The pragmatic philosophical stance guided this investigation as there is an acknowledgement that elements of positivism and constructivism exist. The research employed a Mixed Method approach with both quantitative and qualitative approaches
139
utilised. The adoption of a mixed methods approach overcomes the weaknesses associated with mono methods while at the same time takes advantage of the benefits arising from combining methods.
There are inherent weaknesses associated with mono methods in research, such as the use of purely qualitative or purely quantitative methods which necessitates the need to integrate the approaches. As argued by Rocco et al., (2003) purely quantitative research tends to be less helpful through its oversimplification of causal relationships; purely qualitative research tends to be less helpful through its selectivity in reporting. Besides, there are inherent biases in any one method of data collection or analysis and these can be attenuated by mixing methods (Azorin and Cameron, 2010; Greene, Cracelli and Graham; 1989; O’Cathain, 2009).
By adopting a mixed methods approach the study sought to benefit from the advantages associated with this approach. Mixed methods allow the expansion of the statistical data interpretation because qualitative findings help to elicit rich and deeper findings which can be generalised by a follow-on quantitative approach. Additionally, qualitative findings significantly clarify the real issues as perceived and experienced by respondents. Furthermore, mixing the methods allow deeper examination of the research problem. This is because qualitative methods, in particular the cases studied by phenomenology approach, were used to closely examine research questions and research objectives proposed in the study. Also triangulation was achieved through the convergence and corroboration of phenomenology and survey approaches to achieve consistency. The triangulation process enhanced the validity of inferences that were made from the results of the study. In effect, by mixing the methods the study secured the research goal of generation of new knowledge (Creswell, 2003; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998). Different types of mixed methods designs are available. The following four namely; Sequential Explanatory, Triangulation, Embedded and Exploratory (figure 6.3), are the main ones (Creswell, 2005; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007; Mertens, 2010; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2009).
140
Figure 6.3: Four Major Mixed Methods Designs
Source: Plano Clark, Huddleston-Casas, Churchill, O'Neil Green and Garrett (2008)
While different types of mixed methods designs are available, the study adopted the sequential exploratory design. The Exploratory design is a two phase mixed methods design where the qualitative method is followed by the quantitative approach. The intention of this design approach is that the results of the qualitative method can help inform the quantitative method. The design approach is suitable where an exploration is needed for reasons such as unavailable measures or instruments, unknown variables, or due to lack of guiding framework (Creswell, 2003; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007; Mertens, 2010; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2009).
This research’s approach is that the reactive management approach adopted by local authorities is behind the operational property management problems. This reactive framework to property management has been found to be ineffective (section 3.5 and 3.6). Attempts to develop frameworks supported by various asset management guidelines have
141
not improved the status of asset management practice in different local authorities. Besides, such frameworks are aimed at all local authorities regardless of their unique circumstances and nature of properties involved. This study is focused in designing a flexible and adaptable framework aimed specifically at operational properties in English and Scottish local authorities. Therefore, the lack of a suitable framework guiding operational property asset management practice in local authorities was the principal reason for adopting a sequential exploratory design. The Triangulation, Explanatory, and Embedded designs were rejected as they are all unsuited to this study. The Triangulation Design is a concurrent one phase design and therefore not appropriate for the research investigation. The Embedded Design was rejected as the approach considers that a single data set is not sufficient. The approach proceeds on the premise that for each type of research question for answering research objectives requires different sets of data. Finally, the Sequential Explanatory design was equally rejected as the approach is useful where qualitative data helps explain or build upon initial quantitative results. Unfortunately this is not the principal focus of this study. In this study the intention is for the findings emerging from the qualitative analysis to be generalised to the wider population. There is an acceptance that the qualitative approach is unsuited for that purpose hence the need to utilise the quantitative approach in the follow up phase of the study. The initial qualitative phase help inform the quantitative phase. The initial qualitative phase utilised the semi-structured interview data collection method followed by a self-administered large scale questionnaire in the final quantitative phase. Because of their narrow focus on a few local authorities, semi-structured interviews are limited in their representativeness. They do not allow valid generalisations to the population from which the study units came (Isaac and Michael, 1995). The follow-up large scale survey questionnaire, based on the initial interview findings, was issued to a representative sample of local authorities in England and Scotland. The results were statistically tested and analysed and appropriate inferences drawn and conclusions reached. The findings were then generalised to the entire population of local authorities in England and Scotland.
142
Despite commencing the study qualitatively and then moving to quantitative phase, equal emphasis is placed on both the quantitative and the qualitative methods. The study design therefore is characterised as a equivalent status/ sequential design, QUAL→QUAN, where the qualitative and quantitative methods play an equal role with the qualitative approach helping to inform the quantitative method (figure 6.4) (Jougulu and Pansiri, 2011). The equivalent status / sequential design, QUAL→QUAN, used for this study is one of a number of variants of mixed methods (figure 6.5). The variants depend on whether priority is quantitative or qualitative or both and if the methods are to be implemented sequentially or concurrently. The following four groups and nine types of mixed methods designs can exist using these two dimensions (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004):
a) Equivalent status/simultaneous design: QUAL+QUAN.
b) Equivalent status/sequential designs: QUAL→QUAN; QUAN→QUAL. c) Dominant/simultaneous designs: QUAL+quan; QUAN+qual.
d) Dominant/sequential designs: qual→QUAN; QUAL→quan; quan→QUAL; QUAN→qual.
Figure 6.4 shows different types of mixed methods design matrices using quantitative and qualitative dichotomies.
143
Figure 6.5: Mixed methods design matrix
Notes: ‚Qual‛ stands for qualitative; ‚quan‛ stands for quantitative; ‚ + ‛ stands for concurrent; ‚ → ‛ stands for sequential; capital letters – ‚QUAL‛ and ‚QUAN‛ denote high priority or weight; lower case letters – ‚qual‛ and ‚quan‛ denote lower priority or weight.
Sources: Joguru and Pansiri (2011).