Defining Mixed Methods

42 A few years later, definitions of mixed methods research were in abundance. In 2007, Johnson et al.

produced an overview of currently accepted and applied definitions of mixed methods research from leading scholars. From the literature, Johnson et al. (2007) identified five themes common to MMR definitions which they used to develop the following definition of mixed methods research (Johnson, et al., 2007, p. 123):

Mixed methods research is the type of research in which a researcher or a team of researchers combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g. use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the broad purpose of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration.

Here, the definition has moved from focusing mainly on the mechanics of the data collection processes to also include analysis and the advantage of doing mixed methods research.

Creswell & Plano Clark (2007, p. 5) also offered an updated definition of mixed methods research which they saw as (emphasis is added):

a research design with philosophical assumptions as well as methods of inquiry. As a methodology, it involves philosophical assumptions that guide the direction of the collection and analysis and the mixture of qualitative and quantitative approaches in many phases of the research process. As a method, it focuses on collecting, analyzing, and mixing both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or series of studies. Its central premise is that the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches, in combination, provides a better understanding of research problems than either approach alone.

This is the first definition to stress that philosophical assumptions inform and support the development of mixed methods. As the dissertation aspires to maintain congruence between philosophical assumptions and choice of method(s), this definition is very appropriate. In their recent work, Creswell and Plano Clark (2011, p. 5) have further developed this definition by elaborating a definition of core characteristics of mixed methods research which, in addition to philosophical orientation and methods, also focuses on research design orientation. The definition is essentially a checklist of core characteristics for embarking on MMR more than a definition per se, for which reason their original definition is preferred in this dissertation.

6.1.1. Strengths and weaknesses of mixed methods research

The choice of research method is not straightforward, and mixed methods may only add to the complexity experienced by the researcher. There is an ongoing discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of mixed methods which can sometimes appear intimidating. Advocates of MMR (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) have also recognized that MMR, despite its several advantages, is not unproblematic. Table 6-1 summarizes the arguments for and against MMR:

43 Table 6-1: Arguments for and against mixed methods research. Adapted from Johnson & Onwuegbuzie (2004) and Creswell & Plano Clark (2011)

Mixed Methods Research

Arguments for MMR Arguments Against MMR

- Words, pictures and narratives can be used to add meaning to numbers – quantitative research is weak in understanding context

- Numbers can be used to add precision to words, pictures and narrative – qualitative research has difficulties generalizing

- Can draw on strengths from both quantitative and qualitative research

- Gives the opportunity for both generating and testing theory

- The strength of one method can be applied to overcome the weaknesses of another

- Can provide more complete knowledge and stronger conclusions through convergence and corroboration of findings

- Can be difficult for one researcher to carry out – especially in case of parallel designs

- Includes weaknesses of both qualitative and quantitative research

- Time-consuming - Expensive

- A challenge to learn and master multiple methods - Often requires researchers to work in teams - Problems of paradigm mixing

- Methodological purists who hold that one should always work within either a qualitative or a quantitative paradigm

- Problem of convincing others of validity

The table illustrates that the challenges of working with mixed methods designs are many. They are, however, mainly concerned with time issues; it is time-consuming to do MMR, to learn multiple methods, to anticipate and address paradigm issues, etc., which means that they can be overcome.

Accordingly, the complementary, synergistic effects of mixed methods as well as the potential for providing stronger conclusions through convergence and corroboration of findings outweigh the disadvantages. In these designs, the nature of the problem carries more weight than paradigmatic preferences. Thus, from a MMR point of view, the nature of the phenomenon being explored must be considered before deciding upon a methodological approach to a problem.

The discussion about what is seen as a very problematic aspect of mixed methods, the incompatibility thesis as described by e.g. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie (2004) and Howe (1988), is still alive in some environments. As Bergman (2010, p. 173) notes, this discussion is relevant because:

Strictly speaking, if we were indeed faced with two competing paradigms, then it would not be possible to combine qualitative and quantitative elements within one research question because, as Kuhn already recognized, competing paradigms are incommensurable.

It seems, however, as if the demarcations between paradigms, as we know it from e.g. Guba &

Lincoln (1994), are no longer so sharply defined (Bergman, 2010, p. 173):

On closer inspection, however, it is difficult to sustain these differences because qualitative and quantitative analysis techniques do not necessitate a particular view of the nature of reality, privilege a specific research theme and how to research it, or determine the truth value of data or the relationship between researcher and their research subject.

44 Bergman (2010) further argues that instead of talking of paradigms, we can apply the term worldview in the sense of approach or framework, which he sees as the ‘weaker’, more flexible and less purist form of the term paradigm (Bergman, 2010). This makes the reconciliation between the two paradigms less problematic. Other scholars (Howe, 1988; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004;

Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998) also argue that the similarities are greater than the differences for which reason they find a pragmatic worldview and the use of mixed methods to be acceptable. In referring to Reichardt & Rallis’ (1994) four beliefs about similarities between quantitative and qualitative research: belief in the value-ladenness of inquiry; in the theory-ladenness of facts; that reality is multiple and constructed; and in the undetermination of theory by fact, Tashakkori &

Teddlie (1998, p. 13) definitively state that:

It can be argued that there is a common set of beliefs that many social and behavioral scientists have that undergird a paradigm distinct from positivism or postpositivism or constructivism, which has been labeled pragmatism. This paradigm allows for the use of mixed methods in social and behavioral research.

The mixed methods approach was therefore considered to be best suited to this particular project.