According to Creswell (2009), mixed methods design is commonly used by researchers. Mixed methods combine interpretative and positivist as well as quantitative and qualitative methods (Bryman & Buchanan, 2009, p. 714). The main purpose of mixed methods design is to obtain different types of data that allow us to address the research problem being investigated (Bryman, 2009). The logic of mixed methods includes induction (qualitative methods - discovering patterns emerging from the data), deduction (quantitative methods - testing a study hypothesis or theory) and „abduction‟ (abduction process associates data from quantitative and qualitative methods) that focuses on discovering and utilising the best method of solving the research problem, whether quantitative or qualitative (Richardson & Kramer, 2006, p. 500). In other words, mixed methods design combines the strengths of quantitative and qualitative research methods. The strengths of quantitative research design include testing and validating already constructed hypotheses or theories and uses a large sample size in which results aim to generalise to a larger population. Quantitative methods can identify the main causal factors at work in the research problem, as well as eliminating the confounding influence of many variables, but as I have mentioned earlier, I will only be able to offer very limited causal analysis, and no causal analysis based on universal laws of cause and effect. Furthermore, the role of researcher subjectivity in quantitative methods is relatively low. Qualitative research methods, however, also have several strengths. In particular, the evidence is the participants‟ own data or categories rather than quantitative methods, where researcher choice of categories is imposed on participants. Qualitative methods are useful in studying a small number of cases, and describing complex phenomena in depth (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).
According to Saunders et al. (2009) there are two major advantages to using mixed or multi-methods in the same study. First, different methods can be used for different purposes in the study being investigated. For example, using the survey research method can be enhanced and reinforced by using in-depth and semi-structured interviews; this would ensure that the research project is addressing the most important
97
issues. Secondly, using mixed methods enables researchers to use triangulation. Triangulation refers to the use of different data collection methods in one study in order to ensure that the data is telling us what we think it is telling us. Nevertheless, as Jones (2000, p. 149), points out, there are difficulties about integrating quantitative and qualitative results, because they are most closely associated with different paradigms and theoretical backgrounds. Jones (2000) adds that there are some philosophical problems and practical issues in the choice of research methods, which in turn affect the investigation. In general, however, the choice of research methods should depend on the kind of problem and phenomena under study. Kaplan and Duchon (1988) suggest that the use of mixed methods is more powerful and gives more robust insights than if one single method is used. Mixed methods provide an opportunity to create associations between research questions and multi-level analysis. They also encourage creativity and broadening perceptions about the problem being studied (Mingers, 2001).
Justifications for using Mixed Methods in this study
Designing the research methodology depends heavily on a literature review, because researchers can relate their results to other studies, especially empirical ones that used the same techniques. Creswell (2009) sees the literature review of a research project as helping to achieve the following purposes: it shares with the reader the results that are closely related to the study in hand; it relates a study to the layers of on-going dialogue in the literature about a topic, filling in gaps and extending prior studies and it provides a framework for establishing the importance of the study as well as a benchmark for comparing the results of the study with other research findings. Reviewing literature on Emiratisation indicates that the majority of studies employed qualitative approach (for instance: Al Ali, 2008; Al Ali et al., 2008; Bin Braik, 2004; Matar, 2009; Rees et al., 2007). While this study distinguished itself from other studies by using mixed methods to compare and evaluate different views of Emiratisation. In this sense, the study compared leaders‟ views (top management in public and private sectors) with young people who participated in the study.
98
My study applies a mixed methods design for two reasons. Firstly, having only one research methods approach in a study might decrease the reliability and validity of its results (Creswell, 2009). Second: this study aims to collect data from both beneficiaries of Emiratisation (graduates, and skilled and unskilled people) and decision makers from the public and private sectors that are charged with implementing the policy. In other words, the aim is to identify the factors related to obstacles facing the implementation of Emiratisation both from the beneficiaries‟ perspective and from that of the policy makers. The study addresses the question whether and to what extent programmes derived from Emiratisation have contributed to the creation of jobs for young people. Consequently, on the policy side, this study interviewed a number of policy makers in both the public and private sector. Usually, mixed methods are used to triangulate and complement results from quantitative methods. This study instead uses mixed methods to compare the views of young people with those of decision makers. Mixed methods research in this case helps to explain why Emiratisation has not been expanded and its objectives translated into action plans and programmes. The following sections present qualitative and the quantitative methods in more detail.