The Third Paradigm Mixed Methods

According to Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004, p.17) mixed methods research is, “the class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study.” For the authors as well as others (de Waal, 2001; Brennen, 2005) mixed methods research is the third wave or third research paradigm that has “evolved to the point where it is a separate methodological orientation with its own worldview, vocabulary, and techniques’’ (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003, p. x). Mixed method research incorporates a distinct set of ideas and practices that separate the approach from the other main research paradigms. Namely, the use of quantitative and qualitative methods, specification of the relationship, sequencing and priority that is given to the elements of data collection and analysis, all the while being underpinned by the philosophy of pragmatism (Denscombe, 2008).

10

The third paradigm is considered as having great appeal when there are multiple facets of a research question that need exploring, and one method is simply not sufficient to address all the issues at hand (Anaf and Sheppard, 2007, p.185). In this case, the research question (RQ): “Can the principles of sociotechnical systems theory advance the theory and practice of nation branding?” is considered to be multifaceted in the way that addressing it involved utilising both interpretivist (RO2), positivist methods (RO1) as well as a combination of both (RO3). The rationale for developing research objectives that exist across paradigms is that while nation branding is not context-free, examining the creation and impact of sociotechnical misalignment through evaluating its causes and effects may be considered positivist, in the way that involves ascertaining and evaluating correlations between social facts in order to explain social phenomena, reality and social laws (Calhoun et al., 2003). On the other hand, addressing the aim in solely a positivist stance would not allow for the taking into account of such context or the degree of interpretation or exploration that is required to uncover the ways in which misalignment may be created in the nation branding process, or the impact misalignment may have on the nation brand’s outcomes.

In which case, to address the aim, a mixed-model and mixed-method approach is utilised (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Mixed-model is where quantitative and qualitative approaches are mixed within or across stages of the research. Whereas mixed-method research is categorised by the inclusion of quantitative phase and qualitative phase in the overall study (Ibid). In this case, the research is mixed-model as the inclusion of qualitative open-ended questions in the survey as well as the quantifying of responses to certain interview stimuli, are indicative of a mixed-model research design (Ibid). This research is also considered mixed-method because, as described above, addressing each the research objectives involves collecting a mixture of both quantitative and qualitative data. The three instruments used in this mixed approach are: 1) a survey (RO1), 2) a case study (RO2 & RO3) and 3) interviews (RO2 & RO3).

As shown in Figure 3.1, there is an interrelation between both these qualitative and quantitative data collection instruments. The combining of complimentary data or sources is utilised in order to provide a complete assessment of whether the principles of sociotechnical systems theory can advance the theory and practice of nation branding (Denscombe, 2008). Thus, the methodological pluralism (Carter and New, 2003) in this research facilitates data and method triangulation (Denzin, 1989). Triangulation, in these pages, is thought to be necessary in order to effectively respond to the research questions (particularly considering the complexity of the subject at hand) and to enhance confidence in the ensuing findings (Brymer, n.d.).

Figure 3.1 Mixed-Model Research Design Adapted from Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004)

As the figures show, qualitative data is collected more frequently than its counterpart. Yet, this is not indicative of preference of qualitative data. Rather, it reflects the pragmatic epistemological stance of the researcher where collecting primarily qualitative data was deemed appropriate for answering two of the research questions (RO2, RO3), in comparison to the collection of primarily quantitative data being considered most appropriate for answering one (RO1). The combining of quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis in RO3 further reflects the pragmatic attitude to research. It was thought that collecting solely quantitative or qualitative data would not allow for the

concomitant in-depth and cause/effect analysis required evaluating the impact of misalignment on the outcomes of the nation brand. The pragmatic interrelation between the quantitative and qualitative aspects of this research is show in Table 3.1.

Research Objective

Data Collection Instrument Order Justification for mixed-approach

RO1 QUAN-qual-quan Survey 1 Encourages thorough, quantifiable analysis of

attitudes/perceptions of Isle of Man’s nation brand. Also includes open-ended comments section which allows for in-depth comments relating to the brand. Comments are analysed qualitatively and quantitatively.

RO2 QUAL--QUAL-quan Historical

account, interviews

2 Documentary, historical case study permits

the documenting of the history of the Isle of

Man’s nation brand. Facilitates the

production of context- considered vital in evaluating the perused activities. Interviews examine the implementation and attitudes towards the brand form a personal perspective. Used in conjunction with one another as interviews assist in documenting the brand’s history (i.e. where no secondary information is available). Interviews analysed quantitatively, although mainly qualitatively.

RO3 QUAL+QUAN+QUAL+QUAL Survey,

historical account, interviews

3 Facilitates a through yet quantifiable analysis

of the impact of misalignment on the nation brand. Triangulation of data necessary given the complexity of subject and existence of various activities and actors.