To address the research questions presented in chapter 1, mixed methods, a ‘pragmatic approach’ (Morgan, 2007, p. 48) that began to gain acceptance in the 1980s was adopted. Although mixed methods research has received growing attention from the research community (Biesta, 2012), there remain a few confusions over the term ‘mixed methods’. While Greene et al. (1989) regard it as a research design, Creswell and Clark (2007) suggest that it can be understood as either a methodology or a method.
Within this study, mixed methods is understood as a research approach (Lee and Greene, 2007; Baumfield et al., 2012) which involves the utilisation of both qualitative and quantitative instruments and the integration of data collected using these instruments to yield a better research result. ‘Mixed methods methodology’ as its name indicates, refers to the methodology of mixing qualitative and quantitative methods. As a methodology, it entails philosophical assumptions that guide the collection, analysis and mixture of data (Creswell and Clark, 2007). Accordingly, ‘mixed methods research’ refers to a type of research in which both qualitative and quantitative methods, as well as viewpoints and inference techniques are used to produce compelling research evidence (Johnson et al., 2007; Biesta, 2012). Though at times it is called ‘multi-strategy research’ or ‘multi- method research’ (Denscombe, 2007), recent literature suggests that multi-method research tends to refer to research which employs research techniques belonging to only one research paradigm, either qualitative or quantitative (Johnson et al., 2007).
47 3.1.1 Rationales for choosing mixed methods
Research has indicated numerous benefits of a mixed methods approach. In their review study, Greene et al. (1989) suggest that mixed methods can bring about triangulation; results from quantitative and qualitative methods provide understandings of a phenomenon from multiple perspectives. Mixed methods research can be used for the developmental purpose; results of the first method can be used to develop the second. Complementarity, initiation (discovery of contradiction) and expansion (extension of the breath and range of inquiry) are three other strengths of mixed methods. More recently, Bryman (2006) identified sixteen reasons underpinning this research approach 5. It should be noted, however, that mixed methods is not a panacea that works in every situation (Creswell and Clark, 2011). It should not be based on a forced compromise between researchers of different paradigms working within a project, or done for dubious reasons (Bergman, 2011).
For the purpose of this study, a mixed methods approach was selected for two major reasons. First, the literature on the impact of assessment practices and school cultures on teaching for CT indicates a lack of research employing both qualitative and quantitative methods while the combination of these methods may help avoid bias which tends to occur in a solo-method study (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2003; Gorard and Taylor, 2004; Bergman, 2011). Second, mixed methods approach is appropriate to this study, which seeks to understand causal relationships between variables. By using both quantitative and qualitative data and both deductive and inductive approaches, one may not only achieve a general picture of what happens but also provide detailed explanation of why it might have occurred (Morrison, 2009; Howe, 2012).
3.1.2 Obstacles to mixed methods
Although mixed methods research is in vogue, there are several caveats. First, some methodologists hold the view that it is invalid to combine qualitative and quantitative methods and strategies in a single study because they belong to different research paradigms, with contradictory assumptions about the world nature (see Newby, 2010;
5
They are triangulation, offset, completeness, process, different research questions, explanation, unexpected results, instrument development, sampling, credibility, context, illustration, utility, confirmation and discovery, diversity of views, and enhancement.
48
Bergman, 2011). Seen from this stance, either one believes the world exists independently of human knowledge or one does not; there is no middle way (Coe, 2012). Second, recent research evidence has indicated a high likelihood of contradictory findings derived from different research methods employed within a single study (Slonim-Nevo and Nevo, 2009; Baumfield et al., 2012). In such circumstances, it is challenging to decide whose account should be privileged: that of the scientist or that of the research participant (Torrance, 2012). The third impediment concerns report writing-up. Whilst qualitative or quantitative researchers can obtain large numbers of directives from numerous associations and research books, there is little guidance for writing mixed methods research reports (Leech, 2012). Finally, research reviews have shown that just a minority of studies attained genuine integration (Greene et al., 1989; Bryman, 2007) and this challenges novice users of the approach.
Despite these above hindrances, mixed methods continues drawing attention from the research community, especially those who support pragmatism such as the author of this study. To pragmatists, the focus of research is results rather than methods; there is no dichotomy between positivism and constructivism (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2003; Denscombe, 2010). To them, both quantitative and qualitative methods are essential as they are what the majority of people employ when dealing with complex issues (Gorard and Taylor, 2004; Creswell and Clark, 2011). Another reason for the growing attraction of mixed methods research could be the fact that it offers more space for innovation and creativity, as so far few standard guidelines or written expectations concerning how to write a mixed methods report have been published (Leech, 2012).