3.5 Adopted Research Methods
3.5.3 Mixed-Method Research
Three forms of classification have been applied to Mixed-Method research (Creswell, et al., 2003).
3.5.3.1 Mixed method design.
This design can be divided into two sub-categories:
Mixed model research:
Both quantitative and qualitative projects are used together in more than one stage of the study (research questions, research methods, data collection and analysis, and interpretation) (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003).
Example: A large group of participants are surveyed, and subsequently a sub- sample of those participants are interviewed (Byrne & Humble, 2007).
Mixed methods research:
126 single study (Byrne & Humble, 2007). The data are collected concurrently or sequentially, and the data are integrated at one or two stages in the research process (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003).
Gil-Garcia and Pardo (2005) strongly advocate for the multi-method approach when researching e-government environments. In such investigations the researcher interacts with those being researched, and findings are the outcome of this interactive process with an emphasis on the meaning and understanding of the phenomenon under the spotlight. As pointed out by Hammond (2005), the multi-method approach provides an opportunity to triangulate the results and promote validation.
Example: A survey is carried out using mostly close-ended questions or possibly a Likert-type scale. The respondents are then able to comment in their own words in their responses to some of the questions (Byrne & Humble, 2007).
3.5.3.2 Multidimensional design
Both quantitative and qualitative projects are undertaken. The projects are complete in their own right, and the methods used have their own worldview. Each is designed to answer a particular question, and the results of the research are then triangulated to form a unified, and perhaps more complete, understanding (Morse, 2003).
3.5.3.3 Multi-case study
In this research data are collected using both quantitative and qualitative methods and they are then combined in the analysis phase of the research process (Byrne & Humble, 2007; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003).
In summary, Byrne and Humble (2007) consider the mixed-method and multi-method approaches to have a number of advantages:
The use of multiple methods can ameliorate some of the disadvantages of
‘single’ methods. One method’s weakness is counterbalanced by another method’s strength.
Methods can be chosen for their suitability in dealing with specific problems or
issues.
Confirmatory and exploratory questions can be addressed during the same
investigation.
Greene, Caracelli and Graham (1989) are also strongly supportive of mixed-method research and propose the following advantages:
127
Triangulation: The consistency of findings obtained through different research
techniques is improved.
Complementary: The results of one method inform and enhance the results
obtained from other methods and vice versa.
Development: Other techniques might become apparent.
Initiation and expansion: A broader range of questions can be formed as each
method brings into play another perspective on the problem domain.
3.5.4 Section Summary and Conclusion
The methods identified as being relevant to this research activity depend entirely on the approach taken by the researcher. In this situation the researcher will critique the design and development methods used in the construction of the web-based artefact by comparing it against the Hevner et al. (2004) guidelines. In addition three practical approaches will be used to collectively address the research aims and research questions posed in this thesis. These approaches include a number of methods identified in this section, which in turn fall within the auspices of the philosophy of science, design science paradigm and case study. In the first approach, experts are invited to comment on the validity of the semantic framework. In the second approach, the researcher demonstrates the utility of the semantic framework by submitting queries to the e-government ontology, and in the third and final approach, the schema and instance metrics are used to determine the level of richness in the research ontology.
Approach 1: Validation of the ontology by experts. Experts are exposed to the semantic framework and are asked to critically comment on the quality and appropriateness of the framework. The methods used in this approach are:
Experimental design: It is a closed simulation model, which mirrors a segment of
the ‘real world’ (Jenkins, 1985).
Design science: The design and construction process used to construct the
innovative ontological artefact is evaluated (Hevner, et al., 2004).
Opinion research: The views, opinions and impressions of human subjects are to
be obtained via questionnaires and interviews (Jenkins, 1985, p. 105).
Expert judgement questionnaire: Information is provided by qualified experts in the chosen discipline (Meyer & Booker, 2001).
Approach 2. Simulation based analysis: Scenarios based on use-case data are used to present requests for information from the system that require the utilisation of the
128 system’s unique semantic features. Each request will be in the form of a query and the results displayed via a web browser. The methods used in this approach bring together several different perspectives:
Design science: Using simulation techniques the researcher seeks to
demonstrate that the artefact is innovative and that it is effective (March & Smith, 1995, p. 260). This is directly related to the guidelines proposed by Hevner et al. (2004).
Experiment simulation: The researcher designs a closed setting experiment to
simulate a segment of the ‘real world’. The researcher chooses the type and complexity of the queries and when to submit them to the ontology (Jenkins, 1985, p. 104).
Approach 3. Structural evaluation: The schema and instance metrics will be obtained from the e-government ontology to ascertain the degree of richness within the structure of the ontology and the level of the instantiation. Other metrics associated with the instance connectivity and class importance will be determined.
Further classification of the methods can be achieved by viewing the three approaches collectively. It is a mixed method as defined by (Byrne & Humble, 2007), in that both quantitative and qualitative methods are used. For example, in approach 1, the views of experts are used and in approach 3, numerical data is obtained. The research can also be classified as multidimensional in that each method has its own view and that different questions are posed in the three approaches (Morse, 2003). Finally, it can be viewed as an embedded case study as perceived by (Scholz & Tietje, 2002) as the objective of the overall design science approach is to describe features, context and process of a phenomenon.
Having answered all four of Crotty’s questions the overall research design for this study can be described as ‘a design science based, mixed method, embedded, multi- dimensional study’.