The case for mixed-methods

Quantitative and qualitative research methods originate from different traditions (Johnson et al., 2007; Lingard, 2008). Quantitative research begins with predetermined, instrument-based questions, designed to test a priori hypotheses. In contrast, qualitative methods typically involve naturalistic or holistic collections of data through observation or from the perspective of the participants (Testa et al., 2011). Mixed-methods research is characterised as research that contains elements of both qualitative and quantitative approaches (Denscombe, 2010; Lingard, et al., 2008; Patton, 1990; Rocco et al., 2003). Creswell and Plano-Clark (2007) and Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2009) define mixed-methods as a process of collecting, analyzing and mixing both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or series of studies. Recently, there has been growing international interest in combining qualitative and quantitative methods in a single study; so-called mixed-methods research (O’Cathain et al., 2007). In addition, mixed- methods studies are common in health services research (ibid), but there is still limited direction on and much confusion about how to combine qualitative and quantitative research techniques (Sandelowski, 2000). However, researchers mention different ways of mixing methods and at many levels, including both quantitative and qualitative elements in a single study (Creswell, 2009; Lingard et al., 2008; Rocco et al., 2003; Sandelowski, 2000). For example, Sandelowski (2000) suggests a combination of methods that demonstrate how

51

mixed-methods studies might operate at various stages i.e. within (a) sampling: combinations include criterion sampling from instrument scores, random purposeful sampling, and stratified purposeful sampling; (b) data collection: combinations include the use of instruments for fuller qualitative descriptions, for validation, as guides for purposeful sampling, and as elicitation devices in interviews; (c) data analysis: combinations include interpretively linking qualitative and quantitative data sets. Just as important is the justification of why to mix these aspects. Published studies describe various rationales of mixing two methods in a single study. For example, Green et al. (1989) suggest five broad purposes of mixing methods: (a) triangulation (i.e. seeking convergence and corroboration of results from different methods studying the same phenomenon); (b) complementary (i.e. seeking elaboration, enhancement, illustration, clarification of the results from one method with results from the other method); (c) development (i.e. using the results from one method to help inform the other method); (d) initiation (i.e. discovering paradoxes and contradictions that lead to the framing of the research question); and (e) expansion (i.e. seeking to expand the breadth and range of inquiry by using different methods for different inquiry components). In addition, methods are mixed to expand the scope or breadth of research and improve the analytic power of their studies (Sandelowski, 2000) and to better understand, explain or build on the results from the other approach (Creswell, 2009). The overall strengths and weaknesses of mixed-methods research are presented in Table 4.1.

52

Table 4.1: Strengths & Weaknesses of Mixed-Methods Research

Strengths

●Provides a better understanding of research problems than either approach alone.

● Strengthens research results:

Mixed-methods research provides strength that balances the weaknesses of both quantitative and qualitative research. For example, quantitative research may be weak in understanding context because the voices of participants are not directly heard. Personal (researcher) bias is less likely to affect the quantitative results as the researcher is in the background. Qualitative research could alleviate some of these weaknesses. Similarly, it is difficult to generalise findings in qualitative research. The reasons underpinning this relate to: (a) researcher bias; the personal interpretation made by researcher; and (b) small samples may not represent large populations. Quantitative research often does not have these weaknesses. Hence, a combination of the two approaches can help balance the weakness of either approach.

●Addresses different research questions:

Mixed-methods research can address research questions a single method is unable to. It provides more comprehensive evidence for studying a research problem than either quantitative or qualitative research alone. Researchers are free to use any kinds of tools of data collection that are associated with qualitative or quantitative research.

●Is “practical”:

The researcher is free to use all potential methods to address a research problem. Researchers can use words and numbers to solve research problems. They can also employ certain skills i.e. observing people or recording behaviour. Hence, mixed-methods is one of the preferred ways of understanding the world and the use of words and numbers can provide a more complete picture of the area under scrutiny.

53 Table 4.1 Continued.

Weaknesses

●Takes more time and resources to collect and analyse both quantitative and qualitative data.

●Can be difficult for a single researcher to carry out both qualitative and quantitative research, especially if two or more approaches are expected to be used concurrently (i.e. it might require a research team approach).

● The researcher has to learn about multiple methods and approaches and understand how to mix them appropriately.

●Some of the details of mixed-method research remain to be worked out fully by research methodologists (e.g. problems of paradigm mixing, how to qualitatively analyse quantitative data and how to interpret conflicting results).

(Source: Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004)

Some of the issues highlighted by Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) are not widely reported in the general literature on mixed-methods, but other strengths and weaknesses are widely recognized by other researchers such as Creswell (2009) and Denscombe (2010). As previously discussed in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.4.2 there is research problem related to migrant workers. Previous studies have highlighted the need for a more comprehensive examination of the health status of and health risks to male Nepalese migrant workers working in Middle Eastern and Malaysian construction and manufacturing industries. A mixed-method approach is a more comprehensive way to address the aims of this study (Section 2.7) than either quantitative or qualitative research alone. The next section summarises the research design of this thesis.

54