There are several types of mixed methods designs depending on the mechanism of direction, namely sequentially, one method follows the other, or simultaneously, different methods are employed concurrently. These types include convergent parallel, explanatory sequential, exploratory sequential and embedded designs as depicted in the Figure (3.1) below. Within each type, there are also various possible designs as discussed by Plano-Clark, Huddleston-Casas, Churchill, O'Neil Green, and Garrett (2008), Creswell, Plano-Clark and Garrett (2008), Creswell (2009), and Gray (2009).
The convergent parallel design, referred to also as triangulation design, is used when quantitative and qualitative research methods are conducted separately yet concurrently and research findings drawn from both methods merged at the point of interpretation. In explanatory sequential design, quantitative and qualitative methods are implemented sequentially (quantitative and then qualitative), where qualitative findings are intended to help interpreting or contextualizing quantitative results. Qualitative and then quantitative research methods are implemented in this sequence in exploratory sequential design. The qualitative strand is exploratory in this model and followed by further quantitative inquiry and analysis. In the embedded design, either qualitative or quantitative methods are used with a secondary strand of the other type of methods embedded as an enhancement. The secondary method can be used concurrently or sequentially (Plano-Clark, Huddleston-Casas, Churchill, O'Neil Green, & Garrett, 2008).
Figure 3.1 Major mixed methods designs (Plano-Clark, Huddleston-Casas, Churchill, O'Neil Green, & Garrett, 2008, p. 1551)
This study adopted the sequential explanatory design, known also as qualitative follow-up design (Morgan, 1998; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009), as the sequence quantitative and qualitative of data collection and analysis was viewed to serve the purpose of the study and its specific objectives. In the first phase, quantitative data about the socio-demographic factors affecting ECCE was collected using a survey method. The collected numeric data was analysed using descriptive and discriminant
understanding of the socio-demographic factors affecting ECCE in semi-remote areas in Egypt. Then, the second qualitative phase with selected participants followed to explain the quantitative results. In that phase, qualitative data using interviewing method was collected and analysed to explore the stakeholders’ perspectives in relation to the existing ECCE policy and its response to the socio- demographic factors.
The figure (3.2) below summarizes the two phases of data collection and analysis conducted in the study.
Figure 3.2 Proposed research design
Phase
Two
Quantitative Data Collection Quantitative Results Qualitative Data Collection Data Analysis: - Coding and thematic analysis - Within-case and across-case theme development -Thematic network analysisSynthesizing Quantitative and Qualitative Findings & Interpretation
Informing qualitative methods (Developing interview protocols)
Phase
One
Survey Method: Questionnaires for: - Parents - Practitioners Data Analysis: - Descriptive analysis (frequencies) - Cross-Tabulation (Chi-Square) Methods: - Interviews - Policy document analysis Qualitative Resultsmixed first at the intermediate stage of the research process, where significant quantitative findings were selected to inform the design of the qualitative phase for the purpose of expanding and enriching the research results. Further mixing then occurred following the collection and analysis of the qualitative data in the second phase, where findings from both the quantitative and qualitative phases were synthesised to provide holistic, coherent and contextualised results.
As argued by Creswell et al. (2003), the sequential explanatory design can prioritize the quantitative aspects of the study over the qualitative aspects. However, advocates of the interpretive approach may view “the quantitative component as in the service of the qualitative component, which is considered primary” (Hesse-Biber, 2010, p.106). No doubt, the two phases are equally important and connected in the intermediate stage in the study. The quantitative data provided a general understanding of the research variables, whereas the qualitative data refined and explained in depth the statistical results of the first phase (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2011). One of the most important strengths of this design was the flexibility of the second phase of the research process to adapt the suitable qualitative approaches based on what was learned from the initial quantitative phase.
There were two explanatory design variants: follow-up explanations variant and participant-selection variant. According to Creswell & Plano Clark (2011), the follow-up explanations variant is the prototypical and common design, where priority is given to the first quantitative phase and the subsequent qualitative results in the second phase are used to explain the initial quantitative data. The participant- selection variant is used when nature of the research requires the priority to be placed on the second, qualitative phase instead of the initial quantitative one. “This variant is used when the researcher is focused on qualitatively examining a phenomenon but needs initial quantitative results to identify and purposefully select the best participants” (p.86).
Several examples of mixed methods studies adopting a sequential explanatory design can be found in different disciplines of social sciences literature (e.g. McGraw, Zvonkovic & Walker, 2000; Weine et al., 2005; Morris, 2009; Heap, 2010;
underline the increasing importance of mixed methods research in social enquiries. It highlights also the complexity of contemporary social problems which requires profound understanding of phenomena, trends, as well as individual stories and explanation. McGraw, Zvonkovic and Walker (2000), for example, used an explanatory design to examine women’s lived experience on work and family processes. The initial quantitative phase is followed by a qualitative phase employing in-depth interviews with selected respondents from the first quantitative survey stage.
Significant to the studies reviewed above is the emphasis on the sequential explanatory mixed methods design as a valid route for conducting social research. This is particularly important as some of the studies have the same rationale as this research in adopting that design. Mixed methods design is advocated in the above reviewed studies for many reasons, mostly importantly the weaknesses of the qualitative or quantitative approach when used by itself. Qualitative research is criticized for being subjective, personalistic, and its findings are tendentious (Stake, 2010, p. 29). The subjective elements of qualitative research may affect the validity and reliability of the study. Also due to the limited scope of qualitative research, the results are likely to be difficult to generalize. Besides, qualitative research may take longer in collecting and analysing data (Bryman, 2004; Huysamen, 1997; Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007).
However, one of the major points of critique against quantitative research lies in the fact that it “is not apt for answering why and how questions” (Onwuegbuzie, Jiao & Collins, 2007, p. 215), which are crucial in the study of social sciences and humanity (Willie, 1994). Therefore, quantitative research cannot provide in-depth information regarding the phenomenon under investigation. Some of the results cannot also be generalized unless the sample size is large and representative. Moreover, some of the results produced are statistically significant, but probably difficult to interpret (Poynter, 2010, p.155).
As discussed above, both quantitative and qualitative research approaches have their strengths and weaknesses and therefore, a mixed methods approach is seen as a means of maximizing strengths and minimizing weaknesses. The most prominent
frequently results in superior research (compared to mono method research)” (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p.14). It takes advantage of using various research approaches and allows comparing and validating results (Ruel & Arimond, 2003). Accordingly, the present study employed a mixed methods research design which best fits the nature and purpose of the study.
[