Mixed Method Research

In general, mixed methods research represents research that involves collecting, analysing, and interpreting quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or in a series of studies that investigate the same underlying phenomenon – (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2009:265)62

Naturally, as has been alluded to already, there are those that have taken part in the qualitative- quantitative debate and argued: why not both? In the years following the height of this debate, some researchers started crafting a new paradigm that encapsulates both the quantitative and qualitative paradigms (cf. Caracelli & Greene 1993). This paradigm has been called several different names (Johnson et al., 2007:118), e.g “blended research (Thomas, 2003), integrative research (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004), multimethod research (e.g., Hunter & Brewer, 2003; Morse, 2003), multiple methods (Smith, in press), triangulated studies (cf. Sandelowski, 2003), ethnographic residual analysis (Fry, Chantavanich, & Chantavanich, 1981), and mixed research (Johnson, 2006; Johnson & Christensen, 2004).” The most popular terms in use, namely mixed method or integrative research, hold the advantage of incorporating a broader spectrum than some of the other terms named above. Proponents of this paradigm caution against terminology that would limit its research to methodology alone.

A central belief of the mixed-method, as Howe (1988, in Sale et al.,2000:47) describes it, is that truth is a normative concept, and that truth can be understood in terms of what works – this can generally be defined as pragmatism. It seems that only pragmatists, as people who are not normally beholden to either paradigm, would attempt to combine research methods (cf. also, Johnson et al., 2007:113).

Having described and discussed the basic tenets of the two separate paradigms – quantitative

62 _{For a comprehensive study of mixed-method research – its utility, foundations, problems, history etc. –} please see Teddlie & Tashakkori 2009.

71

and qualitative research – the arguments for a single integrated study should prove fairly comprehensible. There are four main viewpoints to combine qualitative and quantitative methods according to Sale et al.:

1. It has been put forth that both views share the same logic – thus the same rules of inference apply in both studies – as well as the desire to understand the world.

2. The paradigms seem to be compatible on the grounds of a few shared tenets that Sale et al. summarizes as the “theory-ladenness of facts, fallibility of knowledge, indetermination of theory by fact, and a value-ladened inquiry process” (Sale et al., 2002:46). There is also a utilitarian spirit to be detected, as well as a commitment to improving the human condition.

3. Some fields, such as nursing and other forms of healthcare, are so complex that they require input and data from a large number of perspectives, which could only be facilitated by such a combination of methods.

4. Some scholars argue that epistemological purity will not get any research done. Thus they propose that this debate be seen as a nonsense, in that it is unlikely that any conclusive decisions will be reached in the near future.

Practical reasons for a legitimate combination of the two methods can be described as follows (Sale et al., 2000:48):

1. When it is possible to combine two or more sources or theories of data, it grants the researcher a more complete understanding – by means of what is known as triangulation – of the phenomena under study.

2. It becomes possible for models to be incorporated in a complementary fashion when their strengths are used with the intention of enhancing each other. 63

72

In this light, the question has been raised by, among others, Robert Yin (2006), as to when methods can be characterised as “genuinely integrated or merely parallel.” After an elaborate discussion of the theory involved, as well as scrutinizing some case studies, he comes to the following conclusion (2006:46): “The design and conduct of a single study involves an array of readily understood procedures, regarding: the research questions being addressed, the definition of the units of analyses, the structure of the samples being studied, the instrumentation and data collected, and the analytic strategies. The more that two (or more!) methods have been integrated into each of these procedures, the stronger the “mix” of methods. Conversely, if each method uses its own isolated procedures, the result will be separate studies using different methods. Though the studies may be complementary, they will not really represent mixed methods research.”

In this light, a large number of researchers have started incorporating the mixed-method into their research to obtain and interpret the desired data. However, certain studies have given rise to suspicion when claiming to use both qualitative and quantitative methods, and yet still produced results that agreed or overlapped. The question is posed, how this can be when completely different sets of phenomena are scrutinized? A possible explanation – apart from results being simplified to fit a certain model of understanding – can be that both methods used were, in fact, quantitative. Sale et al. (2000:48) gives the example of a frequency count that is done on responses to open-ended questions and other such studies. They admonish it outright for not being qualitative. It should be understood that it is not always possible or even appropriate to use mixed method analyses. “Indeed, the challenge is knowing when it is useful to count and when it is difficult or inappropriate to count” (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005:381). When considering the merits of mixed method research, especially when usage of the term could grant the researcher a wider readership – from proponents of both the quantitative and qualitative fields – it is imperative to establish clear guidelines, structure and definitions, so as not to misuse this paradigm for undue benefit.

73

In line with what can be understood from Yin’s conclusion and the need for guidelines and definitions as argued above, Johnson et al. (2007:124) provides an illustration (Fig.1):

This illustration describes qualitative, mixed-method and quantitative research as part of a continuum. Within this continuum there are several overlapping groups of mixed-method researchers and mixed-method research types. 64

From left to right, the illustration starts off at the qualitative end of the spectrum – here there is no mixing of methods involved, the research incorporates and retains only pure qualitative methods. 65 _{Next, as can be seen, a subgroup of the mixed method emerges, termed ‘qualitative}

64 _{Johnson et al. (2007:124) declares that it makes sense for a researcher to have a primary ‘home’ in one} of the three major paradigms.

65 _{As has been shown under 4.2.1, a certain methodological perspective indubitably necessitates a} corresponding epistemology and ontology as well. Thus as the continuum progresses from this point onward, the ontological, epistemological and methodological presuppositions of the proponents of each

74

mixed/dominant’ – it is neither purely qualitative nor purely mixed. Such research would rely on the qualitative (constructivist-poststructuralist-critical) view of the process of doing research, while recognizing that the addition of quantitative data and approaches can ultimately benefit most of its research. In the centre of the continuum stands the pure mixed-method, where due consideration is given to both qualitative and quantitative prospects. To the right thereof another subgroup of the mixed method emerges, termed ‘quantitative mixed/dominant’ – as with the ‘qualitative mixed/dominant’ subgroup, it is neither purely quantitative nor purely mixed. This view relies on the postpositivist understanding of the research process, while recognizing the benefit of adding qualitative data and approaches to its research projects.

An understanding of this continuum – and indeed that it is necessary to speak of these three paradigms in terms of a continuum and not isolated views – would facilitate useful means of evaluating the research being done in any specific paradigm. To complete the discussion, it would be remiss of this researcher not to mention some of the issues and challenges Johnson et al. (Johnson et al., 2007:124-128) deems worthy of pointing out, regarding the mixed-method approach:

1. As research goes through certain stages, it is important to know which stages would benefit, or not, from incorporating mixed-methods.

2. Thus, effective strategies are needed to guide mixed-method integration into research. 3. Clarity is needed on what philosophical framework will best be able to accompany the

mixed-method. Pragmatism has been proposed, although the problem of different perspectives on its application need also to be addressed.

4. This begs the question of whether a specific philosophical and methodological framework is actually beneficial to the mixed-method – embracing differences is indeed the sine qua non thereof.

75

5. Is it really possible to assign equal status to the use of both qualitative and quantitative epistemologies? Some scholars suggest, in this respect, that mixed-method research is only possible when a dominant paradigm takes the lead.

6. Credibility, trustworthiness and validity is a central concern for the mixed-method. A great number of typologies and standards have, out of necessity, been put forth by methodologists to guide this specific issue.

7. The question is asked if the three variants of the mixed-method (qualitative-dominant, equal-status and quantitative-dominant) should be more fully developed and differentiated, as well as how this may be done.

8. In terms of the possibility of a fully developed contingency theory66_{, answers need to be}

sought for the question: when, and under what conditions, should either qualitative, quantitative or mixed-method research be considered the appropriate approach.

9. A fuller definition of mixed-methods may need to incorporate and expound upon the logic behind such research – to combine different paradigms of research in a way that “produces complementary strengths and nonoverlapping weaknesses” (Johnson et al., 2007:128).

10. The question arises if the mixed-method field will be able to create a typology of research designs that could in general be agreed upon.