (Brewer & Hunter, 1989). This means that two theoretical frameworks will be adopted; a positivist approach will be adopted for the quantitative component, whereas the theoretical framework for the qualitative element is discussed below.

It was the aim of the researcher to obtain the opinions of the participants so that these views can be considered when designing a future study. There are many qualitative

approaches which were considered for the TCAS study, including case studies, focus groups, grounded theory, and phenomenology. However, the latter approaches were not the most suitable to answer the research questions of the current feasibility study. Case studies involve single individuals which would not be representative of the whole experimental group (Bryman, 2012); future intervention changes would rely on one individual. Focus groups seemed to be a favourable approach but was rejected for the purposes of the current study because this approach would bring out group dynamics where meanings become socially constructed (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Additionally, those who are quiet may not speak up and let individuals dominate the conversation. People may also be less likely to differ in opinion if the majority agreed in opinion. Grounded theory was not chosen because the aim of the study is not to develop a theory, but simply just to gain participants’

opinions about the intervention. Phenomenology was found not to be suitable because this approach focuses on interpretations (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005); the TCAS study is not looking for interpretations, but merely accepting what participants say. Thus, the most appropriate approach was a naturalistic one because participants can give their opinions and these

opinions can be accepted as they are. Table 12 highlights the strengths and weaknesses of different qualitative approaches.

Table 12 Strengths and weaknesses of some qualitative approaches

Strengths and Weaknesses of Some Qualitative Approaches

Qualitative Approach Strengths Weaknesses

Case studies • Detailed and

Grounded theory • Data is gathered then analysed to

Phenomenology • How individuals make sense of the Naturalism • Data is obtained

within a natural environment (Bryman, 2012).

• Participants feel at ease to talk

(Bryman, 2012).

• Each participants’

opinions can be obtained.

The social world from the points of view of research participants was examined in the TCAS study. Silverman (2016) suggests that interviewing is useful for this. Further, interviews can identify culturally embedded normative explanations because they are representative of

‘ways in which people organize views of themselves, of others, and of their social worlds’

(Silverman, 2016; page 56). Contexts and situations in which phenomena about the Tai Chi programme can emerge from interviews, as well as knowledge about the cultural frames participants use to make sense of their experiences (Silverman, 2016). Herbert Blumer believed that social research should take a ‘naturalistic approach’ and rely on fieldwork to gain the perspectives of participants and to see reality from their point of view (Silverman, 2016). The naturalistic approach allows participants to feel comfortable and competent enough to talk back during the interview, providing insight into the meanings of their social worlds (Silverman, 2016). This naturalistic approach has been called ‘interactionism’ and its principles include:

• relating symbols and interaction, showing how meanings arise in the context of behaviour.

• taking the participant’s point of view.

• studying the situated character of interaction.

• analysing processes instead of structures, avoiding the determinism of predicting behaviour from class, gender, race, age etc.

• generalising from descriptions to theories (Silverman, 2016).

A naturalistic approach has thus been adopted for the qualitative component of the TCAS study. Bryman (2012) defines naturalism as a style of research seeking to minimalize the intrusion of artificial methods of data collection, such as ‘natural conversations.’ The interviews at 12 weeks took place following the participants’ final Tai Chi class, a natural uncontrolled environment in line with the natural flow of events. For example, participants were interviewed after the participant’s final Tai Chi class had ended whilst waiting for transport home. Thus, participants were going about their normal activities, maintaining the natural flow of events. However, Bryman (2012) argues that even when the interviewing style is more of a conversational kind, interviewees still need to be taken away from their activities. Nevertheless, TCAS participants were not engaged in any activity except for waiting for transport. Thus, interviews were like chatting informally about an event they had just attended. In this way, Bryman (2012) asserts that perspectives of participants are more likely to surface where otherwise participants would have kept quiet.

To gain understanding of participants views would clarify certain issues that the quantitative approach is unable to do. There are critiques of the quantitative approach which are

presented in Table 13. Similarly, some critiques of the qualitative approach are also shown in Table 13.

Table 13 Critique of quantitative and qualitative research paradigms (adapted from Bryman, 2008) Critique against the quantitative

paradigm

Critique against the qualitative paradigm

Does not distinguish people and social situations from the world of nature. Interpretation of people’s views are not considered.

May be too subjective.

Fixed choice answers are used so that questions are interpreted the same, in terms of the question.

It is difficult to replicate.

It is difficult to show how the concern effects a person’s daily life from measurement tools.

The importance of an issue may not be viewed as important by somebody else.

The relationship between variables does not show how they connect to everyday life of people.

Interpretation is influenced by the researcher.

It cannot be generalised to other settings because it involves few cases.

It is difficult to tell how conclusions were made: generalisations can be made to the theory but not the population.