A rationale has been presented for this study adopting an interpretivist paradigm and case study for its approach. Resulting from this rationale was the research‟s paradigm and the approach, the researcher‟s choice of qualitative mixed methods to explore and find out the answers to the research questions. Brannen (2005), suggests that for the purpose of addressing research question(s), researchers should design a strategy. Brannen (2005, p.4) also states that:
Mixed methods research means adopting a research strategy employing more than one type of research method. The methods may be a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods, a mix of quantitative methods or a mix of qualitative methods.
Moreover, Brannen (2005) comments that when researchers adopt a mixed method strategy, its research strategy might be established or included in a different research strategy, for example, the choice of a case study approach. In the case study approach, several methods could be used. My study adopted the case study approach so that various qualitative mixed methods could be employed to look through differing lens of the taxonomies of communication strategies and how Thai EFL classrooms were portrayed through the application of Engestrӧm‟s activity theory.
Many scholars and researchers have defined qualitative research differently. Braun and Clarke (2013) define or compare qualitative methods to “…the process of sculpting or patchwork quilting” (p.36). To illustrate, a quilt–maker begins his
having „data‟ outlined; some of the materials look similar while the other can be different. After that the quilt–maker prepares these materials into a specific pattern in order to describe different stories; when the patterns are quilted the data is analysed. This kind of metaphor also provides the suggestion that „anything goes‟ in qualitative research (Braun and Clarke, 2013). Besides, the quilt–maker can produce a variety of patterns on the quilt using the acquired fabric or material (data). The final product would symbolise what the quilt–maker or the research initiated with raw data. Moreover, some quilt patterns can be well–organised, coherent and look great; meanwhile others can be chaotic, look bad or be random because of the limitation of raw materials–equivalent to the analysis of qualitative data. Furthermore, Mason suggests:
…a qualitatively driven approach to mixing methods offers enormous potential for generating new ways of understanding the complexities and contexts of social experience, and for enhancing our capacities for social explanation and generalization. Such an approach can draw on and extend some of the best principles of qualitative enquiry.
Mason also comments that using a qualitative driven approach can be beneficial in many ways. For example, qualitative research assists researchers to find out and improve constructivist epistemologies and to join with difficult methodological problems particularly around explanation and interpretation of questions. Moreover, qualitative researchers have to also be aware and realise the limitations of a pure qualitative paradigm.
Furthermore, Mason (2006, p.3–12) has proposed six strategies of mixing methods for qualitative research and linking data in social science research as a guide to some significant problems. She claims that these strategies support the connecting of various features of data and mixing of methods so that researchers can employ more than one method in order to produce and analyse data. Researchers also need to possess a clear logic and aim for their approach as well as knowing what they want to accomplish for their study as linking of data requires analytic skill. According to Gorard and Taylor (2004), combined–method work is not new as it appeared in 1959 in the work of Campbell and Fiske.
Thus, the six strategies for mixing methods in a qualitative research suggested by Mason (2006, p. 3–12) are comprised of: (1) mixing methods for a close–up illustration of a bigger picture or for background, (2) mixing methods to ask and answer differently conceived or separate questions, (3) mixing methods to ask questions about connecting parts, segments or layers of a social whole, (4) mixing methods to achieve accurate measurement through triangulation, (5) mixing methods to ask distinctive but intersecting questions, and (6) mixing methods opportunistically. My study has also adopted one of these strategies as part of the research method design. Prior to justifying the chosen strategy for my qualitative mixed–methods design, it is necessary to discuss the different features of each mixing methods strategy.
To begin with, the first strategy which is „mixing methods for a close–up illustration of a bigger picture or for background‟ is claimed to be the most generally applied logic in mixing methods. This type of strategy can provide some depth to the research analysis. Mason suggests that this is frequently carried out by researchers who have preliminary backgrounds in either a qualitative or a quantitative orientation. Also, they need to perceive a sense that there are incomplete or imperfect details of their research methods and data. For qualitative researchers who put an emphasis on social procedures in rich data, a feature of local or national demographic data–some background quantitative data can assist in producing a bigger picture of observations. On the other hand, for quantitative researchers, the „big picture‟ based on statistical or representative figures of analysis and its sampling can also lead to the choice of a qualitative approach such as an in–depth case study to manifest a close–up perspective. The logic of this type of research is „rhetorical‟. That is, from the beginning of the study, the researcher employs a different figure or form of data to add details to his or her analysis. However, these additional details from the analysis are considered unnecessary for the research argument. The additional details of data become only the explanatory logic and a supplement itself is either quantitative or qualitative research. This strategy is also seen as an easy approach with low risk, but does not
researcher to deduce how to subsume several qualitative demonstrations or examples. Also, for a skilled qualitative researcher, it is not difficult to include a quantitative rationale which can be taken from documents or published resources. However, the disadvantage of this method is a lack of genuine endeavour to explicate dialogues. Therefore, the research strategy and design are administered according to either a qualitative or a quantitative methodological rationale (Mason, 2006). Mason claims that this type of approach tends to reside in either qualitative or quantitative methods, meanwhile it does not lead the researcher to the exciting distinctive features under its broad type.
Secondly, mixing methods to ask and answer differently conceived or separate questions strategy is appropriate to a research in which researchers sometimes feel that there are various sets of research questions. These sets of research questions are related to the same entire topic; however, they do not particularly link analytically to one other. For example, a study of human–animal interactions may investigate the meat industry, farming, the role of animals in literature, family pets, hunting, the media, zoo cultures, weather etc., but the researcher will not want to make an argument about how these various parts are associated. Mason comments that this kind of research can be studied as multi–part projects and different methodologies are essential for the overall presentation. A parallel logic is embedded in this kind of approach. It is different from the rhetorical logic in the sense that any one approach is not essential to be a part of each small study. That is, each small study possesses its own design and logic, generation of data, explanation and analysis also run in parallel. Mason (2006) proposes that this approach is relatively simple to do, providing medium risk, but granting limited advantages or benefits. However, advantages of this method are possibilities to be generated for new concepts or ideas across the mini–study or projects and across methodological ranges. Whereas, the disadvantage of this method is that; there might not be a dominant explication of a qualitative or a quantitative framework that fits to all mini projects or studies.
Thirdly, mixing methods to ask questions about connecting parts, segments or layers of a social whole is proper for some studies which are designed to have
multiple or several elements. This approach deals with an integration of connecting parts as a whole. Mason suggests that this approach might also deploy various methods due to a reason that each is likely to be the most suitable one for its particular piece of the research issue. Besides, a combination of each method can provide better understanding of the whole research and address a useful set of questions. To give an example, if a research project is concerned with „how‟ and „under what conditions children learn successfully‟, one may also need to consider “a secondary analysis of national or local quantitative data on educational outcomes for children against different demographic and socio–economic criteria, school based cultural ethnographies at specifically selected schools and interviews with „key informants in and outside school” etc. (Mason, 2006, p.6). It can be viewed that there are many possibilities for suitable research questions for this research topic. Hence, it is claimed that each method within this approach has given intention to create or produce data on a particular piece or part of a whole study. An integrative logic is embedded in the approach. It is significant for researchers to realise that their presuppositions regarding how layers or levels of data match one another become the finding or result of integration models or theories and that other theories are also counted as plausible. In Mason‟s opinion, this approach is difficult to do. It can work well if consensual and a clear integration model of data is presented. As for its disadvantages, approaches, theories and methods supporting the studies might not be consensual and difficulties can be clearly seen during the time of setting up research questions and at a stage of an integrative analysis of various features of data. On the other hand, the advantage of using this strategy is that it provides data in integration model for theorising the „whole‟ picture of research. (Mason, 2006).
Next, mixing methods to achieve accurate measurement through a triangulation strategy is proper for studies seeking to integrate data and use „triangulation‟ for its analysis. In other words, it refers to researches in which a social phenomenon is measured from at least two or more distinct vantage positions to pinpoint the phenomenon, or to develop, validate or examine the precision of the observation.
they are measuring. Mason argues that this strategy is rather difficult and has limited benefits due to a variety of approaches and methods. That is, in social science research, the emphasis on the precision of measurement cannot easily fit with the complexity of this type of research, its processes and its explication. However, this type of approach tends to suit „geographical co–ordinates‟ than explicating or explaining social phenomena (Mason, 2006).
The fifth strategy is mixing methods to ask distinctive but intersecting questions. This approach looks at various dimensions or it is called „multi–dimensional perceptions of the problems or issues of the social world. A multi–dimensional logic is embedded in this kind of strategy. That is, various approaches and methods have their own potential and strengths that allow researchers to comprehend social complexity and multi–dimensionality. The multi–dimensional logic is different from the integrated, the corroborative and the parallel logic because of „intersection‟. The advantage of this kind of strategy is the chances for using creative tensions and constructing on important strength of various approaches. It is viewed that this strategy is very difficult to carry out which can be regarded as its disadvantage. However, it tends to increase explanation for social science and assists researcher to think „outside the box‟. Besides, this approach helps researchers to inquire into new types of questions in order to improve or develop comprehension of multi–dimensional pathways as well as to be creative procedurally (Mason, 2006).
The last strategy is mixing methods opportunistically. Compared to the other approaches, researchers are able to take control of their research designs, procedures, and the forms of data emerging from a mixed–methods study (Mason, 2006). Sometimes, data from mixing methods can also be obtained unexpectedly or accidently more than the actual design of research methods. Particularly, sets of existing data are available without expectation or in which access becomes available to an inherent source of data. Mason comments that this type of mixing methods cannot be considered as a strategy because of a lack of intrinsic logic which can be difficult to put it into practice.
To sum up, the intellectual and practical tasks of connecting and analysing data gained from mixed methods research can be different due to the nature of the research. They also depend upon what the researcher is looking for and which strategy the research is adopted. My study, therefore, has selected to adopt the third strategy which is the mixing methods to ask questions about connecting parts, segments or layers of a social whole. That is because the main study methods of this study involved collecting data from teachers and student interviews, teacher–student teaching and learning classroom observations, audio recordings of classroom teachings as to answer the three main research questions which are:
(1) What cross–cultural communication strategies are applied in the Thai EFL classroom?
(2) Why native English lecturers and Thai students do use cross–cultural communication strategies in the Thai EFL classroom?
(3) What factors contribute to effective communication between native English lecturers and Thai students in the Thai EFL classroom?
As stated earlier, various methods might be spread out or deployed in this approach as each tends to be the most appropriate one which also provides answers to its own specific part of the problem or research question. The combination of all methods can also give a better understanding of the whole research. To demonstrate, teacher and student interviews provide different opinions or perspectives toward CCC(s) and CSs; the two parties applied in the Thai classroom. Besides, the interviews also provide some answers to the second and the third research question. Meanwhile, the observations and audio recordings of the classroom teachings can give a sense of what the Thai EFL classroom looks like as well as revealing the different types of CCC(s), CSs and pedagogic strategies teachers and students used during their conversation. At the same time, these qualitative mixed methods also complement each other as different methods