In order to address the research questions, the key strategy for this study is to use mixed methods with both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis techniques. Although a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches is widely used, there is still considerable scope for confusion due to the complex ontological and epistemological issues involved. The main reason that the mixed methods approach is adopted is that utilizing both approaches for data collection and analysis techniques would most appropriately facilitate the exploration of the research questions in this study.
4.2.1 Epistemology
This study takes a critical realism stance, which offers an alternative to the established paradigms of positivism and interpretivism (Houston, 2001; McEvoy & Richards, 2006). Positivistic research aims to identify generalizable laws that are based on the identification of statistical relationships between dependent and independent variables
88
(Ackroyd, 2004). Whereas the interpretivist paradigm places more emphasis upon the way in which the world is socially constructed and understood (Blaikie, 2009). Critical realism considers it is impossible to fully apprehend reality, as perceptions are shaped by theoretical resources and investigative interests. The knowledge of the world is always mediated by the discourses available to us, but we can get empirical feedback from those aspects of the world that are accessible (Sayer, 2004).
Critical realists distinguish between three different ontological domains or modes of reality (Bhaskar, 2013). These are: the empirical (those aspects of reality that can be experienced either directly or indirectly); the actual (those aspects of reality that occur, but may not necessarily be experienced); and the real or ‘deep’ structures and mechanisms that generate phenomena (McEvoy & Richards, 2006). These causal mechanisms, though not open to observation directly, can be apprehended through a combination of empirical investigation and theoretical construction. The critical realism accommodates the views that there exists both a subjective world as well as an objective world. Thus, critical realism offers a pragmatic way to the opposing notions of positivism and interpretivism. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010) argued that researchers should use whatever methods that are needed to obtain the optimum results, even if this involves ‘switching between alternative paradigms’ (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The logic is that neither quantitative nor qualitative methods alone are sufficient to develop a complete analysis. As a consequence, they need to be used in combination, so that they can complement each other (Creswell, Fetters, & Ivankova, 2004).
89 4.2.2 A mixed research method
To investigate the health and well-being of Chinese international students, adopting appropriate research methods are of paramount importance to achieve the research aims (Schutt & Chambliss, 2006). In this section, the rationale of adopting in-depth interviews to gain personal insights, based on which to design the questionnaire will be discussed.
In an exploratory study, qualitative inquiry using semi-structured interviews may dig out the participants’ inner world views in their own words, and allow themes to emerge that could not be anticipated by the researchers prior to the research. Qualitative methods can help to capture the rich meaning of complicated concepts from the participants’ own view and enlightening narration of the participants’ perspectives of their health and well-being.
As such, perceptions or views on health and well-being of Chinese international students may be investigated through qualitative data (e.g. individual interviews). Special attention is given to the perceptions, experiences, and feelings of the Chinese international students. In brief, the qualitative approach was chosen to capture Chinese international students’ own voices, and expose the richness and diversity of experiences based on the reality of participants’ life experience, thus answering the research questions.
According to Bryman (2006), the two methods are not mutually exclusive due to the fact that different methods demonstrate superiority in answering different questions. Some questions can be investigated by means of a quantitative method while others
90
may be better answered by a qualitative approach (Punch & Oancea，2014). In terms of testing a hypothesis, quantitative research is valid for testing certain relationships between independent variables and dependent variables. Comparatively, qualitative research is deemed to be more sensitive to in-depth and holistic understanding of the research issues and conducive to comprehending the complexity of social life.
Mixed methods are emphasised in a sociocultural or psychological enquiry to “lessen the tendency to develop answers about the social world from ego-based commitments, excessive devotion to tradition, and unquestioning respect for authority” (Schutt & Chambliss, 2006, p.9).
As becomes obvious, mixed approaches are needed in that a qualitative method enjoys the advantage of “producing a more realistic picture of reality and reveal more complexities” and a quantitative demonstrated superiority of “providing a succinct and parsimonious pattern” (Mertens, 2014). With the strengths and weakness of the two approaches, mixed methods can be used for 1) triangulating findings: qualitative data can be validated against the quantitative data, and the other way round; 2) validating the researcher’s perspective (quantitative) and participants’ voice (qualitative); and 3) bridging the gap between macro (quantitative large scale study) and micro levels (individual) behavioural aspects (Bryman, 2006).
It has been suggested that “a combination of qualitative and quantitative designs might bring out the best of both approaches while neutralizing the shortcomings and biases inherent in each paradigm” (Dörnyei, 2001; p.242). Based on the discussion above, the use of a mixed method in the current study was justified. For the qualitative part,
91
in-depth personal interviews are conducted to obtain data concerning the health and well-being of Chinese international students. For the quantitative part, the participants are provided with questionnaires to generate data in relation to correlation, multiple regression and mediating effect. The two research paradigms are complementary to enhance the validity and reliability of the present study, and therefore the findings can complete and confirm each other to answer the research questions raised.