Multiple methods choices

Regarding the choice of the research methods to be employed it can either be used a single (mono method) or multiple data collection techniques (multiple methods). A mono method study employs only one type of method of data collection and analysis, either a quantitative or a qualitative. A quantitative study utilizes numerical data that is collected through quantitative data collection techniques, such as questionnaires. Subsequently, it is then analyzed via the use of quantitative data analysis techniques. In a study that is of qualitative nature, information and data come in a textual form and is collected through a single qualitative data analysis procedure, such as in depth interviews, and analyzed employing qualitative data analysis techniques (Molina Azorin & Cameron, 2010; Saunders et al., 2009). On the other hand, in the case of a multiple methods study more than one methods of data collection and analysis are being put into use. Furthermore, multiple methods study can be classified into two paths. That is, the multi methods study in which multiple either qualitative and/or quantitative methods can be used and the mixed methods study, integrating quantitative and qualitative methods (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). Saunders et al. (2009) have claimed that there are four different possibilities-options of a combination of data collection and analysis techniques related to the multiple methods research design (Figure 4.2). The use of the term ‘multi-method’ indicates the use of more than a single technique for data collection and the associated techniques of data analysis. However,

this is confined within either a quantitative (a multi method quantitative study) or a qualitative (a multi method qualitative study) approach. The term mixed methods identifies the use of both quantitative and qualitative techniques of data collection and analysis techniques utilized in a research design.

Research choices

Mono method Multiple methods

Multi-method Mixed-methods

Multi-method Multi-method Mixed-method Mixed-model quantitative qualitative research research

studies studies

Figure 4.2: Research choices (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 152).

However, in an effort to distinguish between mono and multiple research methods it will be helpful to develop an understanding of what is known as mixed methods. Mixed methods have also been defined by Tashakkori and Creswell (2007, p. 4) as:

“research in which the investigator collects and analyzes data, integrates the findings, and draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in a single study or program of inquiry”.

The popularity of the mixed research methods has being growing over time in various scientific fields such as sociology, education and health sciences as an outgrowth of the

“triangulation of methods” movement (Bryman, 2012; Harwell, 2011; Johnson et al.,

2007; Molina Azorin & Cameron, 2010; Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2008). Mixed methods research is considered as an emerging method “which combines qualitative and quantitative methods in ways that ostensibly bridge their differences in the service of addressing a research question” (Harwell, 2011, p. 151) and its foundations on philosophy and methodology date back to the early 1990s. There is an extensive discussion regarding the use of mixed research methods. It is stated that research questions regarding complex phenomena, can best be addressed by using a mixed methods approach and by combining equally qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection and analysis (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Molina Azorin & Cameron, 2010). Furthermore, mixed methods research allows for insights that would not be possible realized by the use of either mono method. This is feasible, as through the collection of data of multiple kinds, it reflects strengths that are complementary and weaknesses that are not overlapping with each other (Johnson & Turner, 2003). From another point of view, the research via the use of mixed methods provides the “opportunity to compensate for inherent method weaknesses, capitalize on inherent method strengths, and offset inevitable method biases” (Greene, 2007, p. xiii). Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004. p. 18) claimed that

“It is an expansive and creative form of research, not a limiting form of research. It is inclusive, pluralistic, and complementary, and it suggests that researchers take an eclectic approach to method selection and the thinking about and conduct of research”.

Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) posted that the research that involves the employment of mixed methods reflects an opening for many quantitative researchers to use

qualitative data. This implies that the matter is not a conflict between less quantitative and more qualitative research. Rather, it implies that research practices lie somewhere on a continuum between qualitative and quantitative methods (Creswell, 2003).

Furthermore, additional issues in using mixed methods have been broadly discussed, such as complementarity, completeness and corroboration/confirmation. It is stated that when a combination of mixed methods is applied, these complement each other allowing thus for a more comprehensive analysis (Creswell, 2002). According to completeness Tashakkori and Teddlie (2008, p. 102) claimed that “Mixed methods designs are utilized in order to make sure a complete picture of the phenomenon is obtained. The full picture is more meaningful than each of the components individually”. Also, Currall and Towler (2003) contended that when qualitative and quantitative methods are used in combination, they harmonize with each other and lay the ground for an analysis that will be more complete. At the same time, Tashakkori and Teddlie (2008, p. 103) stated that “unexpected or ambiguous results from a quantitative study might necessitate the collection and analysis of in-depth qualitative data in a new strand of the study” implying the corroboration/confirmation reason. Eisenhardt (2004) also highlighted that quantitative methods can support findings when these are verified from qualitative evidence. It is broadly accepted that corroboration/confirmation and comprehension of findings are considered as two ‘broad aims’ in the use of mixed methods (Dunning et al., 2008). Confirmation has been broadly defined as the bridging of findings that derive from two different sets of data. Further, comprehension concerns the different research approach combination in order a more deep and comprehensive understanding of the investigated phenomenon to

be accelerated (Dunning et al., 2008; Morse 2003). In the same vein with Mitchell (1986), Dunning et al. (2008, p. 147) have underlined the relation of both goals by demonstrating the non mutual exclusiveness of these two concepts based on Mitchell’s (1986, p. 22) diagram (Figure 4.3).

A or B = unique differences (method bound) C = similar differences (not method bound, confirmation)

A+B+C = comprehensive picture

Figure 4.3: Confirmation and comprehension: Related concepts (adapted from Dunning et al., 2008, p. 148).

According to Harwell (2011) and Bryman (2011) although mixed methods research has been widely accepted and popular, it is not widely agreed what exactly constitutes a mixed research methods study. Literature contains numerous mixed methods frameworks, which although differ with each other, they still manage to succeed in conveying to researchers a sense of availability on a large number of methodological tools. Some authors claim that using both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection and analysis should be considered as a mixed methods study. Opponents of this view claim that research question on a mixed method approach, both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis, as well as, integration of the findings are the key characteristics of a mixed methods approach (Harwell, 2011). Extent discussion concerns priority, implementation and integration that constitute aspects of mixed methods research (Creswell et al., 2003; Bryman, 2011). Firstly, in a research study, the

aspect of priority refers to the weight given to each one of the quantitative or the qualitative approach. Secondly, the aspect of implementation refers to the collection process of quantitative and/or qualitative data collection and analysis and whether it occurs in a sequential manner (chronological order) or concurrently (gathered at the same time, in parallel). Thirdly, the aspect of integration refers to the connection and interpretation of findings derived from the qualitative and quantitative data. Disagreement has also arisen regarding the stage within the study that the mixing and interpretation of inferences should occur (i.e. during the design stage or collection of data or analyses of data or interpretation of data). Furthermore, Creswell (2003) discussed about the sequential or parallel collection of qualitative and quantitative data, about the allocated weight on each one type of data, the phase of the mixing of findings and the extent to which a theoretical perspective is present and guides the research design. According to Saunders et al. (2009) in mixed methods approach there are two different choices (Figure, 4.2, p. 154). A mixed model research combines quantitative and qualitative approaches at research phases, such as the generation of the research questions. This clearly implies that numerical data can be analysed qualitatively through the conversion into text and vice versa qualitative data can be analysed quantitatively through its conversion into numbers. On the other hand, mixed method research utilizes data collection techniques and procedures of analysis in a parallel or in a sequential manner without combining those. This indicates that, quantitative and qualitative data are analysed quantitatively and qualitative respectively.