Legislación de la República de Argentina

The purpose and research objectives should determine the research approach (Greene, Caracelli and Graham, 1989). The aim was to explore both how and why place affects ACS outcome. These research objectives are broad and complex by nature; hence, a single research approach or paradigm would not be sufficient.

The research design was formed around the purpose of using mixed methods, the stage of mixing paradigms in the study and the methods chosen based on the research objectives. The rationale for using mixed methods leads from these decisions. The four-dimensional Rational and Purpose (RAP) model of Collins, Onwuegbuzie and Sutton (2006) helped to make this choice.

The choice of research design was based on the RAP model, taking a theoretical approach and the pragmatic decision rules put forward by Chen (1997). Based on the assumption that not one inquiry method is best to serve all evaluation needs, the usefulness of every method depends

on the contextual circumstances. This section is used to show the justification for the combinations of methods applied.

Chen (1997) indicates that the requirement for intensive and contextual data (such as perceptions of local support), with low availability and high openness, requires a qualitative approach. Extensive and precise information, high availability and gaining closed responses would point towards a quantitative approach. If the research does not fit within either of these paradigms, then a mixed method approach is needed. This is determined by the consideration of how the study relates to the following three points:

1) The evaluation may be required to produce intensive and contextual, as opposed to extensive and precise, information. Quantitative research is a systematic empirical investigation, seeking to summarise the general trends of a sample population by generalising to a wider audience. Qualitative research, however, focuses on meaning, process and context, where the social world is understood as dynamic and interactive. 2) There may be high availability or accessibility, or there may be low availability or

accessibility, of credible data.

3) There may be low openness or high openness of environmental influence on a programme. The broad aim of this study is to collect an extensive overview of place influences within an

open environment, to explore what and why locality aspects are affecting the people living within them, and how they are perceived by the people experiencing them. These explorations into the broad topic of place influences, approaching the circumstance from multiple

paradigms, lead to mixed methods being the optimal approach (Chen, 1997).

The RAP model also indicates a mixed methodology, with enriched participants’ data being produced from summarising data and gaining in-depth information, thus forming a nested multi-faceted sample and data of evidence. Appropriate and validated tools used within the data collection and synthesis are used to increase the credibility of the mixed method approach. Method (treatment) integrity is integral to this study, as is the quality and meaningfulness of measurements, and approaches towards ACS outcome and place of residence. Finally, the use of multiple methods forms pictures from different angles, significantly the enhancing ability to interpret the complex interactions of human nature.

We take a mixed method approach based on an evaluation framework that is both empiricist and concept-driven. Using a mixed method framework enriches the representation of participants, by generalisation of large samples, coupled with in-depth insight into a

participant’s perspectives. A well-designed mixed method study reduces limitations of both quantitative and qualitative approaches, maximising appropriateness of method to paradigms within the research. With the flexibility to assess and modify tools used on an on-going basis throughout the research study, the validity of the information can then be assessed in its appropriate context, using data from all phases of the study. This leads to credible, legitimised, validated, confirmative data, which is the overall goal of every study (Onwuegbuzie and Johnson, 2006).

Quantitative and qualitative data analysis techniques may be side-by-side to enhance the interpretation of significance finding. (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2004)

It must be kept in mind, however, that quantitative and qualitative methods have incongruent assumptions and ideologies about social phenomena and social knowledge. Using various approaches ‘mixed in a way that has complementary strengths and non-overlapped weaknesses’ (Johnson and Turner, 2003, p.299) results in a more accurate and complete depiction (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998). Care needs to be taken in the design, as poorly constructed mixed method studies can lead to overlapping weaknesses, creating less reliable results. Turning to the fundamental principle of mixed methods research, which recognises that all methods have their strengths as well as their weaknesses, mixed methods can be used to: a) obtain convergence or corroboration of findings; b) eliminate or minimise key plausible

alternative explanations for conclusions drawn from the research data; and c) elucidate the divergent aspects of a phenomenon.

Using overlapping, complementary and corroborative mixed methods, diverse aspects of a phenomenon are considered from multiple angles, forming a more rounded view, where research methods are utilised to reduce weaknesses and enhance strengths.

Mixed method designs are relatively rare, due to the roadblocks of greater labour-intensive studies, when compared to single paradigm studies. More time, resources and effort are needed for the design, implementation and analysis (Onwuegbuzie and Johnson, 2006). In addition, as is the case with this study, researchers tend to have a background in a certain approach and a subsequent preference towards, and expertise to undertake, a certain approach (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009).

Figure 3.2: 13-step conceptualized mixed method research process (Collins, Onwuegbuzie and Sutton, 2006)

3.3.1

The mixed method philosophy of the study

The philosophical position and paradigm in which this study sits was determined by the broad nature of the research aim. The study’s ontological, epistemological and methodological approach to knowledge reflects the philosophical position. For example, O’Cathain et al. (2010) explain three techniques for the integration of data in mixed method studies, which can all be analysed differently depending on which philosophical position is taken.

The study aims to explore both the overall picture of place effect, and the social perceptions and contextual experiences of place. By considering both the micro and macro levels, the aim was to form an understanding of place within the larger context (Hammersley, 2006).

The quantitative stage of the research follows the positivist paradigm aiming to understand what is happening, with the ontological belief that reality is objective and can be understood through understanding the laws that govern it. The qualitative side of the research follows an interpretative paradigm, with the aim to understand why something is happening, and the ontological belief that the world is created by social and contextual meaning and can be understood through personal perceptions. It was felt that, individually, neither of these approaches would allow the entirety of the research aim to be considered (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

By taking a pragmatic mixed method approach, more than one valid approach can be used. Research within this paradigm does not aim to represent or uncover the truth but rather to facilitate human problem solving. By using qualitative and quantitative approaches together in practical, balanced ways, advances in knowledge could be gained (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). In essence, this philosophy allows the research approaches to be mixed in any way in order to best answer the research aim, using the advantages of the most appropriate approach for the question being asked at the time.

The positivist and interpretative paradigms discussed above are fundamentally different in what they are analysing and the questions that they aim to answer. Therefore, it is important that this mixed philosophical approach is based at a conceptual level. Within this mixed method study, the aim is not to analyse or compare data from different paradigms, but rather to use the mixed philosophical approach to build up overall understanding.

This conceptual level of integration follows a subtle realist’s standpoint (Hammersley, 1992 pp: 50-54): that the world is unique from each person’s perspective, based within his or her own circumstances, and hence the same phenomenon can be seen from multiple viewpoints. It is

not possible to understand the whole phenomenon from all viewpoints; however, using a reflexive process across quantitative and qualitative methodologies, a greater understanding of the relationship between action and perception can be built up (O’Cathain et al., 2010). Knowledge bases around the most suitable philosophical approach in mixed method research are underdeveloped. With this study, a pragmatic approach is taken so that the strengths of quantitative and qualitative approaches can be used to explore place effect. However a subtle realism consideration of differences in viewpoint is considered throughout in order to achieve conceptual integration without forced synthesis between fundamentally different paradigms.