Requirements of educational research and rationale for mixed methods approach

All research must be, “critical, systematic, transparent, evidential, theoretical

and original” (Coe, 2012; 10). To be critical, a researcher needs to engage with all aspects of the research process with healthy scepticism and to be prepared to challenge and to consider issues from different perspectives. Criticality allows for a degree of creativity and many see research as a channel for exploration and interpretation which are all attributes associated with creativity.

I adopted a mixed methods approach; this is the common name given to an approach sometimes called the third methodological movement (Gorard et al 2004, Tashakkori and Teedlie, 2011). Mixed methods research is said to have developed from the practice of triangulation where evidence from qualitative

60

and quantitative methods was used to enhance and strengthen the research (Biesta, 2012). It is a research approach which is an alternative to the more traditional positivist or quantitative and interpretive or qualitative approaches, which have tended to be accepted as two opposing approaches. This dualistic perspective has limitations (Flick, 2015) however, and some claim that mixed methods resolves the conflict and tensions which exist between quantitative and qualitative approaches (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003). Mixed methods research is referred to as an accessible approach (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011); it involves the collection or analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study, where the data are collected concurrently or sequentially, and are given a priority and it involves integration of data at one or more stages (Creswell et al 2003). The definition of mixed methods research has evolved over the years with the focus changing from what was being mixed, where the mixing occurred, the scope of the mixing and the purpose of the mixing (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). The definition more recently proposed by Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) states that mixed methods research involves the collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data, it gives priority to one or both forms of data and states where mixing occurs. In addition mixed methods research is framed within a philosophical arena (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011).

I decided from the beginning that a mixed methods approach was the most appropriate for this study. Philosophically, I felt that this approach allowed me to mix both quantitative and qualitative approaches, enabling a clear understanding of my research aims (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2006, Watkins and Giola, 2015). My rationale for combing both quantitative and qualitative data is due in part to the complexity and breadth of my research aims, but

61

secondly because I perceived that adopting one of either a quantitative or a qualitative approach would not offer sufficient scope or insight. A mixed methods approach according to Greene (2007: 20) provides multiple ways of

seeing and learning about a topic, in this instance, children’s metacognitive

knowledge and their engagement with reflection. The pluralistic view within mixed methods enables different perspectives to be explored, methods from both qualitative and quantitative approaches to be employed and both formal and informal language can be used (Creswell et al, 2003).

Like Greene et al (1989) and previously stated I found that a mixed methods approach afforded opportunity to triangulate the data. I used and designed data collection tools to identify occurrences of metacognitive knowledge behaviour and to clarify different types and topics of reflection adopted by children. The collection of both quantitative and qualitative data was valuable and one complemented the other as there are strengths and weaknesses associated with each. Essentially, mixed methods offer the best of both worlds (Schrauf, 2016). It was hoped that this research would also benefit from the methodological freedom associated with mixed methods (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011; 12, Bryman, 2016).

Specifically this research adopted a convergent parallel mixed methods approach, which means that there are two distinct strands; a quantitative and a qualitative strand. Equal emphasis was placed on both types of data collection and they were then mixed at the point when results were interpreted and analysed (Tashakkori and Teedlie, 2010). This approach enabled me to widen the scope of the research and to creatively interpret the different data sets and construct original insight.

62

Theorising tends to be straight forward when taking either a quantitative or qualitative approach. However, there are some who would debate the theoretical position of mixed methods, suggesting that it reflects neither one paradigmatic perspective nor another. This is based on the premise that paradigms are a pluralistic concept; that one is either of the world view that knowledge is out there, is measurable and quantifiable or that there is more than one interpretation of knowledge and that it is constructed and multi- faceted, more qualitative and subjective in nature. A researcher taking a mixed method approach is not devoid of theoretical perspective, indeed one school of thought suggests there is an inductive and deductive connection between data and theory within a mixed method approach (Tashakkori and Teedlie, 2012), recognising that more than one theoretical stance can inform the research process and that a combined lens may offer a richer and more holistic perspective. I found that the flexibility of mixed methods enabled data to be examined from different perspectives which led to discovery of new ideas and knowledge, though fundamentally this research embraced a social constructivist perspective throughout.

Stenhouse (1975, cited Aubrey et al. 2002) defined research as ‘systematic inquiry’ where results are placed into the public domain. Shaffer (1990 cited Aubrey et al) defines ‘systematic’, one of the five characteristics of research, as following an explicit and exact plan. This research approach was systematic and enquiring; it was planned with care, is explicit and the process is transparent, and was deliberately and precisely executed. This transparency reassures the different audiences of the robustness of the research and the genuineness and authenticity of it. Finally, the concept of originality can be addressed and to some degree adopting a mixed method approach is more

63

likely to result in original work. The constraints of following one method or another for it to be construed as legitimate is removed under the umbrella of mixed methods.

Mixed methods research is associated with a pragmatic approach where methods adopted should be influenced by the aims, objectives and research question (Biesta, 2012). The research practice is placed at the centre of the process as the researcher acknowledges the many different aspects of the research (Denzin and Lincoln, 2008). The pragmatic researcher considers what is necessary to be able to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issues being investigated, what is possible in the given circumstances (Flick, 2015). I have a pragmatic worldview which has allowed me to focus on the outcome of the research, consider and reconsider the research questions, whilst remaining mindful of what works in practice (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). Taking a

pragmatic approach I decided on the ‘best fit’ when choosing the methods to

collect evidence and also which methods of analysis to apply. It is more important to establish what I seek to inquire about rather than to dwell on the research approach and its constraints.

It is important however to acknowledge that there are critics of mixed method approaches because it is a relatively new approach (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). Authors such as Bogdan and Knopp Biklen (2007) believe that because quantitative and qualitative approaches are based on such different assumptions, mixed methods could therefore result in reports which do not meet the criteria for ‘good work’ in either discipline. In addition it is fair to acknowledge that mixed methods requires the researcher to have skills in gathering and analysing data which is both quantitative and qualitative

64

(Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). This approach can also be time consuming and provide resources challenges, yet it was the approach used by Sylva et al (2006) for the EPPE project.