Research Strategy: Mixed Methods Research (Thomas)

In recent years, mixed methods research has become an increasingly used approach to conducting social research. By mixed methods research, Bryman (2012) is referring to research that combines qualitative and quantitative research methods within a single research project (Bryman 2012: 628). Qualitative research can be construed as a research strategy that usually emphasizes words rather than quantification in the collection and analysis of data, whereas quantitative research can be construed as a research strategy that does emphasize quantification in the collection and analysis of data (Ibid: 36). Qualitative and quantitative research thereby represent different research strategies with striking differences in terms of the role of epistemological issues and ontological concerns. However, the distinction is not as clear-cut as one might think, and we have thus been inspired by a growing preparedness to think of research methods as techniques of data collection and/or analysis that are not as encumbered by epistemological and ontological baggage as often supposed (Ibid: 649).

Mixed methods research can generally be carried out in several ways, and different rationales exist for combining qualitative and quantitative research. In the next section, we will present the

incentives for combining qualitative and quantitative research in a mixed methods research.

3.2.2.1. Why Both Methods?

There are various ways of classifying mixed methods research in terms of the purposes and the roles that the qualitative and quantitative components play in such studies. Bryman (2012)

emphasizes that it might be beneficial for a social researcher to classify mixed methods research in terms of priority and sequence, as it is deemed a useful way of approaching the fundamental aspects of mixed methods research design. In this thesis, the predominant research strategy is deemed qualitative, and in terms of making a priority decision, the qualitative method will also be the principal data-gathering tool. Additionally, a sequential decision has then been made to let the quantitative method succeed the qualitative (Bryman 2012: 631-632).

Alternative avenues of enquiry also exist for combining qualitative and quantitative research. The most traditional rationale behind combining the two research methods is that of ‘triangulation’, where two methods are combined in a mixed methods research to investigate the same

phenomenon. ‘Offset’ is another rationale for conducting mixed methods research, which implies that the weaknesses of e.g. a qualitative method can be offset by including a quantitative method with different strengths.

Page 35 of 102

We have however been motivated by Bryman’s third rationale of ‘completeness’, which dictates that a more complete answer to a research question or a set of research questions can be achieved by including two different research methods that cuts across the qualitative and quantitative divide (Ibid: 637). In order to provide a more comprehensive answer to our problem statement, the quantitative method has been employed to shed light on findings drawn from the qualitative investigation. According to Bryman, the in-depth knowledge of social contexts acquired through qualitative research can be used to form the design of survey instruments (Ibid: 644). Two kinds of data will thus be gathered for the purpose of this thesis. Qualitative data that will allow us to gain access to the perspectives of the people we are studying, that is, to perform an investigation of MAS’ crisis communication during the disappearance of flight MH370. And quantitative data that will allow us to explore specific issues in which we are interested, that is, to investigate to which degree the airline was able to protect its reputation during the crisis. We decided to adopt a more structured approach to answer the second research question, since most qualitative research

methods do not allow data to be evaluated in terms of measurement. As the number of participants needed to conduct a representative and valid assessment of MAS’ reputation would arguably result in a significant amount of raw data, most qualitative methods are deemed inappropriate for this thesis. Qualitative methods are viewed as particularly helpful in the generation of intensive and detailed examinations of data, not to measure concepts like perceptions of an organization’s reputation. Gathering two different kinds of data and performing two separate investigations and combining them in an overall discussion should enable us to uncover the effect of the crisis communication. We have now provided a rationale for the use of mixed methods research and given the reader a better sense of the relationship between the research questions and the research methods, and what the combination of two methods was meant to achieve for the overall thesis objective. In the following sections, we will strive to provide a detailed account for all the

methodological details of the thesis’ qualitative and quantitative components. This is accomplished by ensuring that information about e.g. sampling, design and administration of research instruments and analysis of data are provided for both components.

In general, mixed methods research can assist us in providing a more comprehensive answer to the thesis’ problem statement. Mixed methods research carries several advantages for the purpose of this thesis, but it should not be considered as an approach that is universally applicable. Some writers have even argued against the use of mixed methods research within social research, since they share the perception that research methods carry with them ontological and epistemological

Page 36 of 102

commitments. However, the position that research methods are ineluctably rooted in

epistemological and ontological commitments is very difficult to sustain, as they are capable of being put to a variety of tasks (Ibid: 629).

Another argument against the use of mixed methods research is grounded in the world view that perceives qualitative and qualitative research as separate paradigms, and that mixed methods is therefore not a feasible or desirable option. This argument generally conceives that qualitative and quantitative research are separate paradigms in which ontological and epistemological assumptions, values and methods are inseparably entwined and incompatible. It is therefore suggested that, when researchers combine methods that cut across the qualitative and quantitative divide, they are not really conducting a mixed methods research, because integration only takes place at a superficial level and within a single paradigm (Ibid). This argument does not seem to hold water either. In the context of social research, it cannot be demonstrated that there is interconnectedness between method and epistemology in particular. Moreover, it is not clear that qualitative and quantitative research rationally can be regarded as separate paradigms as there are areas of overlap and commonality between them (Ibid: 630). We therefore find ourselves in a position to believe that qualitative and quantitative research methods exist independently from their so-called paradigms and can be combined in an overall research project.