DATA COLLECTION IN MIXED METHODS

The main goal of the study is to find credible answers to research questions and these answers are only credible if the well-being of the participants are ensured (Teddlie and Tashakkori , (2009). In the American context institutional review boards monitor research projects in all disciplines. They are responsible for evaluating and approving research proposals and before a study is done, one must firstly determine what level of risk the study might pose to the psychological, physical and social well-being of participants. In the next step informed consent, agreement from the participant to participate in the research study, understanding the

62

risks involved should be completed. This includes the participant‟s right to privacy which entails issues of anonymity and confidentiality should be told.

Data collection strategies in qualitative studies comprise of three elements, namely observation, interviews and documents, while quantitative data collection strategies include questionnaires, tests and some form of structured interviews (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009). The qualitative strategies generate narrative data that is thematically analyzed while quantitative strategies generate numerical data that is analyzed statistically.

Detailed and specific research questions lead to the use of instruments or protocols that is more pre- designed and structured while the opposite happens when questions are less detailed and less specific. Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009) assert that mixed methods studies are situated between these two extremes.

Several reasons are provided for not labelling data collection strategies either qualitative or quantitative but rather to view it as a QUAL- MM- QUAN data collection continuum. The major data collection strategies can generate qualitative and quantitative data, research studies benefit from a mixed approach that include different data collection strategies, the conversion of data from one form to the other blurs the distinction between qualitative and quantitative data collection strategies, and specific techniques within each traditional collection strategy are placed on a continuum from highly structured (QUAN end of continuum) to a highly unstructured (QUAL en of the continuum). The major data collection strategies in mixed methods research and some data quality issues will now be discussed. 3.3.3.1 OBSERVATIONS

The observational data collection strategy is defined as the recording of units of interpretation occurring in a definite social situation based on visual examination or inspection of that situation (Teddlie and Tashakkori , 2009). The two dimensions of observational research are the structured-unstructured dimension (which varies according to whether the observation used structured or unstructured data) and the participant-observer dimension (which varies depending on how much the observer is actually part of the social situation).

3.3.3.2 FOCUS GROUPS

Focus groups are defined as a separate data collection strategy, which includes an interview and an observational technique (ibid, 2009). It allows access to information like the attitudes and experiences of participants in a non-threatening environment. Some characteristics of a focus group is that it consists of five to ten participants, composed of a homogenous group, a procedure whereby a moderator conducts a group interview with the assistance of someone,

63

sessions last no longer than two hours and involve a focussed discussion of a topic of interest (ibid, 2009). The data in a mixed methods study is usually qualitative in nature but can also use quantitative data collection strategies to supplement the major findings of the study. 3.3.3.3 INTERVIEWS

Interviews involve one person or interviewer asking open-ended or close ended questions of another person called the interviewee (ibid, 2009). It gives interviewers a chance to get clarity on vague answers. In a qualitative study there is keenness towards open-ended interviews because it generates considerable information that can lead to the re-conceptualization of the issues.

There are three kinds of open-ended interviews, informal conversational interviews which are the least structured, the general interview guide approach which is more structured, and the standardized open-ended interview which is the most structured. The open-ended interview can occur face to face, over the telephone or the internet (ibid, 2009).

Kvale (2006) describes interviews as giving a voice to common people, presenting their life situations in their own words, and opening close personal interaction between researchers and their subjects. In the process a personal relationship of trust is established that has the potential for manipulation and domination of the interviewer over the interviewee. Kvale (2006:483) is critical about the fact that an interview is seen as a dialogue because “it gives an illusion of mutual interests in a conversation, which in actuality takes place for the purpose of just one part- the interviewer.”

One of the power dynamics in an interview is that the interviewer rules the interview by determining the time, initiating the interview, deciding on the topic, posing the questions and following up on the answers and closing the conversation. It can also be seen as a one-way dialogue because the interviewer asks and the interviewee answers. Kvale (2006) see it as an instrumental dialogue because it serves as an instrument providing the interviewer with descriptions, narratives and texts, interpreted and reported with the interest of the researcher at heart. It is further described as a manipulative dialogue serving the hidden agenda of the researcher, and where the researcher holds monopoly over the interpretation of the interviewees‟ statements.

Kvale (2006) provides some alternatives to these personal and consensus seeking interviews. The interview is known as a Platonic dialogue when it becomes a conversation that stimulates the interviewee and interviewer to formulate their ideas about the research theme. Actively confronting interviews creates the possibility of public conversation and argument but when

64

it became a battle whereby the interviewer deliberately provokes conflicts and emphasizes divergences, it is known as an antagonistic interview. When the arguments of opposing sides are carefully reported it is called dissensus research but is known as advocacy research when representatives from different positions and social groups critically interpret the interviews from opposing sides to gain well-documented and well- argued dissensus. The psycho- analytic interview takes place when the patient lies on the bed and answers questions with the therapist who in return gives answers back to the patient.

Kvale (2006:489) regards “transparency and acceptance of power, conflicts and dissensus as contributing to the objectivity of interview research, in line with a dialectical conception of knowledge as developed through contradictions”. In conclusion thus ethics is just as important as methodology in interview research and requires from interviewers to be both participant and observer, realising that it may contribute to the empowerment or further oppression of the interviewee.

3.3.3.4 QUESTIONNAIRES

Questionnaires allow participants to use self-report to express their feelings, attitudes and beliefs toward a topic of interest (ibid, 2009). This strategy requires a level of reading ability but where literacy is not an issue it functions as an efficient data collection strategy. Questionnaires can also be open-ended, close-ended or both but a keenness towards close- ended questions is prominent in quantitative studies. The fact that researchers can mail their questions to respondents is a major advantage and is less expensive to conduct. An extensive follow up method is followed to remind respondents but some respondents never participate and their non-response may lead to attrition which can become a threat to the external validity or generalizability of the findings.

The two most frequently used types of questionnaires are the attitude scale and the personality inventories. Attitude scales include measures of attitudes, beliefs, self- perceptions, intentions, and aspirations. It is a questionnaire that is mostly used in survey research and the construction of a formal attitude scale is very difficult and time consuming. Personality inventories, questionnaires and checklists are used for the measurement of the personality attributes of respondents.

Some of the commonly used personality inventories include measures of self-perceptions, locus of control and self-efficacy, especially by educational researchers that collect data regarding personal attributes which is related to behaviours (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009).

65

Mixed methods questionnaires can either be open-ended or close ended items like when a researcher asks broad open-ended questions to elicit candid unrestricted information from respondents, followed by a number of closed-ended questions with a pre-planned response format.