There is no universally accepted definition of mixed methods research. Numerous proponents and subscribers to this research approach provide different ideas about MMR, from which Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner (2007) crafted a generic definition of MMR as a combination of “elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (for example, use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the purpose of breath and depth of understanding and corroboration” (2007:123). This definition suggests that MMR is inclusive, pluralistic, complementary, and eclectic. Research which follows this approach systematically integrate quantitative and qualitative research methodologies at all or at certain stages of a research process (Bamberger, 2013)so as to improve the understanding of the phenomenon being investigated (Rubin & Babbie, 2015). From the
111
cited definitions it can be concluded that the MMR approach combines the in-depth insights provided by QUAL methods with the statistical analysis and ability to generalize provided by QUANT methods (Bamberger, 2013; Bazeley, 2015).
Johnson (2014) gives a more elaborated definition of MMR approach referring to it as the type of research in which a researcher or team of researchers mixes or combines qualitative and quantitative research philosophies or paradigms, methodologies, methods, techniques, approaches, concepts or language into a single research study or a set of related studies. This definition suggests that the complexity of most research problems cannot be deciphered or fully understood from a single unique perspective of a quantitative or qualitative approach (Caruth, 2013; Ponce & Pagan-Maldonado, 2015). In sight of the cited definitions show that MMR approach addresses research problems in which clear objective and subjective aspects that require the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches are manifested. Integration of the two sets of data should be done in an articulated and harmonious manner (Caruth, 2013 & Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).
Mixed methods approach is believed to have emerged from the paradigm wars between quantitative and qualitative research approaches to becoming a widely used mode of inquiry (Terrell, 2012). The current study employed a mixed methods research (MMR) approach which involves integrating quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. This is where words, pictures and narrative (qualitative) can be used to add meaning to numbers(quantitative), while numbers add precision to words (Everset, 2014; Greene, 2012;Harrits, 2011; Migiro & Magangi, 2011; Miller, 2015; Zandvanian & Daryapoor, 2013). Mixed methods approach states philosophical assumptions, gathers qualitative and quantitative data, analyses each type of data, integrates the two forms of data, and draws interpretations by combining the strengths of both data sets (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). It recognises the importance of traditional quantitative and qualitative research approaches but also offers a powerful third approach that provides the most informative, complete, balanced, and useful research results (Brown, 2014). Researchers who subscribe to MMR approach attempt to design research that will have both precision and depth (Plano-Clark & Ivankova, 2016; Zandvanian & Daryapoor,
112
2013). Subscribers to this research approach also argue that there is no major problem that should be studied exclusively usingone research approach or method (Terrell, 2012).
Where MMR approach is adopted for data collection, a researcher must decide about the values of each approach; qualitative and quantitative (equal or dominant) and their time order (concurrent or sequential) (Miller, 2015). On the same point, Terrell (2012) identifies four factors upon which MMR approach depends namely; theoretical perspective, priority of strategy, sequence of data collection implementation, and the point at which the data are integrated. At data analysis stage, the researcher may use statistical techniques and descriptive analytic methods. The triangulation of data collection tools can be used to confirm the validity of research findings, and this is likely to enhance credibility of those findings (Everset, 2014). Triangulation of qualitative and quantitative approaches is likely to capture a more complete, holistic, and contextual portrayal of the unit under study (Terrell, 2012).
3.3.3.1 Strengths of mixed methods research approach
Earlier discussions on the MMR approach suggest that this approach should be viewed and regarded as an extension rather than a replacement of the quantitative and qualitative approaches to research, as the othertwo approaches continue to be useful and important (Caruth, 2013). MMR has some significant strength when compared to the other two approaches. Pluye and Hong (2014) assert that MMR combines the strengths of quantitative and qualitative approaches to compensate for their respective limitations. The two approaches are employed iteratively or simultaneously to create a research outcome stronger than either method individually. MMR provides researchers with the ability to design a single research study that answers questions about both the complex nature of phenomena from the participants’ point of view and the relationship between measurable variables (Ponce & Pagan-Maldonado, 2015).
Another major strength of this approach is that at data analysis and interpretation stages, a researcher can return to the qualitative data and re-read quotes in context of the larger document. At the same time, multiple runs of the statistical analyses could be made on quantitative data until conforming evidence is found (Bazeley, 2015; Maxwell,
113
2016). In short, it is a strength that MMR advocates “what works” within the precepts of research to investigate, to predict, to explore, to describe, and to understand the phenomenon without making the researcher a prisoner of one particular research approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).
3.3.3.2 Limitations of mixed methods research
Despite the highlighted merits of MMR, this approach has its fair share of weaknesses or limitations. It is assumed that itmay be difficult for a single researcher to carry out both quantitative and qualitative research, especially if used concurrently.It may require a research team (Terrell, 2012). In an attempt to address this challenge, the researcher of this current study worked closely with three other PhD candidates who were involved as research assistants. A one-day induction was conducted to familiarize them with the research purpose, plan, and instruments. The assistants were also involved in the pilot study in order to have a shared experience of the data collection process and for them to have an input in the validation of the research instruments.
Another major limitation is that the approach requires the researcher to have adequate working knowledge and understanding of both quantitative and qualitative research in order to mix them appropriately (Vehvilainen-Julkunen & Horton, 2013). The researcher had opportunities to attend three workshops on this subject hosted by Zimbabwe Open University and University of Zimbabwe in 2016. MMR is also believed to be more expensive and time consuming. To deal with this challenge, the researcher allocated timeframes to all research stages. A pilot study in two schools was done in a month, and data collection for the main study in the seven schools was allocated three months, data analysis and interpretation took five months, and the report write-up was done within three months. This plan left the researcher with the six months to do all the necessary revisits before the final submission of a complete document. On the issue of material and financial resources required, the researcher was offered the Govan Mbeki funding for the study in the hope that something positive will come along.
In order to ease data analysis and data interpretation, this researcher employed the use of the SPSS version 20 software.
114
3.3.3.3 Justification for selecting mixed methods approach in the current study In the previous sections, literature showed that MMR enables the researcher to answer many research questions (Everset, 2014) and provides a complete understanding of the complexity of the phenomenon being investigated (Rubin & Babbie, 2015). The primary reason for employing the MMR approach in this current study was the need to get both quantitative and qualitative answers to questions raised in examining teachers’ role in the promotion of CFS environments in Zimbabwean schools. The current researcher believes that better understanding of teachers’ role in the promotion of CFS environments can be obtained by triangulating one set of results with another, thereby enhancing the validity of inferences. It is also assumed that triangulation will offset the weaknesses of one method by the strengths of another.
Employing MMR in this current study was likely to bring clarity and coherence to the complex but critical role of teachers in the promotion of CFS environments, from their status as trainee teachersthroughout their professional careersas teachers. MMR is an approach which applies deduction (testing of theories and hypotheses). In this current study, deduction was used to test anumber of assumptions pertaining to teachers’ competences and skills in the provision of child-friendly schooling. The aspect of induction (discovery of patterns) is expected in MMR approach, and in the context of this study, induction was employed to identify patterns in the way teachers in different secondary schools understood and promoted child-friendly environments. Lastly, MMR applies abstraction, which entails uncovering and relying on the best of a set of explanations for understanding one’s results. This aspect was used to gain deeper insights and complete understanding of teachers’ role in the promotion of CFS environments, and the implications for teacher professional development.
Another reason for selecting MMR was its ability to provide results with mutual confirmation, thus giving the researcher more confidence that the research results were valid. This researcher collected multiple sets of data on the role of teachers in the promotion of CFS environments based on different philosophical assumptions which enriched the research findings. By so doing, the approach served the purpose of complementarity, which is, seeking elaboration, illustration, enhancement, and
115
clarification of the results from one method with the findings from another method (Molin-Azorin& Cameron, 2010). Data from the quantitative and qualitative components from different researcher respondents/participants assisted in confirming the strategies teachers employed in the promotion of CFS environments and the challenges they encountered in the process.
Variety in the nature and size of samples also motivated theresearcher to employ MMR approach. The quantitative approach allowed the use of a large sample of both teachers and learners, whereas the qualitative component required purposive sampling. Data from these varied samples allowed the researcher to delve deeper into how and why teachers play differently their role in the promotion of CFS environments. By so doing, the MMR approach served the purpose of initiation (discovering paradoxes and contradictions that lead to the research questions being reframed) (Greene, 2007).
MMR approach was employed because of the flexibility it offered the researcher in the choice of research instruments. It allowed questionnaires, interviews, observations, document analysis, and focus discussions to be employed within the same study which enabled this researcher to come up with detailed reports on how teachers perceive and understand the CFS concept. The approach also put forward participants’ different perspectives on how best teachers can be equipped and supported in order to effectively promote CFS environments.