The Mixed Method Approach to Research

The mixed methods approach is first outlined by discussing the characteristics of the approach, including the strengths and weaknesses, followed by the explanation and justification of the mixed methods design adopted in the present study.

3.2.3.1 Characteristics of mixed methods research

When providing a preliminary working definition of quantitative and qualitative research approaches, Dörnyei (2007) describes quantitative research as collecting numerical data which is then analysed using mainly statistical methods, and qualitative research involves collecting non-numerical data, which is mainly open ended, and using non-statistical methods of analysis. While these approaches initially appear to be distinct, with their data collection and analyses either consisting of words or numbers, Dörnyei (2007) argues that they are in fact on a continuum, as

“sometimes we convert our raw experiences of the social world into words…at other times numbers” (p. 25), citing Miles and Huberman (1994, as cited in Dörnyei, 2007) who argued that all data can be qualitative to some extent because they refer to the essence of the social world being examined. However, delving deeper into each approach, there are contrasts between the two approaches which provide sources of

92

division, which can be demonstrated from the previous characterisation of

quantitative and qualitative methods. Thus the paradigm wars began, and Dörnyei (2007) provides a succinct distinction between the two approaches:

Quantitative research was seen to offer a structured and highly regulated way of achieving a macro-perspective of the overarching trends of the world, whereas qualitative research was perceived to represent a flexible and highly context-sensitive micro-perspective of the everyday realities of the world. (p. 29)

Punch (2014) explains that in the social sciences, paradigm wars of ‘either/or’ began in the seventies with the increased acceptance of qualitative methods after the historical dominance of quantitative methods. Two decades later, researchers’ strongly held views of the ‘either/or’ argument waned, as they began to see past the paradigm wars and develop the groundwork for designs which adopted a mixed methods approach (Punch, 2014), and Dörnyei (2007) explains that there is now “a peaceful coexistence of quantitative and qualitative methods” (p. 31) in many areas of the social sciences. In educational research, Suter (2012) believes that despite mixed methods designs being the most complex, they “may also be the most useful because they honor true complexity of learning in our schools” (p. 370), thus demonstrating the value of mixed methods research in gaining the best possible understanding of the problem investigated. This point highlights part of the justification for the present study adopting a mixed methods approach, as the research question involves

investigating the phenomena of language learning at school, therefore it was essential to conduct research which allowed the best possible development of understanding of this complexity.

93

When discussing the introduction of mixed methods research, Dörnyei (2007) suggests that this was the next natural step from the ‘situationalist’ approach, which believed that both approaches had value and the choice ought to depend upon the research topic. This still represented an ‘either/or’ viewpoint, and Dörnyei (2007) argues that “while it is true that particular research topics or questions can be more naturally linked to either QUAL or QUAN methods, in most cases we can also look at the same research question from another angle, using the other approach, thus

uncovering new aspects of the issue” (p. 30). This is the underlying principle of the mixed methods approach, where the two methodologies are combined to allow the enhancement and corroboration of the data to further understand the research question or topic. Dörnyei (2007) explains that it was not until the seventies, when the concept of ‘triangulation’ was introduced to the social sciences that “the real breakthrough in combining quantitative and qualitative research occurred” (p. 43). According to Dörnyei (2007), “methodological triangulation can help to reduce the inherent weaknesses of individual methods by offsetting them by the strengths of another” (p. 43), and this is echoed in the initial description of mixed methods provided by Creswell and Plano Clark (2007, as cited in Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011) in their first edition of Designing and Conducting Research Methods, where they state that “its central premise is that the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches, in combination, provides a better understanding of research problems than either approach alone” (p. 5). In the second edition, Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) have extended this definition by creating a definition of core characteristics of mixed methods research which combines methods, a philosophy, and a research design orientation. This demonstrates the complexity of the multifaceted approach that is

94

mixed methods. This leads to the notion suggested by Dörnyei (2007) whether researchers adopting mixed methods can be skilful enough to adequately use both research approaches and handle the mixed data accordingly. This is especially true for beginning researchers, thus in addressing this issue in the present study, it was

important to seek the advice of experts in both fields of research to ensure that the appropriate methods were applied. Despite this notion, mixed methods was chosen due to the advantages of the approach, which include the weaknesses being accounted for by the other method, the layers of data collection and analysis which provide a deeper understanding, and the improved validity from the convergence of the findings (Dörnyei, 2007).

There are a number of designs that can be applied in a mixed methods study which varies the relationship of the quantitative and qualitative parts in terms of priority and implementation. Plano Clarke and Creswell (2008) list six major designs: sequential explanatory, sequential exploratory, sequential transformative, concurrent triangulation, concurrent nested, and concurrent transformative. The three sequential designs have sequenced, two phase data collection methods, whereas the concurrent designs collect data simultaneously using both methods in one phase. For most of these designs, the priority can be equal, however some usually have a focus on one method, such as the priority in sequential explanatory designs being quantitative (Plano Clarke & Creswell, 2008). Sequential explanatory design begins with the quantitative method followed by the qualitative method, whereas the exploratory design is reversed. The sequential transformative design can start with either method first, with priority given to either method, and this design definitely has a theoretical perspective which guides the study, whereas the previous two may or may not have a

95

theoretical perspective present (Plano Clarke & Creswell, 2008). Concurrent

triangulation sees both methods implemented during the data collection phase, data is analysed simultaneously, and then the results are compared. The concurrent nested design acts in a similar way, however one of the methods is nested or embedded within the other predominant method, which can allow the embedded method to investigate a different question or the same question at a different level. Like the sequential transformative design, the concurrent transformative design definitely uses a theoretical perspective to guide the study, and can thus adopt the design features of a triangulation or nested design (Plano Clarke & Creswell, 2008). This brief outline of the six major designs demonstrates the different relationships that a mixed method study can adopt, and the variations of sequence and priority that researchers can employ in their study.

Plano Clarke and Creswell (2008) argue that when explaining the design of a mixed methods study, it is important to frame the design in terms of the philosophical assumptions underpinning it. The present study uses an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, which is explained in section 3.2.3.3, after the philosophical

assumptions underpinning this design are discussed. 3.2.3.2 The mixed methods worldview

Philosophical assumptions are termed by Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) as a worldview, and refer to the beliefs and assumptions about knowledge held by researchers which thus inform their inquiry. Pragmatism is a pluralistic worldview that Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) state is often associated with mixed methods research, however they argue that for a mixed methods study it is more appropriate to use multiple worldviews which are selected based on the type of mixed method

96

design. To this end, for explanatory sequential design, they suggest that a combination of postpositivist and constructivist paradigms are used as the design shifts from

quantitative to qualitative (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). This adoption of multiple worldviews is embraced within the field of educational research, as demonstrated by Hartas (2009), who argues that in this field research problems are often very complex and require an understanding of the range of factors which interact to create the conditions seen in schools and communities, and “this awareness has stimulated the integration of different worldviews to support mixed-research methodologies for educators to engage with inquiry” (p. 50). Hartas (2009) further suggests that “within the context of mixed-method research, integrated worldviews may offer the

intellectual platform for educational research as a cooperative action to emerge, and address the ways in which knowledge in education translates into policy and practice at a local level” (p. 50). In an explanatory sequential design, the first phase of

quantitative research is followed by the second phase of qualitative research. Creswell (2014) outlines that postpositivist assumptions are often at the core of scientific inquiry, and postpositivism recognises that claims of knowledge are not infallible when it comes to the behaviour and actions of people. Constructivism is centred on meanings, and the understandings of phenomena as experienced by participants, and this is often associated with qualitative research (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Constructivists believe that meaning is created through social interaction, both with other people and the immediate environment. According to Hartas (2009),

“educational research that draws upon constructivism strives to empower participants’ perspectives and ideas, and obtain rich descriptions of the contexts that surround their lives” (p. 44), thus relying on interpretation of multiple perspectives created through

97

interaction. Creswell (2014) summarises that the main ideas of constructivism are: understanding; multiple participant meanings; social and historical construction; and theory generation. Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) used an adaption of Crotty’s (1998, as cited in Plano and Clark, 2011) conceptualisation of the four levels of research design to demonstrate how worldviews are positioned within mixed method design. This conceptualisation has been adapted to represent the design of this study (see Figure 3.1). The type of mixed method design adopted for this study is discussed and justified in the next section of this chapter.

Figure 3.1: Four Levels for developing a research design

3.2.3.3 The mixed methods design

A mixed methods design was selected for the present research study based on

Bryman’s (2006, as cited in Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011) notion of ‘completeness’, and this refers to the belief that the researcher can gain a more comprehensive account

Paradigm

worldview •Postpositivism & constructivism

Theroetical lens •L2 Motivational Self

System Methodological approach •Mixed methods Methods of data collection •Survey & foucs group interviews

98

and understanding of the topic being investigated. ‘Illustration’ is another reason, where qualitative data illustrate the findings from the quantitate phase which enhances the overall story being presented (Bryman, 2006, as cited in Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The explanatory sequential mixed method design was chosen for the present study, and as explained by Creswell (2014), this type of design is a two-phase project where the findings of the quantitative approach are used to inform the qualitative research. Plano Clark and Creswell (2008) explain that while priority is often given to the quantitative method, priority can also be to the qualitative method, or equal priority can be given. In the design for the present study, it was decided that equal priority would be given to the quantitative and qualitative methods. This decision was based on the belief that while the quantitative method informed the qualitative design, and provided generalisable data which enabled ‘the big picture’ to develop,

understanding the meaning of participants’ experiences was considered equally important in developing a rich understanding of the phenomena being investigated. This design is described using Morse’s (1991, as cited in Plano Clark & Creswell, 2008) notation system: QUAN → QUAL, where equal priority is indicated by the capitalisation (as opposed to the use of capitalisation for the priority method and lower case for the other method) and the arrow to signal the sequential nature of the design. Creswell (2014) explains that this design consists of two distinct data

collection and analyses phases. First the quantitative data are collected and analysed, and this informs the design of the qualitative method. The qualitative data are then collected and analysed, before an interpretation of the entire analysis. It is here that Creswell (2014) highlights the importance of reporting the results of each phase separately before a third form of interpretation is presented, which describes how the

99

qualitative findings further explain the initial quantitative data that was collected. This discussion essentially demonstrates “what overall is learned in response to the study’s purpose” (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011, p. 83). The steps of this explanatory

sequential design are presented in Figure 3.2 and have been recreated from the design figures of Plano Clark & Creswell (2008) and Creswell (2015).

Figure 3.2: Explanatory sequential design

Creswell and Plano Clarke (2011) highlight the advantages of explanatory design, which include: the implementation of data collection is straightforward, as there are distinct phases as opposed to simultaneous collection; the two-phase approach allows for a clear delineation when reporting the study; and the design allows for emergent approaches as the second phase is based on data from the first. With any research method comes disadvantages, and Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) also highlight the challenges involved with explanatory design, including: the two- phase design is time-consuming, especially the qualitative phase; it can be difficult to gain approval for this design because “the researcher cannot specify how participants will be selected for the second phase until the initial findings are obtained” (p. 85); and it needs to be decided which quantitative data to use to inform the second phase.

In considering these possible disadvantages, it was important to plan and adhere to a collection and analysis schedule, and ensure that the quantitative data

QUAN data collection QUAN data analysis Determine QUAN data to be explained QUAL data collection QUAL data analysis Interpretation of entire analysis

100

informed the qualitative data collection in a way that best addressed the problem being investigated. In addition, there were ethical considerations for which to account, which is now detailed before an overview of the study’s participants is presented.