Learning Journal
Learning Journal
Learning Journal
-Having hard edge and being concerned -They are soft, descriptive and
with process outcomes, explanation, concerned with how and why things
generalization and the derivation of happen as they do.
laws.
-They are held to stem a humanistic
-They are objective, experimental and, tradition. They dray on insight and
value the empirical observation of interpretation and allow researchers to
cause and effect. draw on their subjective responses to
evidence.
-Numerical evidence is the basis for
drawing conclusions. -The emphasiss is on wholeness and
detailed connections between our social
worlds, emotional and cognitive
processes and economic circumstances,
all which have to be understood in
order to recreate the meaning that we
give to our lives.
The quantitative test specifies the nature of the difference in the research hypothesis
and the hypothesis that is tested is the null hypothesis. A quantitative approach
would feed the data into a statistical procedure in order to determine proof.
The qualitative hypothesis explores not only whether the levels of motivation are
different but also why they are different. A qualitative research project would seek
to see if these issues played a part differentially between ethnic groups but, if not,
the cultural dimension rather than the level of motivation could be the prime
influence on attainment and this would have to be explored further. In a qualitative
approach all we have are the judgement and the argument of the researcher. Proof is
whether our professional colleagues or tutors accept our conclusions.
(iii) The character of mixed methods research
Mixed methods research brings together quantitative and qualitative research approaches. It
could include, for instance, using survey and experimental approaches together or an
ethnographic approach with a case study.
It has been controversial to mix quantitative and qualitative approaches in a single research
design. In education the debate appears to have been particularly loud. For some
researchers on either side of the quan/qual divide, the incorporation of a procedure from
‘the other side’ is tantamount to supping with the devil. A number of reasons can be
identified.
Some researchers so identify with an approach that any transgression against its
principles is seen as an attack.
Some subjects have a research tradition that is dominated by one approach to
research.
Some researchers regard epistemology not as a description of how research is
conducted but as a rule book that specifies how all research should be conducted.
Some researchers follow the implicit or even explicit guidance of those who fund
research.
Some traditions are given more weight when students are taught about research
methods. For professor Stephen Gorard and Dr. Chris Taylor, both British
educational researchers, the small number of quantitative studies in education was a
consequence of this over-emphasis on qualitative research approaches in research
methods courses, as well as of the attitude of students to numeracy and their
capability in mathematics. Students are taught more about qualitative approaches
than about quantitative and are less able or inclined to use quantitative.
Quantitative designs fit more easily than others into cost-benefit analysis; and this is
just the sort of approach to decision making that governments use.
(a) Mixed methods research: is it a new approach?
Burke Johnson and Anthony Onwegbuzie (2004) referred to it as ‘a paradigm whose
time has come’. Gorard and Taylor (2004) have called it ‘a third methodological
movement’.
Combining methods was relatively unproblematic until the 1980s and 1990s. As the
numbers of academics and the scale of academic work grew, an intellectual iron
curtain grew up behind which the two research traditions defined and refined their
operating principles in such a way as to promote exclusion. Those who brought
methods together in order to understand an issue had to argue their case. The
appropriate basis on which to test their case was the construction of a third way with
its own distinctive epistemology.
It should have rules of procedure, though it is fair to say that those for qualitative
research are less prescriptive than for quantitative and apply at the level of
methodology rather than epistemology, while quantitative analysis rests on the
principle of randomness. Some order is emerging in the ways in which methods can
be combined, though these are either conceptual typologies or operational guidance
based on what seems to work. The need to be flexible in the way we use research
methods to resolve specific research issues is now much more widely accepted.
(b) The argument that mixed methods are fundamentally positivist
Lynne Giddings calls mixed methods research ‘positivist dressed up in drag’, she is
critical of its being positioned as a new research style because of its continuing
reference to its parent research traditions and because quantitative principles must
strongly influence the research design.
(c) The argument that mixed methods are not a new approach
The absence of an accepted conceptual infrastructure for mixed methods certainly
supports the argument against the approach being a new tradition, as the world
evolves, frameworks that do not change will gradually lose touch with what they
seek to manage. Innovation is a necessity in a changing environment, in research as
in anything else. In research, as in life, the past is another country.
Qualitative approaches
(a) A framework of practices
We are faced with a myriad of approaches and a willingness amongst researchers to mix
and match to meet particular needs. Qualitative researchers do not limit themselves to
numbers in order to create understanding and find answers. Qualitative research seeks
understanding from any evidence that reflects our motives, our values, our attitudes, the
bonds that tie us, in other words the deep personal, social and cultural drivers of behavior,
because understanding behavior is often the route to solving a problem.
To see qualitative researchers just have to accept what people through their natural
behavior provide; they can stimulate a response by asking people questions, or by creating
situations in which behavior can be observed, or by asking people to express themselves
through a particular medium. Whether we stimulate a response or not, the processes for
collecting data are the same (watching, asking, listening, reading and perhaps even tasting
and smelling. Qualitative researchers are prepared to take data from any source and
evaluate it as evidence. It is this preparedness to break conventions that gives
qualitative research its identity.
(b) What can go wrong?
The criteria for judging a quantitative approach or method are validity, reliability,
and objectivity.
Validity means that the processes of collecting data accurately reflect the
aspects that they are meant to measure
Reliability means that the outcomes of measurement are stable overtime
always assuming that other things remain the same
Objectivity means that the researchers judgments are dispassionate and by
implication that another disinterested researcher would reach the same
conclusion when faced with the same evidence.
For qualitative research the criteria is composed by credibility, dependability and
confirmability.
Credibility requires that the subjects who provided the data believe that the
interpretation is credible from their own perspective.
In the case of dependability the only real test for it is whether the researcher
explains the context for the research sufficiently for the audience to agree
with their conclusions which appears to be just another route to ensuring that
the research and conclusions are reliable.
Confirmability is the assumption that others would reach the same
conclusion.
we have to believe ultimately in the honesty and integrity of the researcher. With
sufficient information on how data were collected and analyzed, we can make this
judgment and understand the personal framework within which the researcher was
objective.
Reliability and validity
We have to be sure that what we gather in represents the situation that we intended
to examine and that, if another researcher were to investigate using our approach,
the results would be the same.
One particular issue for qualitative researchers to be aware of is the influence of the
relationship between the researcher and the subject. Even if the social dynamics do
not evolve, it is possible that the very act of being investigated may affect the
subject and the outcomes.
The Hawthorne effect
The Hawthorne effect describes a situation in which outcomes contrary to
those expected are caused either by a contrariness or a desire to please or
achieve. What the researchers in the 1920s appeared to find was that as
lighting quality was reduced worker productivity increased when the
opposite was expected; the researchers concluded that the workers felt they
were important because they were being tested and so responded with
greater efforts.
How can a qualitative researcher demonstrate reliability and validity? The answer is by a
process called triangulation. It seeks to validate a claim, a process or an outcome through at
least two independent sources. How can triangulation be implanted?
Repeat data collection by another researcher as a test of reliability.
Obtaining information about the same process from two or more different people
involved with the process.
Corroborating interview evidence with documentary evidence or vice versa.
While there may be differences in detail or nuance these are acceptable if the thrust from
both sources is the same.
Objectivity and integrity
Objectivity must always be a goal for every researcher, though limits can be placed on it.
We can be partial in relation to, and allow our values to influence, the research we choose
to do but we should strive to be impartial in the way we use evidence to reach conclusions.
If this is done, then the researcher is demonstrating integrity and integrity is the very
foundation of research quality. Lack of integrity corrupts an investigation.
To make full use of the qualitative approach we have to:
Believe in its value to resolve research issues.
Understand the implications of using a particular approach.
Demonstrate how we ensure quality in our research.
Be open in all we do.
Mixed methods research
(a) Frameworks for combining methods (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003)
Mixed method design, the research approach includes both qualitative and
quantitative data collection and data analysis. They also include the conversion of
data from qualitative to quantitative.
Mixed model design, the trigger to a mixed model design is the research question,
which should take the research in directions that require both approaches.
Multi-level design, in which one approach dominates at one level and the other at
another.
(b) What can mixing methods achieve? (Mason, 2006)
1. To give context to or illustrate a bigger picture.
2. To answer questions that are related but which require different research
approaches.
3. To ask questions that intersect at different points in a hierarchy or spatial
relationship. Going from a broad picture to detailed studies.
4. To test the accuracy of evidence. With the flexibility that mixed methods offers
there is an increased potential for new ways of triangulating evidence. The use of
quantitative and qualitative approaches together allows researchers to compare
results in a complementary way. They cannot validate each other with any precision
but they can reinforce each other.
5. To ask contrasting but related questions. Educational issues are frequently multi-
dimensional, and a comprehensive evaluation will often require us to mix and match
methods.
6. To let the issue determine the approach. Where we have an issue perhaps not even a
clear understanding of a question, we can only start and seek to resolve the issue
stage by stage. Situations where exploration or unfolding is appropriate (Petter and
Gallivan, 2004):
1) Refining our research.
2) Looking at things that are different from what was expected or at unusual or
extreme results.
3) Expanding our investigation to expose and assess more issues and factors at
work.
The implication of an unfolding research process is that an entire plan of action is
not possible. Stage by stage, new decisions are taken to move the project forward in
ways that are informed by results already obtained or questions that arise.
(c) What can go wrong?
Double trouble
The answer is that anything that can go wrong with either pure qualitative or pure
quantitative research can also go wrong when you mix the approaches. By far the best
solution is to collaborate with someone whose expertise complements ours.
Linking research question(s) with research method(s)
The actual specification of the research question requires great care on our part. We must
explore the issue through existing research and theoretical perspectives before we can set
out the research question or questions. The nature of the research question will shape the
character of our research design. We will need a robust link between question and method;
it means that we have to be sure that the method will generate data appropriate to the
question and, with a mixed method approach. Our research question is likely to be a short
paragraph outlining the complexity of the issue to be explored.
Going off-piste
Doing things in the way that the research question wants them done is what a mixed
methods approach should be all about. We should look at guidelines put forward by other
researchers, judging whether you should work within them and, if you do not, then make
clear why you have not and explain how you determined your way forward.
If there is conflict or the potential for conflict between the research methods that
you choose to generate your data, then those from the dominant method should
generally be preferred.
Data sets should talk to and inform each other. In some cases, our qualitative data
informs the typology created by our survey.
It is preferable to have flexible designs that can respond to unexpected findings or
that can accommodate additional data.
Mixed approaches are particularly appropriate for certain types of research:
Going beyond showing cause and effect to understand how the cause creates the
effect.
Getting to grips with complex issues involving the interplay of behavior, attitudes,
culture and values or understanding what are called ‘wicked problems’, problems
where attempted solutions merely produce more problems (social exclusion, pupil
attainment and intergenerational reproduction of social values, non-attendance at
school, changing the culture in a university, school or college and drug taking and
alcohol abuse amongst young people.
Evaluation of project or activity processes and outcomes.
Long-term longitudinal studies of behavior or performance or attitudes and parallel
studies of changes in the group’s social and cultural context.
Action research, particularly where the research takes the form of an experiment
involving pre-test, intervention and post-test and where the insights of more
qualitative assessments can add considerable value.
To sum up, mixed methods research are cost-effective ways of dealing with complex
issues. However, they do require us to take great care at the stage of specifying the
research issue. An important member of any research project is a critical friend.
Concurrent designs are invaluable when we examine a phenomenon that has several
levels. They are also useful for combining micro and macro perspectives.
QUESTIONS:
How would conclude a mixed method study with an expansion function?