PIC18F4321 para controlar la conmutación de los relés de estado sólido

A mixed method approach was used to frame and to integrate the quantitative and qualitative data forms within an interpretive-cum-narrative methodological framework. The study used mixed methods approach, which is conceptualised under the data collection techniques section in order to address the research questions aimed at investigating ideas of consciousness raising strategies that could help alleviate the crossing over of boundaries between SGBs and SMTs on financial matters of the section 21 high schools. The study achieved its overall goal by extensively reviewing the contextual factors responsible for SGBs’ and

21

SMTs’ boundary crossing into each other’s financial function domains. The study also strived to evaluate the multiple effects of SGB-SMT boundary spanning management conflicts: namely, the effect of SGB-SMT conflicts over the school finance, and the effect of SGBs’ and SMTs’ level of financial conscientiousness, on the sampled section 21 high schools. The existing literature describes the most appropriate research method adopted by the study to find answers to the research questions as mixed methods approach (Beazley, 2009, 2010, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c; Creswell, Fetters and Ivankova, 2004; Stake, 2010; Curry et al., 2013). According to Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004, p. 17), “Mixed Research, or what is referred to as mixed methods research, involves “mix[ing] or combin[ing] quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study”.

In her article, “The Point of Triangulation” Thurmond (2001, p. 253) defines the triangulated mixed methods approach as follows: “Triangulation is the combination of at least two or more theoretical perspectives, methodological approaches, data sources, investigators, or data analysis”. The researchers’ justification for adopting mixed data source approach is conveyed by Thurmond (2001, P. 253) as follows: “By using multiple methods, the researcher strives to decrease the deficiencies and biases that stem from any single method creating “the potential for counterbalancing the flaws or weaknesses of one method with the strength of the another”. The researcher used both qualitative and quantitative data sources in order to create a triangulated data framework for the study.

The reasons for choosing mixed methods approaches are further illuminated by a research study that argues that triangulation is typically a strategy (test) for improving the validity and reliability of research or evaluation of findings. Matheson and Zanna (1988, p .13) elaborate this point when they observe that: “Triangulation has [raised] an important methodological issue in naturalistic and qualitative approaches on evaluation research [in order to] control bias and establishing valid propositions because traditional scientific techniques are incompatible with this alternate epistemology“. The unique advantage offered by mixed methods triangulation is endorsed by Patton, (2011, p.247), who advocates the use of

22

triangulation by stating that “triangulation strengthens a study by combining methods. This can mean using several kinds of methods or data, including using both qualitative and quantitative approaches”.

Creswell and Plano Clark (2007, p. 9) contend that “mixed methods research helps answer questions that cannot be answered by qualitative or quantitative approaches alone”. The view of Creswell and Plano Clark is echoed by McMillan and Schumacher (2006, p. 401), who also have pointed out that “using both approaches allows the researcher to incorporate the strength of each method”.

The researcher’s rationale for adopting mixed methods approach is explicated by research (Creswell, 2013; Creswell et al., 2011). While qualitative methodologies are applied to research questions to explore why or how a phenomenon occurs in order to develop a theory or to describe the nature of an individual’s experience (Bazeley, 2013), mixed methods research studies draw upon the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative approaches and provides an innovative approach for addressing complex contemporary educational issues, which have continued to plague the 21st_{Century educational landscape (Fetters, Curry and Creswell, 2013).} The study integrated and manipulated quantitative and qualitative datasets generated by the closed-ended questionnaires and the face-to-face semi- structured interviews in order to enhance the value of mixed methods research approach (Bryman, 2006; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011) adopted. Firstly, the researcher’s rationale for using two data forms or mixed methods approach is explicated by Fetters, Curry and Creswell (2013, p. 2): “The qualitative data can be used to assess the validity of quantitative findings. Quantitative data can also be used to help generate the qualitative sample or explain findings from the qualitative data”.

Secondly, the other advantage accruing from combining qualitative and quantitative data forms is the fact that mixed methods research studies draw upon the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative approaches and provides an innovative approach for addressing complex contemporary issues in education systems. Thirdly, the core research focus – the correlation between the SGBs’ and

23

SMTs’ lack of financial conscientiousness and the SGB-SMT boundary spanning management conflicts created by the SGB-SMT power struggle over the control school finances – have clearly identified mixed methods approach as the most appropriate methodological procedure for the study. This postulation is endorsed by the argument that nature of the research question(s) drives the choice of methods (Creswell, 2013; Fetters, Curry and Creswell, 2013).

The appropriateness of using mixed methods approach is further endorsed by research. Yin (1984, 2009 and 2012) and Stake (2010) have advocated for using mixed methods (combination of quantitative and qualitative data forms in a single study) when they observe that in a convergent parallel framework (research design used by the study) both qualitative and quantitative datasets are collected to build a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon: the focus of the study. The types of qualitative and quantitative datasets collected by SGB-SMT boundary spanning management evaluation study were chosen based on the nature of feasibility issues, and the main research question and the sub-questions (Fetters, Curry and Creswell, 2013).

The study had to integrate the quantitative dataset and the qualitative dataset in order to evaluate the multiple effects of the SGB-SMT power struggle over school financial responsibilities and the effects of the resultant boundary spanning management conflicts in section 21 high schools. The study achieved this methodological objective by using a comparative mixed method approach, which entailed comparing the following datasets: quantitative dataset generated by the closed-ended questionnaires versus the qualitative dataset generated by the face- to-face semi-structured interviews.

The comparative mixed methods approach was adopted in order to integrate the qualitative and the quantitative research procedures used and to enhance the validity of the research findings and the value of the mixed methods approach (O’Cathain, Murphy and Nicholl, 2010; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011; Creswell et al., 2011) used by the study.

24