TIPO DE PUBLICIDAD
POLÍTICA Y ESTRATEGIA
10. DECIMO PASO
Mixed methods
Mixed methods research emerged in the latter part of the last century and combines both quantitative and qualitative methods (Plano Clark & Creswell, 2008; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). Prior to mixed methods, research traditions made the distinction between quantitative and qualitative approaches (Crotty, 1998). Associated with the scientific world, quantitative research relies on objective hard data, statistical information and deductive reasoning (Bamberger, Rugh, & Mabry, 2012; Polit & Beck, 2012). Qualitative research within the humanities and social sciences focuses on subjective data to inductively understand the complexity of the human experience (Bamberger et al., 2012; Polit & Beck, 2012)
The theoretical perspectives or paradigms that underpin these two approaches are fundamentally different as quantitative research aligns with objectivism, positivism and post‐ positivism whereas qualitative research aligns with subjectivism, and constructionism (Crotty, 1998; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Polit & Beck, 2012). Each respective paradigm has a particular research epistemology (knowledge), ontology (understanding) and methodology (design strategy and methods) (Crotty, 1998; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). Distinctions between quantitative and qualitative research conventions historically maintained separation and the notion of their combination was initially dismissed (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). However, this position changed.
In the 1970s and 1980s, applied disciplines such as nursing and education were influential in the shift that combined quantitative and qualitative approaches (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2012). Considered part of a research evolution, mixed methods was recognised as the third research approach (Plano Clark & Creswell, 2008; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). Different names, terms and definitions have been used with reference to this research and have created some confusion when using this approach. Mixed methods remains the term most commonly associated with the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in a single research study (Plano Clark & Creswell, 2008; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). Tashakkori and Creswell (2007) defined mixed methods as “research in which the investigator collects and analyses data, integrates the findings, and draws inferences using both quantitative and qualitative approaches or methods in a single study or a program of inquiry” (p. 4). This definition, published in the first issue of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research, has been used by nursing researchers (Polit & Beck, 2012; Schneider, Whitehead, LoBiondo‐Wood, & Harber, 2013) and referred to by others (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). This research uses the term mixed methods and is directed by the definition of Tashakkori and Creswell (2007).
The emergence of mixed methods included a paradigm debate. Although different paradigms, either singularly or in combination, have been used with mixed methods research, pragmatism has most often been associated with this form of study (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Polit & Beck, 2012; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2011). Teddlie and Tashakkori (2011) believe pragmatism will be acknowledged as the principal paradigm for mixed methods. Central to pragmatism is the research question that dictates “the value of the experiences, and practical consequences, action, and understanding of real world phenomena” (Cresswell, 2011, p. 276). Pragmatism, as the name suggests, embraces a practical approach to answering the research question with consideration for the context of a study (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). Pragmatism rejects a forced relationship between the paradigm, design and methods (Polit & Beck, 2012). As a theoretical perspective, pragmatism applies to both quantitative and qualitative approaches and was used in this evaluative research in response to the research question.
All research approaches, including mixed methods, have both strengths and limitations. However pragmatism, together with mixed methods, engenders flexibility for studies not available in singular research traditions. Teddlie and Tashakkori (2011) argue such eclecticism is essential in mixed methods as it involves the selection then synergistic integration of the most suitable methods to investigate the research question. Past concerns about mixing
quantitative and qualitative approaches, with their different epistemological and paradigmatic positions, can arguably be addressed through eclecticism that is distinctive to mixed methods research (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2011). Although, mixed methods researchers need to consider and manage this, eclecticism promotes selecting the most appropriate method combination in response to the research question and was used in this study. Rossi, Lipsey, and Freeman (2004) argue research that is flexible and employs multiple methods to gather data will yield more utilisable results.
Applied disciplines, that include nursing and education, rely on both quantitative and qualitative methods to gain a comprehensive understanding of what is often considered a complex context (Punch, 2006; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). In applied programmes, such as this BN programme, in particular the PTS that is the focus of this study, evaluation researchers Rallis and Rossman (2003) not only advise but also argue for the inevitability of combining quantitative and qualitative data to gain the desired depth of understanding the research. A single qualitative or quantitative approach would not fully consider the context of research that include the disciplines of nursing and education, and respond to the research question (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Shaw, Greene, & Mark, 2006).
Qualitative and quantitative data in mixed methods may be collected simultaneously or in sequential phases. A sequential design has the benefit of organisational simplicity as it is often easier to arrange than a simultaneous design (Bamberger et al., 2012). Sequential data collection gathers either qualitative or quantitative data first, with the sequence determined by the researcher’s question. Morse and Niehaus (2009) suggest the nature of the first phase informs the second phase in the sequential design and process. Polit and Beck (2012) support this position and argue that, in well‐conceived sequential research design, the first phase of data analysis and interpretation informs the second phase of data collection. Morse and Niehaus (2009) and Polit and Beck (2012) state that a sequential design enhances the potential for depth and richness with findings. The disadvantages of sequential design include the potential for participant attrition with a loss of momentum between phases and research time as the next stage cannot progress until the previous stage has been completed, particularly if analysis is required. This can be problematic for researchers if not attended to as part of the design and process. In this study it was a matter that required management. It was evident in chapters one and two that the support student context, more specifically the PTS, can be involved. In this study, the mixed methods design selected sought to provide more
than either quantitative or qualitative approaches could offer in isolation. A two‐phase sequential design allowed the first phase to inform the second phase. In phase one of this study the focus was on the collection of quantitative data, using questionnaires. Following the preliminary analysis of responses, an interview topic guide was developed for phase two qualitative interviews. The mixed methods, two‐phase sequential design (refer Table 3.1) was responsive for this research question and context. This enabled a more complete exploration of the PTS with consideration for the wider context of nursing and education.
Table 3.1. Sequential two phase data collection
Phase one: Quantitative approach Phase two: Qualitative approach Questionnaires
Preliminary questionnaire analysis informed the phase two question guide development Individual interviews
The use of multiple qualitative and quantitative data collection methods with the integration of findings presents an opportunity to capture a more complete and contextual understanding that overcomes inherent limitations of a single method (Polit & Beck, 2012; Schneider et al., 2013). Triangulation as part of this design involved the integration of research findings from the different methods in phases one and two. Integration is important within mixed methods and in this instance the two‐phase sequential design that “refers to the combinations and comparisons of multiple data sources, data collection and analysis procedures, research methods” (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003, p. 717). The integration of findings is seldom straightforward as this often involves attention to contrasts due to the innate differences of quantitative and qualitative methods (Patton, 2015; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2011). Integration may draw on pragmatic approaches to assist with the synthesis of findings that would not commonly be expected to come together as an organised whole (Patton, 2015; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2011). Rather than forcing dichotomous decisions, integration focuses on determining the extent to which consideration and interpretation are required (Patton, 2015). Morse and Niehaus (2009) and Polit and Beck (2012) argue that through the integration of quantitative and qualitative findings a greater depth and richness of understanding may be revealed as conclusions establish a closer link to the research context.
In this research, the mixed methods, two‐phase sequential design with integration of findings provided a flexible and pragmatic approach for this study. This was an appropriate way to investigate the PTS as a new initiative in conjunction with evaluation.