Mixed-methods research

Mixed methods of research include quantitative and qualitative methods, which the researcher has opted to apply in this study. While data collection methods can be combined, a researcher usually aligns philosophically with one of the recognised research paradigms, which proceed from different premises, leading to and seeking different outcomes (Wiersma, 2000). According to Mertens (2005:7), a “researcher’s theoretical orientation has implications for every decision made in the research process, including the choice of method”. Educational research traditionally followed the empirical “objective scientific model” (Burns, 1997:3) which utilised quantitative methods of data collection, analysis and reporting modes. In the 1960s there was a move towards a more constructivist approach which allowed for methods which were qualitative, naturalistic and subjective in nature. It would appear that at the time there was considerable debate regarding the introduction of this form of data collection. This philosophical debate “left

196

educational research divided between two competing methods: the scientific empirical tradition, and the naturalistic phenomenological mode” (Burns, 1997:3). More recently research approaches have become more complex in design and more flexible in their application of methods with mixed-methods being more acceptable and common. A mixed-methods approach to research is one that involves gathering both numeric information (e.g. on instruments) as well as text information (e.g. from interviews) so that the final database represents both quantitative and qualitative information (Creswell, 2003:20). There are different types of mixed methods, such as explanatory design, exploratory design, embedded design, and convergent parallel mixed method design.

The explanatory design is a mixed-methods design in which the research begins by conducting a quantitative phase and follows up on conducting a quantitative phase and follows up on specific results with a second phase. The second phase qualitative phase is implemented for the purpose of explaining the initial results in more depth and it is due to this focus on explaining results that is reflected in the design name. (Tashakkori&Teddlie, 1998).

The explanatory design is a two-phase that can be recognised because the researcher starts by qualitatively exploring a topic before building to a second, quantitative phase. Here the researcher develops an instrument as an intermediate step between the phase that builds on the quantitative results and is used in the subsequent quantitative data collection. This design has been referred to as the instrument development design (Creswell et al., 2003).

The embedded design is a mixed-methods approach where the researcher combines the collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative and qualitative data within a traditional quantitative research design or qualitative research design or qualitative research design. The collection and analysis of the second data set may occur before, during and or after the implementation of the data collection and analysis procedures traditionally associated with the large design. Researchers embed a qualitative strand within quantitative

197

experiments to support aspects of the experimental design (Caracelli& Greene, 1997; Greene, 2007).

Convergent parallel mixed method design – This doctoral study used this research design, referred to as the triangulation mixed-method research design. In this design the researcher used both qualitative and quantitative methods during the same time frame. The convergent design is used when the researcher collects and analyses both quantitative and qualitative data during the same phase of the research process and then merges two sets of results into an overall interpretation. The quantitative and the qualitative strands are conducted separately yet concurrently and merged at the point of interpretation. This means the researcher keeps the strands independent during analysis and then mixes the results during the overall interpretation (Creswell, et al., 2003).

According to Gorard (2004), mixed-methods research has been identified as a “key element in the improvement of social science, including education research” with research strengthened by the use of a variety of methods. Gorard (2004) argues that mixed-method research “requires a greater level of skill”, “can lead to less waste of potentially useful information”, “creates researchers with an increased ability to make appropriate criticisms of all types of research” (and often has greater impact, because figures can be very persuasive to policy-makers whereas stories are more easily remembered and repeated by them for illustrative purposes. Many researchers, including Creswell (2003), Thomas (2003) and Krathwohl (1993), now view qualitative and quantitative methods as complementary, choosing the most appropriate method/s for the investigation. While some paradigms may appear to lead a researcher to favour qualitative or quantitative approaches, in effect no one paradigm actually prescribes or prohibits the use of either methodological approach. However, this may not sit comfortably with researchers who are strongly aligned with a particular approach to research. Almost inevitably in each paradigm, if the research is to be fully effective, both approaches need to be applied. It is unduly impoverished research, which eschews the use of both qualitative and quantitative research approaches. Paradigms, which overtly recommend mixed-method approaches allow the question to

198

determine the data collection and analysis methods applied, collecting both quantitative and qualitative data and integrating the data at different stages of inquiry (Creswell, 2003).