An Analysis of Mixed Method - Research Paper Example

? Research Methodology: An Analysis of Mixed Method Research A Research Paper of Introduction The value of mixed method research is manifested on the reason researchers use them in their studies. With the abundance of research methodologies related to the quantitative and qualitative practices, why would some researchers try to merge them, or create new methods, to carry out mixed method research? The primary objective of any research is to find answers to a set of questions developed from the very start. Proponents of mixed method research claim that many studies are innately mixed. As clearly stated by Creswell and Piano Clark (2007), “A mixed methods research design is a procedure for collecting, analyzing, and ‘mixing’ both quantitative and qualitative research and methods in a single study to understand a research problem” (p. 5). This statement implies that a combination of methodologies is superior to a single method. This research paper tries to determine the validity of this argument by reviewing the literature on research methodology. The three major approaches, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method are analyzed and compared. Two mixed method research studies are selected and reviewed in order to justify the usefulness of mixed methods to educational, social, and behavioral research. Reviewing the Literature on Research Methodology For many years, the supporters of quantitative and qualitative research approaches have fervently debated about the superiority of one paradigm over the other. From these disputes, traditionalists have surfaced on both approaches. Quantitative traditionalists adopt theories and concepts that are compatible with positivism. Specifically, quantitative traditionalists argue that social phenomena should be studied like a physical occurrence (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2010). Moreover, they argue that the researcher is independent from the object of the study and believe that social science and educational research should be value-free and objective. The quantitative paradigm gives much importance to value-free or neutral assumptions claiming that sources of scientific findings can be identified in a valid and reliable manner. Qualitative traditionalists, on the other hand, disregard positivism. They believe in the supremacy of hermeneutics, humanism, relativism, and constructivism (Punch, 2009). They argue that the observer and the observed cannot be independent from each other, that objective or value-free assumptions are neither advantageous nor achievable, that research is subjective and value-laden, and that it is not possible to separate completely cause and effect. In addition, qualitative traditionalists are distinguished by an aversion to the passive, indifferent, and detached form of research, favoring instead a comprehensive, in-depth, and thick description. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010) identified 1960s as the precise date of the development of mixed methods research. They also discovered a later combination of other quantitative and qualitative paradigms during the 1990s, which they referred to as ‘mixed models’ research. Afterward, Maxwell and Loomis introduced another perspective of mixed methods paradigm—combination of multiple methodologies. They explained that mixed methods are made up of not only quantitative and qualitative methodologies but also research questions, conceptual framework, objective or purpose of the research and validity techniques. They describe their model as an ‘interactive design’ composed of two fundamental aspects: the elements themselves and how these are interconnected (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010, 11). The framework of Maxwell and Loomis embodies a more qualitative view of mixed method research, highlighting specifically, holistic interpretation or analysis, context, and the way by which a specific mixture of qualitative and quantitative components work in actual practice, contrary to a more quantitative framework rooted in comparison and classification. Aliaga and Gunderson (2000 as cited in Muijs, 2010, 1) provide a clear and accurate definition of the quantitative research paradigm: “Quantitative research is ‘Explaining phenomena by collecting numerical data that are analyzed using mathematically based methods (in particular statistics)” (Muijs, 2010, 1-2). The exactness of quantitative research is reflected in the above definition. Quantitative studies are focused on gathering numerical or statistical data. They use mathematical methods. This is contrary to qualitative studies. Qualitative data are not frequently or automatically numerical, and thus cannot be subjected to statistical or mathematical analysis. Other descriptions of quantitative research put emphasis on the ideas that support positivism in terms of attaining objectivity, determining causal connections, using deductive judgment, and being hypothesis-oriented (Johnson & Christensen, 2010). In general, quantitative approaches in educational research have focused on experimental methods that tried to imitate scientific methods employed in the natural sciences. Carr and Kemmis (1986 as cited in Shaw, 2012) reveal that there were two explanations for adopting the quantitative approaches of the scientific method into the arena of educational research. Primarily, the methods, objectives, and concepts of quantitative research employed in the natural sciences were relevant to educational research. Based on the principles of quantitative research, a strong assumption has emerged that to study and to make clear descriptions of findings or facts were of substantial value in carrying out educational research. The quantitative research design of the natural sciences focuses on discovering the universal truth (Shaw, 2012, 146-147). Hence, quantitative approaches in educational research have tried to find out current realities under the research assumption that research should be an objective endeavor from the subjective perspective of the observer or researcher. Smith (1983 as cited in Sherman & Webb, 1988) explained that there was an assumption that “neutral, scientific language” (Sherman & Webb, 1988, 13) should be embedded in quantitative methods in order to determine accurate facts. Objective and impartial scientific language implies articulating the research by numbers which was generally recognized and had consistent purpose in all research settings. Furthermore, objective scientific language was capable of explicitly demonstrating research findings without the subjective interpretation of the researcher (Saks & Allsop, 2007). Specifically, research findings are separate from the standpoint of the researcher. As stated by Carr and Kemmis (1986), a research was viewed as “an outsider to the research” (p. 162). Generally, quantitative methods in educational research stress the identification of current facts by using objective scientific language. In a philosophical point of view, this argument is rooted in a ‘subject-object relationship’ where in actual phenomenon or the object of study can be separated from the subjective viewpoint of the researcher (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2010, 8). For that reason, the outcomes of the data analysis and interpretation are expressed objectively and numerically. The objective of quantitative approaches is the unearthing of universal truth. According to Bergman (2008), universal truth implies that the findings of the research are relevant all over the world, irrespective of place, time, and other variables. Contrary to quantitative methods in educational research, qualitative approaches in education assume that the subjective viewpoint of the researcher profoundly influences the interpretation and analysis of research findings. Qualitative methods in educational research emerged due to arguments against quantitative research method in education. Proponents of quantitative methods in education usually have experienced problems articulating their findings when employing only the quantitative approach (Conrad & Serlin, 2011). As a result, the researchers have tried to create new frameworks derived from the ideas that what is lacking in quantitative approaches in educational research was the opportunity to include the researcher’s perspectives into the study. Hence, qualitative methods in educational research considered the researcher’s standpoint as an important feature of the research. Therefore, qualitative research in education assumes that the subjective point of view of the researcher is fundamental. Consequently, the subjectivity of the researcher is profoundly and strongly attached to the research. Within this perspective, the subject-object relationship, or the attachment between the researcher and the object of the study, is difficult or not possible to separate. Basically speaking, what a researcher decides to investigate is associated with his/her subjective viewpoint. There is an assumption that the subjectivity of the researcher and research findings cannot be independent from each other. Instead, the researcher’s standpoint and research findings are totally interlocked into each other. Specifically, a researcher is viewed as “an insider to the research” (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007, 40). In a philosophical point of view, this perspective is rooted in a ‘subject-subject relationship’ (p. 40) where in objects of study or facts are subjective. There is an assumption that the researcher behaves based on his or her own belief. Meanwhile, in behavioral and social and education research, mixed methods design is being characterized as the third research framework, together with the conventional quantitative and qualitative approaches. Nevertheless, if mixed methods design is to be regarded the third methodological framework, its fundamental theoretical foundation should be explained. The widely regarded philosophical associate of mixed methods design is pragmatism (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2002). Even though collaboration with pragmatism will not discontinue the philosophical conflict characterizing mixed methods research, it provides a direct and realistic standpoint for researchers trying to employ mixed methods research. Advocates of pragmatism believe that the particular research question is more essential than either the theory behind the method or the data gathering method. For that reason, it is reasonable to merge quantitative and qualitative data gathering methods in a particular research if this offers the best way to approach the research question. Due to the diversity and difficulty of the subject matters studied in education and the possibility for a wider range of research information, mixed methods is an effective way of answering research questions for numerous educational studies (Greene, 2007). Even though mixed methods design has become a widely accepted and used research methodology in education, only a small number of authors have explained the objectives to be attained by employing mixed method research or offered practical recommendation for carrying out such endeavor. There are six principles commonly identified in the literature on mixed method research (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010, 411): (1) triangulation, (2) complementarity, (3) initation, (4) development, (5) expansion, and (6) enhancement of significant findings. An Analysis of Two Mixed Method Studies Mixed method research has been used in many educational studies, such as those focusing on juvenile delinquents. Onwuegbuzie and Daley (2008), in their study A Mixed Methods Investigation of Male Juvenile Delinquents’ Attributions toward Violence, carried out an investigation wherein they tried to determine the reasons why young people display aggression or perpetrate violent acts. The researchers discovered that juvenile delinquents have a tendency to perpetrate ‘violence attribution errors’, which is described as adverse emotional reactions to adverse social relationships which afterward function as precursors to threatened or vulnerable behaviors (Onwuegbuzie & Daley, 2008). They formulated the Violence Attribution Survey, a questionnaire intended to measure attributions assigned by the youth to the actions of others engaged in aggressive behavior. The researchers used the ‘six-stage concurrent mixed methodological’ inquiry, which employed both ‘mixed methods data-analytical’ procedures (Onwuegbuzie & Daley, 2008, 4). A mixed methods design showed that the juvenile delinquents perpetrated violence attribution errors most of the time. The mixed methods design used specifically a phenomenological inquiry which demonstrated seven issues arising from the causes of juveniles’ contributory attributions: conflict resolution, fate, poor judgment, irresponsibility, provocation, violation of rights, and self-control (Onwuegbuzie & Daley, 2008, 8). The second mixed method research is entitled Alternative education and juvenile delinquency by Nicole M. Prior. The objective of this study was to examine the correlation between patterns of juvenile crime and effectiveness of alternative education. The objectives of the mixed method research were dual. The primary objective was to identify the effect of the adoption of quality assurance in alternative education. In particular, the research was interested in finding out if the quality assurance system enhances the effectiveness of alternative education institutions. The findings of the study showed that comprehensive execution of the quality assurance system enhanced students’ tendency to go back to their home schools after completing their alternative education (Prior, 2012). Moreover, the findings from the quantitative analysis demonstrated that the adoption of quality assurance by alternative education institutions does not encourage higher attendance of students in their home schools after completion of alternative education (Prior, 2012). The second objective of this mixed method research was to identify if a premium alternative education would enhance the encouraging school outcomes of students, hence leading to a decline in the prevalence of crime after completing alternative education (Prior, 2012). The findings from quantitative analysis showed that half-done implementation of quality assurance reduced the possibility that students would be apprehended or taken into custody after release from an alternative education institution, but total implementation of quality assurance did not (Prior, 2012). In general, the results indicated that quality assurance does not considerably influence the possibility of an apprehension after release from an alternative education institution. According to Sandelowski (2001 as cited in Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2002) “counting is essential to ensuring descriptive (getting the ‘facts’ of the case right), interpretive (getting participants’ interpretations of events right), and/or theoretical (developing an interpretation that fits these facts) validity” (p. 361). This statement justifies Daley and Onwuegbuzie’s and Prior’s use of mixed methods design. Quantitative techniques assist researchers in determining the internal validity and reliability of their qualitative findings. Likewise, qualitative methods assist researchers in determining the internal strength of statistical findings by allowing them to accept or reject competing assumptions. Since quantitative analysis offer more mathematical accuracy, while qualitative analysis characterize more descriptive accuracy, the application of mixed methods design provides the likelihood of merging mathematical accuracy and descriptive accuracy within a single analysis (Spitzlinger, 2010). Per se, validity and reliability is improved. Because quantitative analyses have a tendency to be systematized or homogenized, they are often simple to imitate or reproduce. Nevertheless, although transmission of systematic methods is a strong point of mathematically based investigations, interpretation of results is a weak point. Specifically, quantitative analyses are more focused on findings than with data interpretations (Spitzlinger, 2010). Basically speaking, the quantitative analyses used by Daley and Onwuegbuzie and Prior were inclined toward the visual presentation of their results and measurements. In contrast, a strong point of qualitative analyses is that they usually embody an effort to guarantee that the outcomes are as significant and explanatory as possible. Furthermore, qualitative analyses have a tendency to interpret findings in a social and cultural perspective. Nevertheless, while furnishing meaningful interpretations to a group of findings is a specific strong point of qualitative method, describing data about the systematic methods employed and the primary components of the analysis is a weak point (Creswell, 2002). Mixed methods design, therefore, provides a way of dealing with these relative weak points of qualitative and quantitative analyses by taking into consideration subject matters associated with both data analysis and interpretation. According to Greene (2007), due to the fact that mixed method research is still developing, the responsibility is on proponents of mixed method research to offer comprehensive interpretational and technical data to their audience. Researchers have the opportunity to make crucial decisions that characterize the mixed methods design employed in their research. These choices reflect the various ways that the qualitative and quantitative strands of the research interrelate with each other. A ‘strand’ is defined as an element of a research that involves the fundamental procedure of carrying out qualitative or quantitative inquiry (Creswell & Clark, 2010, 63-64): problem identification, data gathering, data analysis, and interpretation of results. A crucial decision in mixed methods design is the degree of interaction between the qualitative and quantitative strands in the research. The degree of interaction is the level to which the independence and interaction of both strands are sustained. Greene (2007 as cited in Creswell & Clark, 2010 believed that this choice is the “most salient and critical” (p. 64) for developing a mixed methods research. She then emphasized two common choices for an interaction (Creswell & Clark, 2010, 64): An independent level of interaction occurs when the quantitative and qualitative strands are implemented so that they are independent from the other—that is, the two strands are distinct and the researcher keeps the quantitative and qualitative research questions, data collection, and data analysis separate. When the study is independent, the researcher only mixes the two strands when drawing conclusions during the overall interpretation at the end of the study. An interactive level of interaction occurs when a direct interaction exists between the quantitative and qualitative strands of the study. Through this direct interaction, the two methods are mixed before the final interpretation. This interaction can occur at different points in the research process and in many different ways. For example, the design and conduct of one strand may depend on the results from the other strand, the data from one strand may be converted into the other type and then the different data sets are analyzed together, or one strand may be implemented within a framework based on the other strand type. The studies of Daley and Onwuegbuzie and Prior used an interactive level of interaction. They purposely combined the quantitative and qualitative strands in the different parts of their studies. They used qualitative analysis to provide a meaningful interpretation of their quantitative results. The basic underlying principle behind mixed methods design is that researchers can gain more knowledge about their research topic if they can merge the strong points of qualitative research design with the strong points of quantitative methods while balancing simultaneously the weak points of each research design. This has been referred to as the fundamental principle of mixed methods research: “combine the methods in a way that achieves complementary strengths and non-overlapping weaknesses” (Punch, 2009, 290) There is a forceful sense to this basic principle. Nevertheless, for mixed method research to gain wider acceptance in educational research the arena of research methods should detach from the traditional quantitative-qualitative conflict. Besides recognition of the particular strong points and weak points of the two research designs, this progress also needed (Punch, 2009, 290-291): Moving away from a preoccupation with apparently irreconcilable paradigms, and a willingness to embrace multiple paradigms; The subsequent emergence of pragmatism as the underlying philosophical approach, with stress on the idea that the methods used in research should be determined by the questions asked; Appreciation of important similarities in the underlying logic of the qualitative and quantitative approaches, as different but potentially complementary forms of empirical inquiry. Patton (1990 as cited in Creswell & Clark, 2010) argued that one of the primary benefits of employing the mixed method research is the concept of triangulation. This concept claims that the validity of the findings from the application of different research designs establishes the suitability or correctness of the results of the research. A mixed method approach facilitates the use of narrative, images, and words within the process of data gathering. All these qualitative features of the research enhance the data presented through the mathematical procedure (Ridenour, Benz, & Newman, 2008). Numerical data give accuracy, whereas the narrative, images, and words provide the contextual features of the result. As an outcome of having the amount of available information for data analysis and interpretation of the phenomenon, a broad and more complete range of hypotheses and/or research questions can be determined. Basically speaking, researchers are not restricted as regards the extensiveness of the questions to be investigated within the research (Hartas, 2010). Due to the fact that both qualitative and quantitative features of the topic are being studied through the mixed methods design, researchers adopt various methodologies to create the most appropriate research design to deal with the established problem. A further strong point envisioned by the application of a mixed methods design for research concerns the interest of the evidence. This consequent virtue from the comprehensive data transpires from the triangulation—‘convergence and corroboration’—of the findings of research (Creswell & Clark, 2010, 77). Because the data are processed via different procedures, the validity and reliability of the findings is reinforced. Another strong point related to the application of mixed methods design can be distinguished when balancing perspectives and ideas emerge that could have been overlooked if only a single research approach were used (Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2010). The application of both qualitative and quantitative methodology enables researchers to come up with a broader and more in-depth interpretation of the established research findings, as it is viewed from diverse perspectives. Nevertheless, mixed method research is not perfect; it also has inherent weaknesses. When both qualitative and quantitative approaches are used, researchers should be quite knowledgeable with both approaches, particularly if the two approaches are administered at the same time. If researchers do not feel confident about their skills in applying both approaches, researchers may be obliged to accomplish the procedure successfully (Punch, 2009). The combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches should not be applied unsystematically. When this technique is chosen for operationalization, caution should be exercised in the process of gaining knowledge about the different methodologies and techniques to facilitate the effective integration of the needed paradigms (Spitzlinger, 2010). According to Punch (2009), mixed methods design can also be very costly to accomplish due to the need for teams, and it can lead to unnecessary objectives and activities. As any researcher chooses to employ this research design, justifications for the choice made should be substantiated and documented. These justifications have to be rooted in a systematic knowledge of the important features of both the qualitative and quantitative approaches. Decisive rationale for choosing a mixed methods design to research questions should be given to make sure that the readers understand the justifications for the choices made. These justifications are most frequently mentioned in the introductory part of the research report, the discussion of research objectives, or the summary of the methodologies used (Creswell, 2008). As researchers begin this discussion about the justification, the main concern of the process of data gathering should be the one major feature that is articulated explicitly and succinctly. This discussion deals with the issue of whether the qualitative and quantitative findings are both highlighted evenly (Creswell, 2008). In whatever choice researchers make with data prioritization, clear and concise justification for the decision should be cautiously and comprehensively discussed within the research. Creswell and Clark (2010) have explained the labor-rigorous procedure required for the use of diverse aspects of data gathering and analysis. The procedure must not be viewed as a simpler method of attaining results but instead as a procedure for acquiring more in-depth and wide-ranging information about the topic being researched. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004 as cited in Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010, 88) argued that the important factor directing this procedure must be the established problem or research questions. From the established research questions, researchers should have the freedom to choose those research methodologies that most appropriately deal with the research problem, thus acquiring the best chance to get substantial answers. If only one research method is regarded the best alternative, then researchers should use that research approach (Shaw, 2012). When the research question is seen as increasingly complicated, nevertheless, all possibilities of research method should be considered to determine the most effective way to acquire a comprehensive knowledge of the topic being studied. In summary, mixed method research employ both inductive and deductive analyses in trying to substantiate, balance, and enhance the research outcomes (Bergman, 2008). The consequent data analysis has a tendency to be an objective and unbiased perspective of the research procedure with a coherent and reasonable conclusion to the research. Conclusions The importance of the three methodological paradigms—quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods—rests on numerous factors which are mostly dependent on the researcher’s decision. However, the most important decision that a researcher should make concerns the identification of the research problem. The research problem should drive the development of the research design for a particular project. The studies of Daley and Onwuegbuzie and Prior about juvenile delinquency prove that a clearly identified research problem directs the general direction of the research. Their studies evidently require a mixed methods design due to the importance of statistical facts about the prevalence of juvenile delinquency and the meaningful interpretation of the behavioral pattern of juvenile delinquents and rate of juvenile crimes after undergoing disciplinary actions or any other rehabilitative measures. Mixed method research has definitely proven its worth in the field of education, social sciences, and behavioral science. This implies that the traditional dichotomy between quantitative and qualitative research designs is beginning to disappear. References Bergman, M. (2008). Advances in Mixed Methods Research: Theories and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge, and Action Research. London: Routledge. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge. Conrad, C. & Serlin, R. (2011). The SAGE Handbook for Research in Education: Pursuing Ideas as the Keystone of Exemplary Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Creswell, J. (2002). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Creswell, J. & Clark, P.V. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Greene, J. (2007). Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Hartas, D. (2010). Educational Research and Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Hesse-Biber, S. & Leavy, P. (2010). The Practice of Qualitative Research. London: Routledge. Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2010). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Lodico, M., Spaulding, D., & Voegtle, K. (2010). Methods in Educational Research: From Theory to Practice. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. Muijs, D. (2010). Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Onwuegbuzie, A. & Daley, C. (2008). A Mixed Methods Investigation of Male Juvenile Delinquents’ Attributions toward Violence. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 14(1), 1-11. Prior, N. (2012). Alternative education and juvenile delinquency. Udini ProQuest. Retrieved from http://udini.proquest.com/view/alternative-education-and-juvenile-goid:877950658/ Punch, K. (2009). Introduction to Research Methods in Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Ridenour, C., Benz, C., & Newman, I. (2008). Mixed Methods Research: Exploring the Interactive Continuum. New York: SIU Press. Saks, M. & Allsop, J. (2007). Researching Health: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Shaw, I. (2012). Practice and Research. England: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Sherman, R. & Webb, R. (1988). Qualitative Research in Education: Focus & Methods. London: Routledge. Spitzlinger, R. (2010). Mixed Method Research- Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Germany: GRIN Verlag. Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2002). Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Read More