Mixed Methods Design 63

Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) presented a complex and inclusive definition of mixed methods research:

Mixed methods research is a research design with philosophical assumptions as well as methods of inquiry. As a methodology, it involves philosophical assumptions that guide the direction of the collection and analysis of data and the mixture of qualitative and quantitative approaches in many phases in the research process. As a method, it focuses on collecting, analysing, and mixing both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or series of studies. Its central premise is that the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in combination provides a better understanding of research problems than either approach alone (p. 5).

As Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) illustrated, the application of mixed methods as a research design is beneficial in promoting the validity and reliability of the outcomes being

sought, as the magnitude or effect of the outcome is usually stronger when results from different methods are brought together. At times, errors may occur in the analysis process, which may lead to faulty findings. In such a scenario, using a mixed method approach would enable the researcher to identify the existing discrepancies between the results from the two methods, and thus identify and correct any errors before presenting or publishing the

information.

When dealing with complex research outcomes, Creswell (2009) asserted that the mixed- methods approach, as opposed to the single-method approach, can be highly efficient in enabling the researcher to understand the different facets of complex research outcomes. This usually promotes a better understanding of the research outcomes as opposed to when the researcher utilises a single method in the research design. The quantitative analysis method is usually efficient when dealing with pre-established research variables; as such, combining quantitative and qualitative analysis enables the researcher to capture other unanticipated information revolving around the topic of study, thereby providing the researcher with a better understanding of the research topic.

As Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) suggested, the application of mixed methods in the research design is usually beneficial for the researcher to ensure that the sampling frame and sampling technique is effective in terms of being representative of the entire population. Creswell (2009) argued that when conducting a research study, no single analysis method could be more appropriate and effective than any other in terms of providing more valid and reliable information. Therefore, the use of mixed methods in research analysis provides an avenue for using both quantitative and qualitative analysis methods to promote increased validity and reliability of the research outcome.

3.2.1 Philosophical Foundation for Mixed-methods Research

As noted by Migiro and Magangi (2011), there has been continuing debate over the

philosophical basis of mixed-methods research. This debate has been revolving around the question, ‘Do philosophical paradigms (e.g. post-positivism and constructivism) and research methods have to fit together?’ (Migiro & Magangi, 2011, p. 3758). This debate emerged in the 1960s and 1970s due to the increased popularity of qualitative research methods, as well as the identification of philosophical destinations between the traditional post-positivist and naturalistic methods.

Creswell (2003) observed that a point was reached where mixed-methods research was regarded as unachievable because the methods were not compatible. Nonetheless, Migiro and Magangi (2011) noted that some researchers refuted and countered this reasoning, arguing that different research methods and philosophical paradigms were compatible and could be combined efficiently in mixed-methods research. This perspective was supported by Greene and Caracelli (2003), who claimed that different methods could be combined and used

together in a single research study as a means of capitalising on the strength of one method to reduce the weaknesses of the other.

As noted by Migiro and Magangi (2011), a significant issue in conducting mixed-methods studies lies in the question, ‘What philosophical paradigm issue is the best foundation for mixed methods research?’(Migiro & Magangi, 2011, p. 3758). In this regard, Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009) argued that the issue could be addressed from several perspectives. The first perspective suggests that in mixed-methods research, the paradigms usually compete, thus giving each paradigm equal chance and merit. The competing nature of the paradigms gives mixed-methods research contradictory ideas and contentious issues that cannot be

reconciled. In this perspective, mixed-methods research is just a method that provides researchers with philosophical foundations and justifications for using this method.

According to Greene and Caracelli (2003), another perspective proposes that practicality is the best paradigm for mixed-methods research. This perspective presents for consideration the value of both objective and subjective knowledge in mixed-methods research. Migiro and Magangi (2011) stated that Rosseman and Wilson pioneered the incorporation of pragmatism into mixed-methods research. They explained the existing difference among methodological purists, pragmatists and situationalists. Purists believe that quantitative and qualitative research methods are derived from completely different research assumptions. Situationalists feel that both quantitative and qualitative methods are valuable, but the appropriateness of each depends on the prevailing circumstances. Pragmatists believe that both methods are valuable and can be used in a single research study, regardless of the prevailing

circumstances.

Recently, there have been attempts to connect pragmatism and mixed-methods research. One such attempt is the work of Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009), who attempted to link pragmatism and mixed-methods research and proposed that the research question should be more

important than all other research elements. These sentiments are shared by other scholars, who observe that pragmatism provides the most significant philosophical basis of mixed- methods research. In this vein, one cannot rule out the contributions of both the quantitative and qualitative methods in mixed-methods research. Nonetheless, pragmatism emerges as the best philosophical foundation that can be used in the process of justifying the use of different methods within the boundaries of a single research study.