Rationale for mixed methods

There are many reasons why a mixed methods approach is adopted by researchers. Greene, Caracelli and Graham (1989) suggest five rationales for mixed methods research. Firstly, triangulation; intentionally using multiple methods of data collection and analysis to explore the same phenomenon to seek convergence and corroboration. Secondly, complementarity; used for elaboration, enhancement, illustration and clarification of the results from one method with the results from another. Thirdly, development; sequentially uses the results from one method to help develop or to inform the other. Fourthly, initiation; looking for contradiction and new perspectives in the hope of discovering why such contradictions exist. However, it has been argued that most researchers have a bias towards collecting confirming not disconfirming evidence (Creswell & Miller, 2000) making purposeful adoption of ‘initiation’ as a rationale perhaps uncommon (Greene et al, 1989). Lastly, expansion, which is when breadth and range of inquiry is sought, by using different methods for different inquiry components.

More recently, in a content analysis of two hundred and thirty-two articles, Bryman (2006), unveiled sixteen more specific rationales as to why researchers chose to adopt a mixed methods approach. These rationales, adapted from Bryman, (2006 p.105-106) are listed below:

 Triangulation– that quantitative and qualitative research can be combined to allow corroboration of findings.

 Offset – that the perceived strengths and weaknesses of different research methods can be ‘offset’ when both quantitative and qualitative methods are used.

 Completeness – that a more comprehensive account can be provided if both quantitative and qualitative research are employed.

 Process – that both a static account of, and the process behind, a phenomenon can be gained using both quantitative and qualitative methods.

 Different research questions – that quantitative and qualitative methods can answer different research questions.

 Explanation – that qualitative findings can be used to help explain quantitative findings, or vice versa.

 Unexpected results – that qualitative findings can be used to understand surprising results that were generated by quantitative findings, or vice versa.

 Instrument development – that qualitative findings can be used to develop a questionnaire.

 Sampling – that one approach can be used to facilitate the sampling of participants

 Credibility –that using both quantitative and qualitative methods enhances the integrity of findings.

 Context – that qualitative research can provide contextual understanding of quantitative findings.

 Illustration – that qualitative data can illustrate quantitative findings.

 Utility – that combining both quantitative and qualitative methods will be more useful to practitioners and others.

 Confirm and discover – that qualitative findings can be used to generate hypotheses which can then be tested by quantitative methods.

 Diversity of views – that the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods allow participants’ perspectives to be gathered whilst also allowing specific relationships between variables through quantitative research to be uncovered.

 Enhancement– that either quantitative or qualitative findings can be augmented by using both quantitative and qualitative methods.

Whilst perhaps not as succinct as Greene et al’s five reasons, Bryman’s categories offer more specificity as to why mixed methods research has been adopted by researchers. Also, these different proposed rationales are not mutually exclusive. Table 4.1 below shows how eleven of Bryman’s identified rationales could be linked to Greene et al’s rationales.

Table 4.1 Rationales for conducting mixed methods research

Greene et al (1989) Bryman (2006) Triangulation Triangulation Complementarity Explanantion Enhancement Illustration Context

Initiation Unexpected results

Confirm and discover

Development Instrument development

Expansion

Different research question Completeness

However, Bryman’s five remaining rationales; ‘process’, ‘sampling’, ‘offset’, ‘utility’, credibility seem to be unrelated to Greene et al’s five rationales. ‘Process’ and ‘sampling’ represent much more specific rationales. ‘Offset’ represents almost a defensive rationale, through using mixed methods as an approach in order to address the inherent weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative methods. But most interestingly, it can be argued that utility and credibility, when offered as the sole reason for adopting a mixed methods approach, are more strategic rationales to help increase the external validity of the findings in the eyes of reviewers or practitioners.

It is essential that claimants of mixed methods research include a clear rationale for its use. However, twenty-seven per cent of articles provided no rationale for their choice to adopt a mixed methods approach. Generally, many mixed methods articles fail to include a clear rationale for its use (Bryman, 2007, 2008). A lack of a clear rationale can be indicative of improper use of mixed methods and instead be indicative of indecisiveness between methods.

With regards to this thesis, it is considered that ‘instrument development’ was the main rationale for adopting a mixed methods approach, to use the findings of a qualitative study to develop a questionnaire. Onwuegbuzie, Bustamante and Judith (2010, p.60-61) suggested a framework for how such integration can be achieved. As discussed in more detail in Chapter 6, whilst it is considered that the first six steps of the ten proposed have been taken; 1) to conceptualize the construct of interest, 2) to identify and describe behaviours that underlie the construct, 3) to develop the initial questionnaire, 4) to pilot the initial questionnaire, 5) to design and field-test the revised questionnaire, and 6) to validate the revised questionnaire using a quantitative analysis phase, there was not scope within this research project to conduct the final four steps of their framework; 7) to validate the revised questionnaire using a qualitative analysis phase, 8) to then validate the revised questionnaire using a mixed analysis phase of qualitative-dominant crossover analyses, 9) to then validate the revised questionnaire using mixed analysis phase using quantitative-dominant crossover analyses, before finally, 10) evaluating the questionnaire with regards to its use and outcomes found.

Further to the rationale of ‘instrument development’, due to the lack of mixed methods approaches being taken in relation to exploring the phenomenon of fitness club membership (a bias towards positivism, discussed in Chapter 4), ‘credibility’ was also a rationale. Also, the applied nature of this research makes it important to consider the usefulness of the findings, and so ‘utility’ was also a rationale.

Interestingly, however, another rationale for adopting a mixed methods approach became apparent after the second quantitative study whereby the results which were generated using a dataset of current members were not triangulated by the results obtained from another dataset of new members. As such, this led to an exploration of differences between the datasets, which warranted re-visiting the qualitative study and so represents a rationale of ‘unexpected results’. This is discussed more in the concluding chapter, Chapter 9.