Mixed methods research

There are two broad classes of research studies that are currently being labeled “mixed methods research”:

single approach designs (SADs) in which additional qualitative and/or quantitative strategies are employed to enhance research quality; and
mixed approach designs (MADs). These definitions require that a distinction be made between research strategies and research approaches.

A research strategy is a procedure for achieving a particular intermediary research objective—such as sampling, data collection, or data analysis. We may therefore speak of sampling strategies or data analysis strategies. The use of multiple strategies to enhance construct validity (a form of methodological triangulation) is now routinely advocated by most methodologists. In short, mixing or integrating research strategies (qualitative and/or quantitative) in any and all research undertaking is now considered a common feature of all good research.

A research approach refers to an integrated set of research principles and general procedural guidelines. Approaches are broad, holistic (but general) methodological guides or roadmaps that are associated with particular research motives or analytic interests. Two examples of analytic interests are population frequency distributions and prediction. Examples of research approaches include experiments, surveys, correlational studies, ethnographic research, and phenomenological inquiry. Each approach is ideally suited to addressing a particular analytic interest. For instance, experiments are ideally suited to addressing nomothetic explanations or probably cause; surveys—population frequency descriptions, correlations studies—predictions; ethnography—descriptions and interpretations of cultural processes; and phenomenology—descriptions of the essence of phenomena or lived experiences.

In a single approach design (SAD) only one analytic interest is pursued. In a mixed approach design (MAD) two or more analytic interests are pursued. NOTE: a mixed approach design may include entirely “quantitative” approaches such as combining a survey and an experiment; or entirely “qualitative” approaches such as combining an ethnographic and a phenomenological inquiry.

A word of caution about the term “multimethodology”. It has become quite common place to use the terms "method" and "methodology" as synonyms (as is the case with the above entry). However, there are convincing philosophical reasons for distinguishing the two. "Method" connotes a way of doing something — a procedure. "Methodology" connotes a discourse about methods—i.e., a discourse about the adequacy and appropriateness of particular combination of research principles and procedures. The terms methodology and biology share a common suffix "logy." Just as bio-logy is a discourse about life—all kinds of life; so too, methodo-logy is a discourse about methods—all kinds of methods. It seems unproductive, therefore, to speak of multi-biologies or of multi-methodologies. It is very productive, however, to speak of multiple biological perspectives or of multiple methodological perspectives.

Desirability

The case for multimethodology as a strategy for intervention and/or research is based on four observations:

Narrow views of the world are often misleading, so approaching a subject from different perspectives or paradigms may help to gain a holistic perspective
There are different levels of social research (ie: biological, cognitive, social, etc), and different methodologies may have particular strengths with respect to one of these levels. Using more than one should help to get a clearer picture of the social world and make for more adequate explanations
Many existing practices already combine methodologies to solve particular problems, yet they have not been theorised sufficiently
Multimethodology fits well with postmodernism

Feasibility

There are also some hazards to multimethodological approaches. Some of these problems include:

Many paradigms are at odds with each other. This can pose a problem. However, once the understanding of the difference or dichotomy is present, it can be an advantage to see many sides, and possible solutions may present themselves.
Cultural issues affect our view of the world and our ability to analyse it. Our backgrounds tend to dictate and bias our views. Knowledge of the new paradigm is not enough to overcome these biases, it must be learned through practice and experienced.
People have cognitive abilities that predispose them to particular paradigms. The logical thinker can more easily understand and use quantitative methodologies. It is easier to move from quantitative to qualitative, and not the reverse.

Conclusion

Multimethodology is desirable and feasible because it gives a more complete view, and because the requirement during the different phases of the intervention (or research project) make very specific demands on a general methodology. While it is demanding, it is more effective to choose the right tool for the job at hand.

Criticism

Multimethodology is criticized by the followers of incompatibility thesis - particularly post-structuralist and post-modernists, who argue that quantitative and qualitative research paradigms should not be mixed and that multimethodology is inherently wrong. In this context, the multimethodology can be known as compatibility thesis or pragmatist paradigm. The pragmatist paradigm has been gaining in popularity since the 1980s. ^[2]

Notes

^ Creswell, John (2004). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Prentice Hall. ISBN 9780131127906.
^ Onwuegbuzie, Anthony and Leech, 2005

References

Mingers J., Brocklesby J., "Multimethodology: Towards a Framework for Mixing Methodologies", Omega, Volume 25, Number 5, October 1997, pp. 489-509 (21)
Onwuegbuzie, Anthony and Leech, Nancy; 2005. “Taking the “Q” Out of Research: Teaching Research Methodology Courses Without the Divide Between Quantitative and Qualitative Paradigms.” Quality and Quantity 39:267-296.

External links

Mixed Methods Network for Behavioral, Social, and Health Sciences

Mixed methods research

Contents