Multi-strategy Methods

By combining quantitative and qualitative strategies one would assume the researcher can capitalise on all the strengths of the two accolades, and offset any weaknesses.

However there is much scepticism surrounding this concept. Since the early 1980s the amount of combined research has been increasing.

Multi-strategy methods employ both qualitative and quantitative approaches. A multi-strategy research problem may be one in which a need exists to both understand the relationship among variables in a situation and explore the topic in further depth. It may initially seek to explain the relationships between variables, and then explore the views towards the variables.

Within this section, three areas can be discussed:

1. Arguments against integrating quantitative and qualitative research 2. Different combination ways

3. Assessment of the need to use the methods.

The argument against the combination of research methods to form a multi-strategy tends to be based on either or both of the following arguments:

• The idea that research methods carry epistemological commitments

• The idea that quantitative and qualitative research are separate paradigms

The first point implies that research methods are rooted in epistemological (acceptable knowledge) and ontological (theory of the nature of social entities) commitments.

Such a view of research methods can be discerned in statements such as the following taken from Hughes (1990)

“every research tool or procedure is inextricably embedded in commitments to particular versions of the world. To use a questionnaire, to use an attitude scale, to take the role of participant observer, to select a random sample, to measure rates of population growth, and so on, is to be involved in conceptions of the world which allow these instruments to be used for the purposes conceived”.

Therefore it can be said that the decision to employ, for example, participant observation is not simply about how to go about data collection but a commitment to an epistemological position that is opposed to positivism and that is consistent with interpretivism. This kind of view has led some writers to argue that a multi-strategy research approach is not feasible or desirable.

A paradigm is a term deriving from the history of science where it was used to describe a cluster of beliefs and dictates that for scientists in a particular discipline influence what should be studied, how research should be done, and how results should be interpreted. The paradigm argument conceives of quantitative and qualitative research as paradigms in which epistemological assumptions, values, and methods are inextricably interwined and are incompatible between paradigms (Guba, 1985; Morgan, 1998). Therefore, when researchers combine participant observation with a questionnaire, they are not really combining quantitative and qualitative research, since the paradigms are incommensurable. The integration is only at a superficial level. However, as Kuhn (1970) argues, it is by no means clear that quantitative and qualitative research are in fact paradigms, as there are areas of overlap and commonality between them.

The debate surrounding the combining of quantitative and qualitative research centres on two versions related to the nature of research. The first version – epistemological – as mentioned above expresses how multi-strategy research is not a feasible option.

However, the second version – technical – gives greater prominence to the strengths of the data collection and data analysis techniques with which quantitative and qualitative research are each associated and sees these as capable of being fused.

Within the technical version, there is recognition that quantitative and qualitative research is connected with distinctive epistemological and ontological assumptions but the connections are not viewed as fixed. Research methods are perceived as

autonomous. A research method from one strategy is viewed as capable of being pressed into the service of another. The technical views the two research strategies as compatible. As a result, multi-strategy research becomes both feasible and desirable.

Hammersley (1996) has proposed three approaches to multi-strategy research:

• Triangulation. This refers to the use of quantitative research to corroborate qualitative research findings or vice versa.

• Facilitation. This approach arises when one research strategy is employed in order to aid research using the other research strategy.

• Complementarity. This approach occurs when the two research strategies are employed in order that different aspects of an investigation can be merged.

Scientific researchers need to convey the specific strategy for data collection they plan to use. Criteria can also be identified related to the strategies used. The matrix shown in Figure 4.5 illustrates the four decisions that go into selecting a multi-strategy research method of inquiry (Creswell, 2003).

Figure 4.5: Multi-strategy method decision-making matrix. Four decisions that go into selecting a mixed methods approach (Creswell, 2003)

Implementation Priority Integration Theoretical

From this matrix four questions can be asked related to the four premises for multi-strategy applications.

1. What is the implementation sequence of the quantitative and qualitative data collection in the proposed study?

2. What priority will be given to the quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis?

3. At what stage in the research project will the quantitative and qualitative data and findings be integrated?

4. Will an overall theoretical perspective be used in the study?

The importance of mixing research strategies is to help increase awareness and understanding of human perceptions towards potential outcomes from research.

Integration helps to increase the scope of the research and the potential outcomes available.

There is little doubt that multi-strategy research is becoming more common (Bryman, 2004). Two particularly significant factors in prompting this development are:

• A growing preparedness to think of research methods as techniques of data collection or analysis that are not encumbered by epistemological and ontological baggage as is sometimes supposed.

• A softening in the attitude towards quantitative research among feminist researchers, who had previously been highly resistant to its use.

It is important however to realise that multi-strategy research is not intrinsically superior to mono-method or mono-strategy research. It should not be considered as an approach that is universally applicable. It may provide a better understanding of a phenomenon than if just one method is used, and it may frequently enhance our confidence in the research findings. This is often dependent on the actual research being performed and on the researcher. The general point remains, that multi-strategy research, while offering great potential in many instances, is subject to similar

constraints and considerations as research relying on a single method or research strategy.

A combination of qualitative and quantitative research approaches have been adopted for the production of the Tanzanian DSS and a strategy for amalgamating the methods can be outlined.