CUMPLIMIENTO DE OBJETIVOS

There has always been much discussion as to where mixed methods research ‘sits’ in relation to mono-method research designs. Because quantitative and qualitative research designs are associated with opposing philosophical positions, quantitative and qualitative research designs are often placed in distinct categories. For instance, qualitative research is associated with constructivism and inductive methodologies.

Conversely, quantitative research is associated with positivism and deductive methodologies. There is much debate over the superiority and the compatibility of these philosophical paradigms, causing division between quantitative and qualitative researchers. This division has been so strong that some researchers choose to define themselves as either being qualitative researchers or quantitative researchers. This makes “accommodation between paradigms impossible… [and thus] ….we are led to a vastly diverse, disparate and totally antithetical ends” (Guba, 1990, p.81). There are many advocates of the ‘incompatibility thesis’ (Howe, 1988) which proposes that quantitative and qualitative methods cannot and should not be mixed. To this end, it would seem that ‘mixed methods’ is not actually possible; that mixing methods involves mixing philosophical paradigms. However, some argue that this incompatibility is largely non-existent and that it overlooks the similarity of the purpose of both quantitative and qualitative researchers; “to describe their data, construct explanatory arguments from their data and speculate about why the outcomes they observed happened as they did” (Sechrest & Sidani, 1995, p.78). Also, both paradigms try to mitigate invalidity and bias, whether it be through implementing techniques to avoid bias or through open discussion of potential bias (Sandelowski, 1986).

Also, there is another line of argument which can be taken in order to counter the proposition of incompatibility. Mixed methods does not try to bridge philosophical paradigms, but instead is driven by a philosophical position of its own; pragmatism.

‘Pragmatic’ means that the research will be ‘problem’ led; fitting the methods to the solution of the problem, as is usually the focus of applied research. According to Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2007, p. 125) pragmatism “is a well-developed and attractive philosophy for integrating perspectives and approaches”. Thus, mixed methods research can be considered as a research paradigm in its own right; the ‘third paradigm’ (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Therefore, the categorical distinction between qualitative and quantitative research then can simply be extended to position mixed methods research categorically between qualitative and quantitative methods.

Pragmatism does not mean mixing both inductive methodologies and deductive methodologies but instead adopts both; moving back and forth between inductive and deductive. For instance, the iterative process between the inductive, qualitative elicitation of the potential predictors of fitness club cancellation, the subsequent deductive, quantitative testing of these predictors, and then the re-visitation of the qualitative findings to explain discrepancies between the quantitative findings suggests that neither an inductive nor a deductive approach was solely taken and instead an ‘abductive’ research strategy was taken. Such a strategy is considered to be taken when inductive and deductive strategies are “intimately intertwined; data and theoretical ideas are played off against one another in a developmental and creative process” (Blaikie, 2010, p. 156).

In essence, pragmatism disassociates research methods from their traditionally associated philosophical paradigms in order to re-associate them with a new paradigm and a new agenda; to help address an identified problem. Bryman (1984, 2007) argues, therefore, that researchers cannot exclusively align research methods with ontological positions and epistemologies. Also, pragmatism does mean mixing subjective and objective epistemologies, and thus requires the balance of attaining a sufficient, subjective closeness to participants with the objective interpretation and communication of the information gathered from this closeness in order to meaningfully address the research problem; ‘intersubjectivity’.

Finally, pragmatism does not mean trying to force context-bound inferences to be generalisable, but instead requires the researcher to specifically identify the extent of inference; the degree to which inferences made within one research context can be potentially ‘transferable’ to other contexts, even if not fully generalisable (Morgan, 2007). Overall, mixed methods research does not mean mixing methodologies, blurring

methodologies, creating fuzziness, or confusing epistemologies. Instead, mixed methods research, due its pragmatist underpinning, allows different methodologies, epistemologies and inference to be integrated. This notion of integration does not mean trying to achieve ‘everything’ with just one method. Instead, integration involves explicit acknowledgement of the different methods whilst also detailing specifically how these have been reconciled with each other.

Because mixed methods research can be argued as being driven by a pragmatist philosophical paradigm, it involves adopting whatever method is necessary to address a problem, regardless of the method’s associated paradigm. The problem is identified and the methods are chosen to suit the problem rather than the methodology or philosophical paradigm dictating how a problem is to be researched. In relation to this thesis, the problem of poor membership retention rates was identified externally, defining the project from the outset as applied and of considerable potential industry value. As well as understanding how mixed methods research is philosophically positioned, it is also essential to discuss the various types of mixed methods designs, and how such designs are different to mono-method research designs.