Mixed Method Research Paradigm

Mixed method design has been defined as “the collection or analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study in which the data are collected concurrently or sequentially, are given a priority, and involve the integration of the data at one or more stages in the process of research” (Creswell, Clark, Gutmann & Hanson, 2003, p.212). While psychological research tend to be designed to use either exclusively quantitative or qualitative methodologies, increasingly, there is a perception that utilizing both methodologies in a single study can advance knowledge of the studied phenomena in that the weaknesses of one methodology can be complemented by the strengths of the other methodologies (Burke & Onwuegbuzie, 2005; Creswell et al., 2003; Cornish et al., 2003; Cornish, 2009; Morgan, 2007; Sechrest & Sidani, 1995; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). The criticisms towards quantitative methodology of context stripping and consequent limited applicability due to the need to control for variables can be redressed by qualitative methodology which provides rich contextual data inclusive of emic understandings, meanings and purposes (Lincoln & Guba, 1994; Michell, 1999: Toomela, 2008). The criticisms of qualitative research of being too subjective and inability to generalise across a large population can be complemented by quantitative methodology which aims at objectivity and ability to generalise to a wider population (Toomela, 2008).

A major challenge of utilising a mixed method design in a single study is that each of the two methodologies (qualitative and quantitative) is underpinned by different

paradigms. A paradigm is defined as “a set of interrelated assumptions about the social world which provide a philosophical and conceptual framework for the organised study of the world” (Filsteed, 1979, p.34). Guba and Lincoln (1994) identifies five competing research paradigms, within which, and among which, the diversity of psychology research resides. Two of these paradigms are within a positivist tradition (positivism and post-positivism), two are interpretivist (constructivism and critical theory) and a fifth paradigm, pragmatism.

Table 1 summarises thee five broad categories of research paradigms used in psychological research.

Table 1

Guba & Lincoln’s (1994) competing research paradigms

Positivism

Ontology: Realism. “real, “ objective knowable reality

Epistemology: Objectivist. The researcher is the sole expert and can, and should avoid any bias or influence on the outcome. Knowledge is

enhanced by a process of accretion facts tied into existing or new theories. Methods: Tends toward quantification and controlled experiments with tight controls to increase validity and reliability.

Post-positivism

Ontology: Critical Realism. There is a “real,” objective reality, but humans cannot know it for sure. Emphasis is on theory falsification. Epistemology: Objectivity is assumed but emphasis on external checks on objectivity. The nature of knowledge is non-falsified hypothesis that are probable facts or laws.

Methods: Includes both qualitative and quantitative methods. Seeks reduction of bias through qualitative validity techniques (e.g. triangulation)

Interpretative Critical Theory

Ontology: Historical Realism. Scepticism towards objective truth claims or value free theories. Reality can be understood, but only as constructed historically and connected to power.

Epistemology: Subjective position. Knowledge is mediated reflectively through the perspective of the researcher. Knowledge is viewed to be value mediated and hence value dependent. Knowledge does not accumulate in

an absolute sense rather it grows and changes through dialectic processes. Methods: Focused on investigator/participant dialogue, uncovering subjugated knowledge and linking it to social critique with a transformation aim.

Constructivism

Ontology: Relativist. All truth is “constructed” by humans and situated within a historical moment and social context rather than it being an external singular entity. Multiple meanings exist of perhaps the same data. Epistemology: Subjective position. Researcher and participants are linked, constructing knowledge together. Knowledge accumulates only in a relative sense through more constructions

Methods: Generally qualitative, research through researcher/researcher transactional process. Emphasis is on lived experiences.

Pragmatism

Ontology: Varied. Pragmatists may be less interested in what “truth” is and more interested in “what works” Epistemology: Accepts many different viewpoints and works to reconcile those perspectives through pluralistic means

Methods: Focuses on a real world problem, by whatever methods are most appropriate, and tends toward changes in practice.

Pragmatism’s orientation is towards action, and not reality or paradigm-method fit like positivist and interpretivist traditions.

Positivism and interpretivist traditions are concerned with reality and paradigm-method fit. Rossman and Wilson (1985) differentiated between methodological purists and situationalists. They state that purists view qualitative and quantitative methodologies as mutually exclusive and will only utilise either of the methodology that reflects their ontological and epistemological position, while the situationalists believe that both methods have value but that certain methods are more appropriate under certain circumstances. Each of these traditions tends to privilege a single form of knowledge as ‘true’ and is thus insensitive to alternative forms of knowledge (Cornish, 2009). Pragmatism views current truth, meaning and knowledge as tentative, and as changing over time, since organisms are constantly adapting to new situations and environments

(Rorty, 1999, James, 1995; Peirce, 1878). Research findings are therefore viewed as provisional truths gained through experience and experimentation. Pragmatists view qualitative and quantitative methodologies as different tools serving different purposes towards desired action or change (Burke & Onwuegbuzie, 2005).

Quantitative methods work and fit in psychological research world, as evidenced in the reviewed literature that indicates that psychosocial research with migrant children is dominated by quantitative approaches utilising standardised Western-theorised measures of well-being (Bean et al., 2007; Berry et al., 2006; Ellis et al., 2008; Fazel & Stein, 2003; Geltman et al., 2005; Hodes et al., 2008; Kia-Keating et al., 2007). However, the literature reviewed also indicated that methodological concerns have been raised regarding use of Western-theorised measures of psychosocial well-being in psychological research with ethnic miorities associated with cross-cultural equivalence in well-being constructs (Durieux-Pailland et al., 2006; Nakahara & Wakai, 2006). A way of advancing knowledge in this area is by engaging in both Western and African forms of knowledge by utilising a pragmatic paradigm, which emphasises plurality of views of knowledge. The challenges associated with dealing with multiplicity of knowledge is articulated by Cornish’s question in her paper on ‘the pragmatist approach to the problem of knowledge in health psychology’, when she poises the question if “it is possible for research to be pluralist about knowledge, but at the same time non- relativist and promote social action” (Cornish, 2009, p.801). Pragmatists would say yes, because, the focus is not on knowable or unknowable reality but on activity and practical action in relation with whether this knowledge serves a purpose. In the context of the current study, qualitatively exploring interactions, relations, interpretations and meanings given to experiences and using the findings to inform subsequent measurement is therefore a pragmatic stance to contextualise data and/or emerging

findings and triangulate data focussed on generating actionable knowledge, particularly, the kind of knowledge that informs psychological practice and/or cultural competence practice.

In exploring the experiences of African migrant children, the researcher engaged with Western world-view and African world-view and the psychology that flows from these respective world-views, particularly the meanings given to experiences. The qualitative analysis highlighted negative experiences by these children associated with migration related restructured family dynamics and routines, exclusionary practices (social and systems), bad fit between home-African diasporic settings/school-neighbourhood cultural and/or spiritual processes, and inability to fit into cultural or spiritual scripted roles and/or pressure to follow African cultural scripts. The study also highlighted positive experiences associated with mobilisation of resources at an individual level (cognitive empowering resources), social (negotiation of difference to form supportive relationships), cultural and spiritual (good fit with African cultural and spiritual scripts or successful negotiation of multiple cultural contexts). The qualitative analysis raised the question of well-being levels of the study population and the pragmatic response was to quantitatively measure the psychosocial adjustment and well-being among migrant children as the most valuable response to initial findings. Another arising question was the issue of representation of African cultural processes and spiritual process that emerged from the qualitative analysis as major influences of the experiences of study population. Central to pragmatism stance, is that empirical findings should help in deciding which action to take next as one attempts to better understand real world phenomenon (Burke & Onwuegbuzie, 2005). A qualitative element focussed on eliciting African understandings of well-being constructs was the pragmatic response to this arising question. Resultant information was used to develop an emically derived

‘African Migrant Child Psychosocial Well-being Scale’ which was used alongside other standardised psychosocial well-being scales to measure the psychosocial well-being of African migrant children. The quantitative methodology would also facilitate sampling a wider and varied sample of African migrant children therefore allowing generalisation of results over a larger group than that which had been accessed by qualitative findings so as to locate the overall findings in the study population’s realities for action that is more acceptable to them.

Morgan (2007) argues that pragmatism provides a basis for communication between research communities. The literature reviewed indicate that psychological studies on migrant children are heavily skewed towards quantitative methodologies and these have provided crucial information about individual migrant child’s psychosocial well-being and contributed greatly to theory and practice. However, findings indicate that despite exposure to developmental risks, the majority of these children continue to show satisfactory levels of well-being. Valuable insights on the process in these children’s social and cultural ecologies that have acted as protective processes or resilience building/sustaining processes in the face of adversity have been revealed by qualitative work (Raghallaigh & Gillian, 2010; Watters & Ingleby, 2004; Ollif, 2007). Utilising a pragmatic stance as the theoretical lens underpinning the current study provides a platform to integrate insights gained from both qualitative and quantitative methodologies in psychosocial research with migrant children.