Mixed methods research

Over the years, mixed methods research has been conceptualised in various different ways. Based on their meticulous examination of researchers in the field, Johnson, Onwuegbuzie & Turner (2007) offer the following composite definition:

Mixed methods research is the type of research in which a researcher or team of researchers combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g., use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the broad purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration (p. 123).

Fundamentally, however, it is inadequate to suggest that mixed methods is simply the gathering of both quantitative and qualitative data. For example, Clark et al. (2008, p. 364) describe mixed methods research “as a design for collecting, analysing, and mixing both quantitative and qualitative data in a study in order to understand a research problem”. Whilst this definition contains important qualities of mixed methods research, such as the integration of the two data sources, it does not make explicit reference to framing of the design within a philosophy or theory.

In searching for a definition that encapsulates the entire spectrum of basic features, I draw upon the robust contribution from Creswell & Clark (2007), which states that:

Mixed methods research is a research design with philosophical assumptions as well as methods of enquiry. As a methodology, it involves philosophical assumptions that guide the direction of the collection and analysis and the mixture of qualitative and quantitative approaches in many phases of the research process. As a method, it focuses on collecting, analyzing, 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).

However, more recently, Creswell & Clark (2011) argue that a definition for mixed methods should incorporate many diverse viewpoints. The authors itemise several core characteristics to illustrate their perspective and whilst they compose a valid reason for the inclusion of a research design orientation, it is debatable if such a position is absolutely necessary given their well cited original version.

Naturally, a dilemma arises during the integration of numerical and text data; Researchers need to decide on the level of interaction between quantitative and qualitative strands in a study. Johnson, Onwuegbuzie & Turner (2007, p. 124) present contrasting approaches that incorporate overlapping types of research. Firstly,

Qualitative dominant mixed methods research is the type of mixed research in which one relies on a qualitative, constructivist-poststructuralist-critical view of the research process, while concurrently recognizing that the addition of quantitative data and approaches are likely to benefit most research projects.

And secondly,

Quantitative dominant mixed methods research is the type of mixed research in which one relies on a quantitative, postpositivist view of the research process, while concurrently recognizing that the addition of qualitative data and approaches are likely to benefit most research projects.

Other key decisions in choosing mixed methods design includes the timing of the strands and procedures for mixing the strands (Creswell & Clark, 2011). Timing can be classified by three different systems as follows; Firstly, concurrent timing occurs when both quantitative and qualitative stands are implemented during a single phase of the study. Secondly, sequential timing transpires in two distinct phases, with the collection and analysis of one strand occurring after the collection and analysis of the other. Finally, multiphase combination timing ensues when several phases of sequential and or concurrent timing over a programme of study.

Nevertheless, within the literature it is debatable if the rational for promoting mixed methods as a third paradigm, has assimilated sufficient merit, as underlying assumptions of the quantitative and qualitative paradigms result in differences which extend beyond philosophical and methodological debates. Tashakkori & Teddlie (2010) draw our attention to a variety of conceptual stances including the notion that quantitative and qualitative methods should not be mixed due to the incompatibility of the paradigms that underlie their methods. Conversely, both quantitative and qualitative methods may be used appropriately with any research paradigm (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Notably, the logic for employing mixed methods is justified when the use of quantitative research or qualitative research alone is insufficient for gaining an understanding of the problem.

Notwithstanding the above positions, proponents of the tenets of mixed methods research hail it as an important and influential approach that is driven by pragmatism and directed by philosophical assumptions (e.g. Johnson, Onwuegbuzie & Turner, 2007; Greene, 2008; Creswell, 2009; Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011; Creswell & Clark, 2011). Whilst gaining in popularity, Bryman (2012) points out two key factors in promoting this development. First, he highlights a growing awareness of the consideration of research methods as data collection techniques or analysis which are not encumbered by epistemological and ontological ‘baggage’. Second, he alludes to a ‘softening’ in the attachment towards quantitative research among feminist researchers, who had previously been highly resistant to its deployment. Regarding this latter factor, I suspect that Bryman is referring to the methodological paradigm wars of the 1970s where feminist researchers clearly positioned themselves firmly within the interpretative model.

Creswell & Clark (2011) outline six mixed methods designs, with contrasting worldviews, that provide an effective research framework. One such enterprise is an explanatory sequential design (Figure 5.3) which I particularly value because of my mathematical background and newness to the field of mixed methods research. The intention of this design is to begin with a quantitative strand followed by a qualitative stand to help explain the quantitative results. The strength of this strategy lies in the fact that the two phases build upon each other so that they are distinct and easily recognised stages. Although various challenges exist such as sampling considerations for phase two, this design offers many advantages. One such benefit is that the final report can be written with a quantitative component followed by a qualitative section, making it straightforward to write and providing a clear delineation for readers (Creswell & Clark, 2011). Thus far, a number of educational studies have employed this methodological design (e.g. Ivankova, Creswell & Stick, 2006; Palak & Walls, 2009; Lamb, 2011; Hung, 2012; Jetty, 2014).

Figure 5.3 Explanatory sequential design (Adapted from Creswell & Clark, 2011)

Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis Explained by Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis Inferences Drawn Phase 1 Phase 2