RCH 5301 VIII

RCH 5301, Research Design and Methods 1

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VIII At the end of this unit, you should be able to:

2. Discriminate among the characteristics of qualitative and quantitative research methods. 2.5 Recognize the melding of quantitative and qualitative methodologies into mixed methods.

Required Unit Resources Chapter 3: The Use of Theory Read the following sections from this chapter: Mixed Methods Theory Use Chapter 10: Mixed Methods Procedures (ULO 2.5) Unit Lesson Lesson: Mixed Methods: All Mixed Up? (ULO 2.5) Congratulations for persevering throughout the course and arriving at this final unit of the term. The course began with an explanation of the purpose and value of studying research methods, which is to enhance decision-making in order to reduce risk and improve performance. While perfect information is rarely available to assist in making difficult decisions, employing research methods and evidence-based decision-making can help improve the odds of achieving favorable outcomes. This course focused predominately on the positivist tradition of using a quantitative methodological research strategy, empiricism, and the scientific method to accomplish research goals. This was intentional since quantitative research is well-suited to problem solving in today’s data-driven world. Data is ubiquitous, inexpensive, and overwhelmingly used for strategic decision-making, which makes a quantitative methodological strategy a superior choice to address many problems. What has been provided this term is enough knowledge for students to design their own quantitative research projects, whether they be career- related, personal, or in pursuit of terminal degrees. Notwithstanding the attention paid to quantitative research in the course, Unit VII addressed qualitative research and Unit VIII discusses mixed methods research. Since research methods is a new area of study for most students, this is intended to give a flavor for the interpretivist research tradition.

Mixed Methods Research The argument for using a mixed methods research (MMR) strategy, sometimes referred to as pragmatism, is that the researcher has access to the best of both worlds: quantitative and qualitative methodological strategies. MMR integrates the philosophical assumptions of each of these research strategies to benefit from both a breadth and depth of understanding of their research topic. This begs the question of why a researcher would not then always choose an MMR strategy over simply a quantitative or qualitative approach. The following will summarize some of the pros and cons of MMR and answer this question.

UNIT VIII STUDY GUIDE Mixed Methods

RCH 5301, Research Design and Methods 2

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title

Arguments in Favor of MMR There are three reasons for using an MMR strategy.

• The first, as alluded to, is that MMR adds both breadth and depth to the study. This can be accomplished simultaneously by asking closed-ended and open-ended questions to research participants. The data collected through close-ended questions permits the use of inferential statistics to generalize results to a population. The data collected through open-ended questions provides the benefit of obtaining deeper insights not possible through structured, self-completion questionnaires. Qualitative findings can also be used to create theories, which are then tested through quantitative research. This advantage is called triangulation, which is using one research strategy to validate findings using a different strategy.

• A second reason for using MMR is that the individual strategies are complementary to one another. The respective strengths of quantitative and qualitative strategies compensate for the weaknesses of the other. This results in MMR findings that are greater than the sum of the individual parts.

• A third justification for MMR is that findings from the opposing methodological strategies can introduce new ways of visualizing the research problem that would not have occurred if only one strategy were used (Dawadi et al., 2021).

It is important for the researcher choosing MMR to be deliberative in the research design. Research designs are exploratory (qualitative), descriptive (quantitative/non-experimental), and explanatory (quantitative/experimental). Even in the early stage of design, the complexity of MMR becomes evident as it is necessary for the researcher to prioritize things like research design, analytical approach, data collection methods, sampling design, and data analysis procedures. Prioritization is best done in consideration of the research problems and questions. Priority can be given to the quantitative methodology, the qualitative methodology, or equal priority between the two. Once prioritization is decided, the researcher must decide how much interaction there will be between the two methodologies. One straightforward approach is to keep the methodologies independent during all stages of the study through data analysis, only to be mixed during the interpretation of findings. It is possible, however, to mix the methodologies at all stages of the study, including the design, the analytical approach, data collection method, sampling, data analysis, and interpretation and reporting of results (Dawadi et al., 2021). Arguments Against MMR A practical reason for avoiding MMR is that it generally requires more time, more money, and more expertise than would be required using a quantitative or qualitative strategy alone. Data collection and data analysis are particularly lengthy endeavors in MMR. Qualitative research and interviewing participants are particularly time intensive. This leads to greater costs and budget requirements. Another reason for avoiding MMR is a lack of research experience in both quantitative and qualitative strategies. Having the knowledge to correctly select from the wide array of methods available, properly implement the chosen methods, adequately collect the data, sufficiently analyze the data, and appropriately interpret the results requires a great deal of expertise. Many researchers, however, are only proficient in their favored research traditions, positivist, or interpretivist. If researchers lack the expertise to appropriately prioritize the design and methods since they each have their own set of advantages and challenges that are dependent on the goals of the research project, threats to validity and reliability are possible (Dawadi et al., 2021; Karpatschof, 2007). A final MMR challenge stems from the influence of results occurring from the mixing of methodologies. For example, a sequential data collection and analysis could lead to the results of the first process influencing the results of the second process. Even results from concurrent designs have been found to influence one another. While proponents of MMR argue that quantitative and qualitative methodologies are complementary, the reality for many researchers is that results are often confounding or contradictory, placing validity and reliability in jeopardy (Dawadi et al., 2021; Karpatschof, 2007).

In Closing As was discussed in Unit I, one’s research tradition normally predetermines the research strategy chosen for the study of phenomena. A quantitative strategy is aligned with positivism, and a qualitative strategy is aligned

RCH 5301, Research Design and Methods 3

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title

with interpretivism. Although there are no codified rules about employing research strategies, it would seem inconsistent, at best, for a true positivist to use qualitative methods given their loyalty to empiricism. The critique of qualitative research as being too subjective, difficult to replicate, unable to generalize results, and lacking in transparency is completely at odds with the quantitative methodology and the positivist tradition. Similarly, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for an interpretivist to use quantitative methods to determine the meaning observed in participant observation. An interpretivist simply could not use quantitative research to quantify the multiple meanings that are created through multiple experiences and realities. From the interpretivist’s perspective, quantitative research fails to recognize the social world as different from the natural world, forces qualitative data into numbers, relies on instruments and procedures that fail to reflect everyday life, and analyzes relationships between variables that neglect the human interaction that brings meaning to those relationships. This is completely at odds with the qualitative methodology and interpretivist tradition. So, for every proponent that argues for the complimentary relationship between quantitative and qualitative methodologies, there are opponents that argue MMR is a non-starter due to the incompatibility of quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Researchers, especially those who are novice, should develop a level of competence with each methodological strategy before choosing to employ an MMR strategy, or at least have a compelling reason for using a dual strategy. It should not be assumed that a two-in-one approach automatically translates into a superior strategy (Bell et al., 2022).

References Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2022). Business research methods (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780192640505 Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2022). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (6th ed.). SAGE. https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781071817964 Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., Giri, R. A. (2021, February 24). Mixed-methods research: A discussion on its types,

challenges, and criticisms. Journal of Practical Studies in Education, 2(2), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.46809/jpse.v2i2.20

Karpatschof, B. (2007, October). Bringing quality and meaning to quantitative data – Bringing quantitative

evidence to qualitative observation. Nordic Psychology, 59(3), 191–209. https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dire ct=true&db=edo&AN=32170950&site=eds-live&scope=site

RCH 5301, Research Design and Methods 1

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VIII At the end of this unit, you should be able to:

2. Discriminate among the characteristics of qualitative and quantitative research methods. 2.5 Recognize the melding of quantitative and qualitative methodologies into mixed methods.

Required Unit Resources Chapter 3: The Use of Theory Read the following sections from this chapter: Mixed Methods Theory Use Chapter 10: Mixed Methods Procedures (ULO 2.5) Unit Lesson Lesson: Mixed Methods: All Mixed Up? (ULO 2.5) Congratulations for persevering throughout the course and arriving at this final unit of the term. The course began with an explanation of the purpose and value of studying research methods, which is to enhance decision-making in order to reduce risk and improve performance. While perfect information is rarely available to assist in making difficult decisions, employing research methods and evidence-based decision-making can help improve the odds of achieving favorable outcomes. This course focused predominately on the positivist tradition of using a quantitative methodological research strategy, empiricism, and the scientific method to accomplish research goals. This was intentional since quantitative research is well-suited to problem solving in today’s data-driven world. Data is ubiquitous, inexpensive, and overwhelmingly used for strategic decision-making, which makes a quantitative methodological strategy a superior choice to address many problems. What has been provided this term is enough knowledge for students to design their own quantitative research projects, whether they be career- related, personal, or in pursuit of terminal degrees. Notwithstanding the attention paid to quantitative research in the course, Unit VII addressed qualitative research and Unit VIII discusses mixed methods research. Since research methods is a new area of study for most students, this is intended to give a flavor for the interpretivist research tradition.

Mixed Methods Research The argument for using a mixed methods research (MMR) strategy, sometimes referred to as pragmatism, is that the researcher has access to the best of both worlds: quantitative and qualitative methodological strategies. MMR integrates the philosophical assumptions of each of these research strategies to benefit from both a breadth and depth of understanding of their research topic. This begs the question of why a researcher would not then always choose an MMR strategy over simply a quantitative or qualitative approach. The following will summarize some of the pros and cons of MMR and answer this question.

UNIT VIII STUDY GUIDE Mixed Methods

RCH 5301, Research Design and Methods 2

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title

Arguments in Favor of MMR There are three reasons for using an MMR strategy.

• The first, as alluded to, is that MMR adds both breadth and depth to the study. This can be accomplished simultaneously by asking closed-ended and open-ended questions to research participants. The data collected through close-ended questions permits the use of inferential statistics to generalize results to a population. The data collected through open-ended questions provides the benefit of obtaining deeper insights not possible through structured, self-completion questionnaires. Qualitative findings can also be used to create theories, which are then tested through quantitative research. This advantage is called triangulation, which is using one research strategy to validate findings using a different strategy.

• A second reason for using MMR is that the individual strategies are complementary to one another. The respective strengths of quantitative and qualitative strategies compensate for the weaknesses of the other. This results in MMR findings that are greater than the sum of the individual parts.

• A third justification for MMR is that findings from the opposing methodological strategies can introduce new ways of visualizing the research problem that would not have occurred if only one strategy were used (Dawadi et al., 2021).

It is important for the researcher choosing MMR to be deliberative in the research design. Research designs are exploratory (qualitative), descriptive (quantitative/non-experimental), and explanatory (quantitative/experimental). Even in the early stage of design, the complexity of MMR becomes evident as it is necessary for the researcher to prioritize things like research design, analytical approach, data collection methods, sampling design, and data analysis procedures. Prioritization is best done in consideration of the research problems and questions. Priority can be given to the quantitative methodology, the qualitative methodology, or equal priority between the two. Once prioritization is decided, the researcher must decide how much interaction there will be between the two methodologies. One straightforward approach is to keep the methodologies independent during all stages of the study through data analysis, only to be mixed during the interpretation of findings. It is possible, however, to mix the methodologies at all stages of the study, including the design, the analytical approach, data collection method, sampling, data analysis, and interpretation and reporting of results (Dawadi et al., 2021). Arguments Against MMR A practical reason for avoiding MMR is that it generally requires more time, more money, and more expertise than would be required using a quantitative or qualitative strategy alone. Data collection and data analysis are particularly lengthy endeavors in MMR. Qualitative research and interviewing participants are particularly time intensive. This leads to greater costs and budget requirements. Another reason for avoiding MMR is a lack of research experience in both quantitative and qualitative strategies. Having the knowledge to correctly select from the wide array of methods available, properly implement the chosen methods, adequately collect the data, sufficiently analyze the data, and appropriately interpret the results requires a great deal of expertise. Many researchers, however, are only proficient in their favored research traditions, positivist, or interpretivist. If researchers lack the expertise to appropriately prioritize the design and methods since they each have their own set of advantages and challenges that are dependent on the goals of the research project, threats to validity and reliability are possible (Dawadi et al., 2021; Karpatschof, 2007). A final MMR challenge stems from the influence of results occurring from the mixing of methodologies. For example, a sequential data collection and analysis could lead to the results of the first process influencing the results of the second process. Even results from concurrent designs have been found to influence one another. While proponents of MMR argue that quantitative and qualitative methodologies are complementary, the reality for many researchers is that results are often confounding or contradictory, placing validity and reliability in jeopardy (Dawadi et al., 2021; Karpatschof, 2007).

In Closing As was discussed in Unit I, one’s research tradition normally predetermines the research strategy chosen for the study of phenomena. A quantitative strategy is aligned with positivism, and a qualitative strategy is aligned

RCH 5301, Research Design and Methods 3

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title

with interpretivism. Although there are no codified rules about employing research strategies, it would seem inconsistent, at best, for a true positivist to use qualitative methods given their loyalty to empiricism. The critique of qualitative research as being too subjective, difficult to replicate, unable to generalize results, and lacking in transparency is completely at odds with the quantitative methodology and the positivist tradition. Similarly, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for an interpretivist to use quantitative methods to determine the meaning observed in participant observation. An interpretivist simply could not use quantitative research to quantify the multiple meanings that are created through multiple experiences and realities. From the interpretivist’s perspective, quantitative research fails to recognize the social world as different from the natural world, forces qualitative data into numbers, relies on instruments and procedures that fail to reflect everyday life, and analyzes relationships between variables that neglect the human interaction that brings meaning to those relationships. This is completely at odds with the qualitative methodology and interpretivist tradition. So, for every proponent that argues for the complimentary relationship between quantitative and qualitative methodologies, there are opponents that argue MMR is a non-starter due to the incompatibility of quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Researchers, especially those who are novice, should develop a level of competence with each methodological strategy before choosing to employ an MMR strategy, or at least have a compelling reason for using a dual strategy. It should not be assumed that a two-in-one approach automatically translates into a superior strategy (Bell et al., 2022).

References Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2022). Business research methods (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.

https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780192640505 Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2022). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (6th ed.). SAGE. https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781071817964 Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., Giri, R. A. (2021, February 24). Mixed-methods research: A discussion on its types,

challenges, and criticisms. Journal of Practical Studies in Education, 2(2), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.46809/jpse.v2i2.20

Karpatschof, B. (2007, October). Bringing quality and meaning to quantitative data – Bringing quantitative

evidence to qualitative observation. Nordic Psychology, 59(3), 191–209. https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dire ct=true&db=edo&AN=32170950&site=eds-live&scope=site