Rationale for mixed methods

A mixed methods design was chosen here because of the goal of expanding on initial quantitative results. Such results may yield important information about how those who have experience FEP describe their possible selves and give an insight into the relationship between possible selves and negative symptoms and functioning.

However, a more detailed understanding of specific findings may be lacking.

Furthermore, such data will only provide information about possible selves at one time point. Qualitative data will be used to build on this understanding by exploring specific findings in more detail to understand ‘how’ and ‘why’ they might have come about and provide more in-depth information about how possible selves may have changed over the course of FEP.

Additionally, combining quantitative and qualitative methods will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic of interest than would be achieved by using either method in isolation (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). This is of particular importance considering the dearth of previous research in this area.

2.3.2 Design

An explanatory sequential design was employed as it best suited the research objectives and the fact that the study did not involve collection of any ‘new’

quantitative data. A convergent parallel design, where qualitative and quantitative

data are collected and analysed separately in the same phase, was also considered.

However, with the lack of research in this area, it was thought that the structure of the explanatory sequential design would lead to a more informed and constructive

qualitative element.

The explanatory sequential design involves two sequential phases with the first phase typically involving the analysis of quantitative data and the second phase utilising a qualitative methodology to follow up on specific quantitative results with the intention of elaborating on such (Ivankova, Creswell & Stick, 2006). In this study, phase one involved quantitative analysis of a pre-existing, cross sectional, anonymised data set. The data set contained information from those who have experienced FEP and included measures of symptom severity, functioning alongside possible selves data (section 3.3 provides further details). A subset of findings from this analysis were selected for further exploration and such aided construction of a topic guide for a semi-structured interview. This formed the basis of the qualitative phase, phase two, of the study. Interviews were conducted, audio-recorded,

transcribed verbatim and analysed using Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2008).

As recommended, a procedural diagram of the study is presented in Figure 1 to clarify the sequence of the research (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). Published guidelines were followed in the construction of such (Ivankova et al., 2006) including the use of the notation system first put forward by Morse (1991). This is now widely used in mixed methods research to aid discussion of design features, i.e. the uppercase

“QUAL” and “QUAN” signifying that equal priority was given to each methological component. Typically, priority is given to the quantitative aspect when using this design. However, considering that it is the qualitative aspect that involves the

collection of “new” data by the researcher and that possible selves have not been the focus of much research in those who have experienced FEP, both elements were treated equally.

2.3.3 Paradigm

A fundamental challenge in mixed methods research is how to combine two research methods, quantitative and qualitative, that are underpinned by different paradigmatic assumptions: a fiercely debated topic in the literature that has seen mixed methods research placed against a backdrop of “paradigm wars”.

Traditionally, quantitative methods are associated with a positivist paradigm whereas qualitative approaches are usually associated with an interpretive paradigm (Johnson

& Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Yardley & Bishop, 2015).

Such differences, have sparked much debate about whether these paradigms can be integrated in mixed methods, with some seeing this as essentially

incommensurable (Kuhn, 1970). However many researchers have now moved on to identifying a paradigm that provides a suitable philosophical framework for mixed methods research, that of pragmatism (Yardley & Bishop, 2015). The methodological pragmatists acknowledge the same paradigmatic assumptions as the purists but argue that researchers should use whatever methods are required to achieve optimum results, including ‘switching between’ different paradigms (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). As such, this approach values both objective and subjective knowledge and supports the use of diverse methodologies on the basis of “what works‟ (Creswell &

Plano Clark, 2011). Pragmatism places a greater emphasis on the research question, which is used to guide the choice of methodological and analytic techniques in light of their capacity to best address the research problem. Furthermore, a pragmatic

approach means attention does not need to be directed towards metaphysical concerns such as epistemology and ontology (Morgan, 2007). Pragmatism is now embraced by the majority of mixed methods researchers (Bishop, 2015).

This study was aligned with the assumptions of a pragmatic paradigm. The emphasis on abductive reasoning, intersubjectivity and transferability throughout the research process allowed for movement between, and successful integration of, the quantitative and qualitative elements of the study.

Reflective of the sequential nature of this study, a pluralistic pragmatic approach was adopted whereby different worldviews were taken for the different stages of the research (Creswell & Plano Clarke, 2007): a post-positivist position (assuming that there is one reality that can be known) was taken for phase one with a critical realist position being adopted for phase two. Critical realists assume that there is a reality “out there” that exists, independent of observers (Easton, 2010). However, whereas a naïve realist epistemology posits that this reality is easily accessed, a critical realist position is that reality is socially constructed and that how this reality is investigated is greatly influenced by social forces and our own experiences and

assumptions (Willig, 2013). Chiefly, critical realists assume that “we can, and should, make attempts at investigating reality in itself, but do so cautiously and critically”

(Pilgram & Bentall, 1999, p. 262). The aim of adopting different worldviews for each phase of the research was to produce more holistic and insightful results.

Figure 1: Procedural diagram outlining the explanatory sequential design of