Mixed Methods Research, Advantage and Disadvantage Homa Milani, Atlanta University March.

2012

Abstract After a period in the paradigmatic wilderness, mixed methods research has regained not just acceptability, but popularity, with a significant number of studies arguing its virtues in terms of greater understanding and/or validation of results. At this article, I have been tried to define the mixed method and have a quick look to Data gathering, Data Analyzing based on this method and finally the advantages and disadvantages of it. I hope this article help the readers to think beyond quantitative versus qualitative research arguments because, as recognized by mixed methods research, both quantitative and qualitative researches are important and useful.

Introduction For more than a century, the advocates of quantitative and qualitative research paradigms have engaged in ardent dispute. From these debates, purists have emerged on both sides.[1]

What is Mixed Method Research? After a period in the paradigmatic wilderness, mixed methods research has regained not just acceptability, but popularity, with a significant number of

studies arguing its virtues in terms of greater understanding and/or validation of results.[2] Mixed methods research is formally defined here as the class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study. Philosophically, it is the third wave or third research movement, a movement that moves past the paradigm wars by offering a logical and practical alternative. Philosophically, mixed research makes use of the pragmatic method and system of philosophy. Its logic of inquiry includes the use of induction (or discovery of patterns), deduction (testing of theories and hypotheses), and abduction (uncovering and relying on the best of a set of explanations for understanding ones results) (e.g., de Waal, 2001). Mixed methods research also is an attempt to legitimate the use of multiple approaches in answering research questions, rather than restricting or constraining researchers choices (i.e., it rejects dogmatism). It is an expansive and creative form of research, not a limiting form of research. It is inclusive, pluralistic, and complementary, and it suggests that researchers take an eclectic approach to method selection and the thinking about and conduct of research. [1]

Tashakkori and Teddlie argued that the term mixed model is more appropriate than mixed method for research in which different approaches are applied at any or all of a number of stages through the research, their point being that mixing often extends beyond just the methods used in the research. Indeed, mixing of methodologies within a broad quantitative or qualitative approach may raise almost as many issues as when working across approaches (Barbour, 1998);

mixing may also occur across different disciplinary traditions, for example, in social history, or when scientists engage in social research to evaluate the impact of their work. It becomes necessary, therefore, to clarify just what is being mixedand how it is being mixed. The mixing may be nothing more than a sidebyside or sequential use of different methods, or it may be that different methods are being fully integrated in a single analysis.[2]

In sum, there is as of yet no discrete list of mixed methods design options, and so researchers should plan to develop a design that answers their own research questions within the constraints and boundaries of the study context. [3]

Sampling and Data Gathering Gaining an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research puts a researcher in a position to mix or combine strategies and to use what Johnson and Turner (2003) call the fundamental principle of mixed research. According to this principle, researchers should collect multiple data , using different strategies, approaches, and methods in such a way that the resulting mixture or combination is likely to result in complementary strengths and non overlapping weaknesses [1]

Our mixed methods research process model comprises eight distinct steps: (1) determine the research question; (2) determine whether a mixed design is appropriate; (3) select the mix method or mixed-model research design; (4)

collect the data;(5) analyze the data; (6) interpret the data; (7) legitimate the data; and (8) draw conclusions (if warranted) and write the final report.[1]

This paper describes two transformative mixed methods research designs. The two designs fall on somewhat different ends of the mixed methods design spectrum related to when the data are collected. The first is a relatively simple design in which qualitative and quantitative data are collected concurrently. The other is a fairly complex sequential design. We draw on examples from a recent evaluation of a federal policy regarding safe immunization practice to describe how these designs have been applied in practice.

A. Concurrent Design Concurrent mixed method data collection strategies have been employed to validate one form of data with the other form, to transform the data for comparison, or to address different types of questions. In many cases the same individuals provide both qualitative and quantitative data so that the data can be more easily compared.[3]

B. Sequential Design Sequential mixed methods data collection strategies involve collecting data in an iterative process whereby the data collected in one phase contribute to the data collected in the next. Data were collected in these designs to provide more data about results from the earlier phase of data collection and analysis, to select participants who can best provide that data, or to generalize findings by verifying and augmenting study results from members of a defined population. Sequential

designs in which quantitative data are collected first can use statistical methods to determine which findings to augment in the next phase.[3]

Data Analyze The mixed methods research data analysis, incorporates seven-stages. According to these authors, the seven data analysis stages are as follows: (a) data reduction, (b) data display, (c) data transformation, (d) data correlation, (e) data consolidation, (f) data comparison, and (g) data integration.[1]

Data reduction involves reducing the dimensionality of the qualitative data (e.g., via exploratory thematic analysis, memoing) and quantitative data (e.g., via descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis, cluster analysis). Data display, involves describing pictorially the qualitative data (e.g., matrices, charts, graphs, networks, lists, rubrics, and Venn diagrams) and quantitative data (e.g., tables, graphs). This is followed (optionally) by the data transformation stage, wherein quantitative data are converted into narrative data that can be analyzed qualitatively (i.e., qualitized; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998) and/or qualitative data are converted into numerical codes that can be represented statistically (i.e., quantitized; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Data correlation involves the quantitative data being correlated with the qualities data or the qualitative data being correlated with the quantities data. This is followed by data consolidation, wherein both quantitative and qualitative data are combined to create new or consolidated variables or data sets. The next stage, data comparison involves comparing data from the qualitative and quantitative data sources. Data integration characterizes the final stage, whereby both quantitative and

qualitative data are integrated into either a coherent whole or two separate sets (i.e., qualitative and quantitative) of coherent wholes.[1]

There are several strategies by which qualitative data collected using the designs described can be quantitized to create a single comprehensive dataset. One of the more common strategies counts the number of times a qualitative code occurs. Some qualitative data analysis software programs (such as Atlas or NVivo) can generate these reports.[3]

Advantages of Mixed Method Enabling researchers to simultaneously answer exploratory and confirmatory questions and thereby verifying and generating theory about complex social phenomena in the same study is emphasized as the major advantage of the mixed methods.[4] The data are based on the participants own categories of meaning.[1] It is useful for studying a limited number of cases in depth.[1] It is useful for describing complex phenomena.[1] Provides individual case information.[1] Can conduct cross-case comparisons and analysis.[1] Provides understanding and description of peoples personal experiences of phenomena .[1] Can describe, in rich detail, phenomena as they are situated and embedded in local contexts.[1]1 The researcher identifies contextual and setting factors as they relate to the phenomenon of interest.[1]

The researcher can study dynamic processes (i.e., documenting sequential patterns and change).[1] The researcher can use the primarily qualitative method of grounded theory to generate inductively a tentative but explanatory theory about a phenomenon.[1] Can determine how participants interpret constructs (e.g., self-esteem, IQ).[1] Data are usually collected in naturalistic settings in qualitative research.[1] Qualitative approaches are responsive to local situations, conditions, and stakeholders needs. Qualitative researchers are responsive to changes that occur during the conduct of a study (especially during extended fieldwork) and may shift the focus of their studies as a result.[1] Qualitative data in the words and categories of participants lend themselves to exploring how and why phenomena occur.[1] One can use an important case to demonstrate vividly a phenomenon to the readers of a report.[1] Determine idiographic causation (i.e., determination of causes of a particular event).[1]

Disadvantage of Mixed Method It is difficult to make quantitative predictions. Knowledge produced may not generalize to other people or other settings (i.e., findings may be unique to the relatively few people included in the research study). It is more difficult to test hypotheses and theories. It may have lower credibility with some administrators and commissioners of programs.

 It generally takes more time to collect the data when compared to quantitative research. Data analysis is often time consuming. The results are more easily influenced by the researchers personal biases and idiosyncrasies.[1]

Conclusion Mixed methods designs can provide pragmatic advantages when exploring complex research questions. The qualitative data provide a deep understanding of survey responses, and statistical analysis can provide detailed assessment of patterns of responses. However, the analytic process of combining qualitative and survey data by quantitising qualitative data can be time consuming and expensive and thus may lead researchers working under tight budgetary or time constraints to reduce sample sizes or limit the time spent interviewing. Ultimately, these designs seem most appropriate for research that does not require either extensive, deep analysis of qualitative data or multivariate analysis of quantitative data.[3]

Definitional, paradigmatic and methodological issues continue to be raised when researchers write about mixed methods, while design issues, issues in sampling, analysis and reporting and wide-ranging demands on researcher skills, finances and time are faced daily by those involved in a mixed methods study. Mixed methods researchers, in bringing together the benefits of both qualitative and quantitative approaches to research, often claim greater validity of results as a

reason for their methodological choices, but without adequate consideration of the issues involved such validity may be more imagined than real.[2]

References: 1-R. B. Johnson and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie ,Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come, Educational Researcher Magazine, Oct. 2004

2- R. Buber, J. Gadner, & L. Richards (2004) Applying qualitative methods to marketing management research. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp141-156.

3- David L. Driscoll1, Afua Appiah-Yeboah, Philip Salib, and Douglas J. Rupert , Merging Qualitative and Quantitative Data in Mixed Methods Research: How To and Why Not ?, Ecological and Environmental Anthropology, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2007.

4- Goknur K. Akilli , Design Based Research vs. Mixed Methods: The Differences and Commonalities From: http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper110/Akilli_DBR_vs_MM_ITForum.pdf