Methodological approach

Rationales and epistemology of a mixed methods approach

Whilst there now exists around twenty years of research into public understanding of climate change, there is little systematic analysis of how this understanding may have endured or changed over this time period, and no work examining changes in public understanding using qualitative approaches. Some studies have looked at temporal aspects of public understanding using quantitative survey methods, though even here the evidence is limited and has not been integrated with qualitative approaches.

The research carried out for the thesis therefore uses combined qualitative and quantitative methods, an approach commonly termed ‘mixed methods’ (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003;

Bergman, 2008; Creswell and Clark, 2010). As Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003:x) state, “mixed methods designs incorporate techniques from both the quantitative and qualitative research traditions yet combine them in unique ways to answer research questions that could not be answered any other way”. The use of a mixed methods design in the thesis thus enables public understanding of climate change to be approached in different but complementary ways. Public perspectives obtained in a relatively open-ended and unstructured manner (the qualitative transcripts) enable depth and subtlety in public understanding of climate change to be brought to light. Survey methodology by contrast is better able provide indicators of the prevalence with which particular perspectives are held, and also the relationships between these.

As many researchers have noted, quantitative and qualitative research have on many occasions seemed to be at loggerheads – Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) note that for over a century the two approaches have engaged in ‘ardent dispute’. Underlying the frequent discordance between the two methodologies, has been a difference in epistemological positions. As Henwood and Pidgeon (1992) note, in Psychology quantitative research has generally been anchored to experimental and

66 hypothetico-deductive designs, and a positivist philosophical tradition assuming a singular, objective reality. By contrast, qualitative research more usually draws on naturalistic approaches – is concerned with naturally-occurring data, or at least data obtained outside of experimentally manipulated settings – and emphasises an interpretative approach – i.e. is concerned with how people themselves understand the world. A constructivist epistemology tends to be stressed, which assumes that knowledge and meaning are not objective and absolute features of the world, but rather are ‘constructed’ by people from experience; as Bryman (2004:266) puts it, the presumption is that “social properties are the outcomes of the interactions between individuals, rather than phenomena ‘out there’ and separate from those involved in its construction”.

Some have argued that reconciliation and integration between paradigms is unworkable. However, in this thesis I align myself with those researchers who have advocated a more pragmatic approach; for example, Guba and Lincoln (2005:201):

Is it possible to blend elements of one paradigm into another, so that one is engaging in research that represents the best of both worldviews? The answer, from our perspective, has to be a cautious yes. This is especially so if the models (paradigms) share axiomatic elements that are similar, or that resonate strongly between them.

As Johnson et al. (2007) argue, the dividing lines between qualitative and quantitative research are often far less distinct in practice in any case, than as are argued in the methodological abstract, and therefore antagonism between paradigms is unproductive. Bergman (2008) goes so far as to say that the supposedly polar opposite epistemologies of quantitative and qualitative research are really just ‘straw men’. Instead, he argues, the impetus for adopting mixed methods should not be an attempt to bridge “the unbridgeable gap” between constructivism and positivism, but rather the recognition that such an approach can provide greater opportunities for answering research questions than does a ‘mono’ research design.

The epistemological position of the mixed methods in the present thesis is therefore best summarised as one of pragmatism (cf. Greene, 2008; Maxcy, 2003; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004), wherein there is an intention to draw on the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative methods, acknowledging the different epistemological characteristics of each, but also the areas of complementarity and overlap. As Yardley and Bishop (2008:355) argue, the integrative, epistemological basis for this sort of pragmatic approach is that:

67 Pragmatism addresses the concerns of both qualitative and quantitative researchers by pointing out that all human inquiry involves imagination and interpretation, intentions and values, but must also necessarily be grounded in empirical, embodied experience.

Such a pragmatic approach: enables research to be flexible in the use of techniques; allows qualitative research components to inform quantitative research components (and vice versa);

permits the answering of a broader and more complete range of research questions; and provides stronger evidence for conclusions through convergence and corroboration of findings (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

Where considering the features of public understanding of climate change, I will therefore draw upon both types of data. My intention will be to utilise these in a pragmatic manner in the answering of the research questions of the thesis.

Methodological approach of the thesis

The thesis incorporates analysis of primary and secondary qualitative data, and analysis of primary quantitative survey data (including in comparison to secondary quantitative data). However, given the extent of qualitative analysis carried out, it should be noted that the qualitative component constitutes the more substantial part of the research.

Given these considerations, the approach I will use can most appropriately be characterised as

‘qualitative dominant mixed methods research’. Johnson et al. (2007:124) define this type of research as follows:

Qualitative dominant mixed methods research is the type of mixed research in which one relies on a qualitative view of the research process, while concurrently recognizing that the addition of quantitative data and approaches are likely to benefit [the project].

The use of such a mixed research design permits ideas generated within the qualitative analysis, to be explored further in the quantitative phase. For example, from the discussions with focus group participants, I developed an interest in the means by which people applied ideas about recent cold weather events to appraise climate change. Whilst it had been suggested in the literature and media at the time that the cold winter weather was acting to dissuade people that climate change was a reality (as a sort of disconfirmatory evidence) it was my sense from holding discussions with people that this appeared not to be the case; indeed, many participants spoke of the cold weather in

68 terms that suggested this was evidence that climate change was occurring. I therefore incorporated survey items to test this further.

This is not to say that the quantitative phase is necessarily sequentially contingent upon the qualitative analysis. Indeed, the two components operate in a parallel fashion in the investigation of a number of ideas. For example, in the qualitative stage I was interested to discover whether and how participants’ understanding of climate change as a part of natural systems, corresponded to the ‘myths of nature’ proposed by cultural theory (cf. Thompson, 2003). Such an approach I see as commensurate with the ways in which analysis has previously proceeded in the context of cultural theory (e.g. West et al., 2010). In addition, I adopted quantitative measures of ‘myths of nature’ (tailored to climate change) within the representative survey, to investigate whether these corresponded with other cultural theory measures. Again, this approach is commensurate with prior cultural theoretical approaches (e.g. Lowe, 2006). These two forms of analysis, combined, permit a more wide-ranging insight into the means by which perspectives on the natural world are integrated with perceptions of climate change more generally.

Research phases

The research design is described for simplicity in terms of three research phases, however particularly for the purposes of analysis there is substantial overlap between phases 1 and 2. Table 4.1 details the characteristics, objectives and analytic approach used for each research phase.

69