Mixed methods approach: a sequential-explanatory research strategy

The MM approach combines qualitative and quantitative research methods within the same investigation (Alasuutari et al. 2008; Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie 2003; Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998), and it has emerged as a viable alternative to exclusively quantitative and

qualitative methodologies (Denscombe 2008). Johnson et al. (2007) trace the chronological development of the various research paradigms and methodologies. They indicate that after an early period, the 1950s to mid-1970s, dominated by the positivist paradigm and quantitative methodologies, from the mid-1970s to the 1990s the constructivist research paradigm and qualitative methodologies thrived in academia, with the MM approach emerging only in the last couple of decades (Johnson et al., 2007). In this sense, MM research could be interpreted as a response to the long-lasting paradigm war between positivism/post-positivism and constructivism/interpretivism (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011).

In terms of research, the MM approach presents a series of attractive features that have contributed to its increasing popularity. As indicated by several MM experts (Axin and Pearce 2006; Bryman 2008; Creswell and Plano Clark 2011; Denscombe 2008;

Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie 2003), the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods can enable the researcher to achieve the following: offset weaknesses of both methods;

produce a more complete picture of the phenomenon under investigation; and build upon or enhance the initial findings produced by one method with those from another method. In addition, the MM approach offers an advantage in cross-national studies, as the assessment of the phenomenon(a) under inquiry through a quantitative and a qualitative lens can limit the measurement issues often characterising this type of research (Yaprak 2003).

Most of the studies examining the impact of digital technologies on political participation reported in the literature review are quantitative in nature, and almost all of them employ surveys as research method (e.g., Ancu and Cozma 2009; Hoffman et al. 2013; Holt et al.

2013; Tang and Lee 2013; Towner 2013; Vitak et al. 2011). Only some of the considered political participation studies adopt a qualitative approach (e.g., Fenton and Barassi, 2011;

Gustafsson 2012; Mascheroni 2012; Storsul 2014; Vraga et al. 2015; Vromen et al. 2015;

Zavestoski et al. 2006). This methodology seems more popular in research dealing with the mobilisation dimension of political participation, with an increasing number of publications concentrating on specific case studies and using qualitative methods such as focus groups and interviews (e.g., Gustafsson and Wahlström 2008; Khamis and Vaughn 2012; Wulf et al.

2013).

While there has been a growth in qualitative investigations, MM studies are still scarce in Internet and political participation research, and only few of the reviewed papers present a MM component (Kavanaugh et al. 2008; Valenzuela 2013; Valenzuela et al. 2012; Welp and

Wheatley 2012). A study not mentioned in the literature but relevant to this thesis is that of Colombo et al. (2012). This investigation examines the influence of the Internet on political engagement rather than on political participation, and it is particularly pertinent to the present research because it adds a comparative component to the MM methodology.

Colombo et al. (2012) combine data from the European Social Survey concerning 15 European Countries to data generated by a survey and series of focus groups with Spanish participants. Their study gives primacy to the quantitative phase, and employs qualitative data only to complement the quantitative findings. Even more skewed towards the quantitative component are Valenzuela (2013) and Valenzuela et al.’s (2012) investigations where the qualitative phase is strongly overshadowed by the quantitative one, with qualitative results not even considered in the discussion of the findings.

More balanced is Kavanaugh et al.’s (2008) research which uses a text-book MM methodology. Their research involves two waves of random sample household surveys, in addition to interviews with government representatives and citizens, and homogenous focus groups with survey participants. Through a second qualitative lens, Kavanaugh et al. (2008) try to elaborate on quantitative findings and understand more deeply the links between Internet use and political participation. In the quantitative phase they find evidence that the Internet can benefit not only politically active citizens, but also less politically active participants. These findings are confirmed in the second qualitative phase which also helps to shed light on the mechanisms behind this process. Focus groups, in fact, indicate that digital technologies, particularly blogs, help to engage less politically active individuals by favouring exchanges with other citizens through ad-hoc political talk and knowledge sharing (Kavanaugh et al. 2008). This study exemplifies how the application of a second layer of enquiry which differs from the first – in this case a further qualitative phase – can enhance and explain the findings generated through a single method, enabling a more thorough examination.

The present research was inspired by Kavanaugh et al.’s (2008) approach rather than Colombo et al.’s (2012). Accordingly, it adopted a sequential-explanatory MM design, with the quantitative and qualitative phases assuming the same relevance, both contributing to each of the RQs presented in Section 4.3 (for a classification of MM designs see Creswell – 2009).

The sequential-explanatory MM strategy entails the collection and analysis of quantitative data in the first phase, and the collection and analysis of qualitative data in the second stage,

thus resulting in a more detailed exploration (Creswell 2009). Considerations of the limitations of research investigating the impact of the Internet on political participation have driven the choice of this particular MM design. As stressed in Section 4.1, two conceptual weaknesses characterise many studies falling within this strand of research and only a few take into account the multidimensionality of political participation and the difference between various Internet and SNS usage practices. Therefore, even if most research within this field is quantitative in nature, the links between different forms of political participation (political communication vs mobilisation) and various Internet and SNS usages (information vs communication vs entertainment) have not been subject to many quantitative investigations and thus require further examination.

The decision to include a second qualitative phase derived from considerations on how qualitative data could usefully supplement and extend the quantitative analysis. Greene et al.

(2001) observe that, used in isolation, survey research does not offer much in terms of explanation of findings, and that in-depth interviews, when combined with this method, can illustrate and enhance quantitative findings. One advantage of MM research is that it facilitates the discovery of mechanisms responsible for producing associations (Axin and Pearce 2006), with qualitative data helping researchers to explain relationships established during the quantitative phase (Onwuegbuzie and Leech 2004, 2005).

As explained in Creswell’s (2009) taxonomies of MM designs, in MM studies the researcher can choose to give equal priority to both quantitative and qualitative phases, or prioritise the quantitative or the qualitative phase. In sequential-explanatory MM design, priority is typically given to the quantitative approach because it comes first and often represents the main aspect of the whole data collection process (Ivankova et al. 2006). Nonetheless, as previously stated, in this research both quantitative and qualitative phases have been weighted equally. The reason for this choice is related to the state of Internet and political participation research. Given that contrasting evidence characterises this research strand, identifying the general relationships between variables is as important as understanding the reasons behind these links, and, therefore, qualitative tools are needed as much as quantitative ones.

The quantitative results strongly shaped the subsequent qualitative phase, as they guided the selection of its participants (see Sections 4.4.3 and 4.5) and indicated the themes and issues to pursue in the interviews (this process can be easily grasped in Chapter 5 in which the results of this study are presented). With regard to this last point, for example, one of the

findings of the quantitative phase was the strong correlations between Facebook, Internet, and offline political participation (see Section 5.1.1, Table 8). However, correlation analysis does not highlight the directions of these associations, and the interviews tried to establish whether it is citizens who are already politically active offline and on other online platforms who extend their participation to Facebook, or if political participation can start on this SNS and move then to other channels.

Regarding the integration of the qualitative and quantitative methods, in the present studythe quantitative phase has linked with the qualitative phase in the four stages shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 – Mixed Methods Sequential-Explanatory Design: Integration of the Quantitative and Qualitative Phases relationships between different forms of political participation, different channels of participation (i.e., Facebook, the Internet, and the offline world), and various non-political usages of Facebook were examined through a series of online surveys. Then, in-depth interviews were used to explain and build upon what surfaced in the quantitative phase.