A case for mixed methods

Saldana (2003) argues that a rigid design can become a handicap and that ‘mixed methodology improves deep understandings’ (p.43) and Creswell and Clark (2007) makes

the case for MM as a ‘philosophical framework’ (p.4) which should be regarded as complementary - not ‘as a rival camp’ (Flick, 2007, p.93). Creswell and Clark (2007) suggest a number of reasons for adopting such a framework: MM can aid the triangulation of findings by either, validating, confirming, refuting, or corroborate analysis from another discipline. MM can also be used specifically for different parts of the research design - where the questions being asked would be best answered, or supported, by a quantitative or qualitative method. And MM, ‘where there is no guiding framework or theory’ (p.75) to refer to, can contribute to a two phased research approach.

The questions that arises from the above are ones of design and emphasis - ‘What weighting should be given to the qualitative or quantitative methods used?’ and ‘Should one methodology take priority over another?’ Creswell and Clark (2007) argues that qualitative researchers should not shun or shy away from statistics but regard them as an available source of information with which to support or contest qualitative observations - and, in the case of a small case study sample, could contribute to questions on the representativeness of the contributors to the wider population (5.3.2).

Though it can be argued that the weighting of quantitative to qualitative methods should be influenced by the research question - the thesis issue - Creswell and Clark (2003) writes that there is a need for MM researchers to consider how the two methodologies are to be coalesced, either at an early stage of the action research design or by adopting a concurrent approach which would aid separate dissemination for comparative purposes. And Morgan (2007) also makes the case for combining qualitative

and quantitative methods at the design level - especially where the investigator collects and analyses data, integrates the findings and draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative methods in a single study.

As attracted as I am to MM, as it moves back and forth between an inductive and deductive approach, converting observations into theories and then assessing those theories through action research (Morgan, 2007); as attracted as I am to an intersubjective, reflexive methodology, into which researchers holistically factor social processes that impact on the informers; and as attracted as I am by the concept of transferability of any conclusions I might come to - I have reservations about a social science study which has aspirations to seek the ‘truth’ (Spencer et al., 2003, p.62) of ‘conclusions’ (Kvale, 2007 cited in Cohen et al., 2006, p.286; 3.2).

Lincoln and Guba (1985), Sandelowski (1986) and Whittemore et al., (2001) all agree that it is just not possible to establish the ‘truth’ - there is no single truth, merely ‘different understandings of reality’ (cited in Spencer et al., 2003, p.63). And has been argued, credibility and plausibility of discoveries are basically down to communication.

If in Chapters 3-5 of this thesis, I communicate and defend my choice of research methodology(ies) and method(s); am transparent on how the informers were chosen; be honest in reporting both positive and negative discoveries; factor in an assessment of my impact on the informers and gauge, if possible, how externals impacted on the informers’ life world (Spencer et al., 2003; Appendix D) - all in the cause of exploring the research

question - then I will have gone some way towards honouring that ‘holy trinity’ of ‘validity, reliability and objectivity’ (Spencer et al., 2003, p.59).

I have become aware that in trying to answer the thesis issue, I will be seeking out ‘lightbulb’ moments (Stringer, 2007, p.103); incidents, epiphanies (3.4) which can be connected to changes in the informer’s PSD and which might be traceable to interventions which sprang from Socratic dialogue on the topics explored in selected Shakespearean stories. I also have to accept that these moments might not exist or might not be revealed for years to come. Such is the mercurial nature of personal and social development.

I think that the research strategy and design that I embark on will be less certain and more complex than research which offers conclusions. Conclusions are too positive, too sure, too certain a word with regard to this study. As a humanist researcher, I argue that seeking the truth of the conclusions is problematic. Not only is truth not singular but there is no truly objective ‘truth’ either because the ‘I’ will always be in the reportage, no matter how hard one tries to mitigate this assertion by being transparent and reflexive (Angrosino, 2007; Creswell and Clark, 2007; Flick, 2007).

Could using a multiplicity of research methodologies and methods go some way to taking the omnipresent ‘I’ out of the discoveries? Or is there a philosophy which goes beyond MM and embraces holism - a cosmographic approach which is less certain than seeking out the purported ‘truthfulness’ of this investigation (Spencer et al., 2003, p.97)? Is there a philosophical stance which goes beyond MM, which overcomes the limitations

of monological reductionism - the right way to do research - and takes ‘into account the new possibilities opened by the multilogical’ (Kincheloe and Berry, 2004, p.4)? And could the research community be persuaded that discoveries made in such a ‘butterfly image of complexity’ (Ibid., p.113; Appendix F) are worth serious consideration and further exploration? ‘…Ay, there’s the rub’ (Hamlet, III.1.67).