El retorno del “más allá”

Bryman (2006) identified 16 reasons why researchers use the mixed method approach. Some of these are: triangulation, instrument development, completeness, credibility and offset. Completeness, credibility and offset are my reasons for using this approach for my study.

Triangulation offers the advantage of corroborating the findings of one method against another (Denscombe, 2010; Bryman, 2006). For example, the researcher uses a questionnaire to gather information, but since it is based on self-report, the researcher has no way of knowing whether the respondent is telling the truth. To confirm what the respondents profess, the researcher can add observation of the respondents in their natural environment, to observe if they really do what they said in the questionnaire. Denscombe (2010) discusses four types of triangulation. They are:

 Data: this involves the use of variety of sources in a study. There are three types of data triangulation: informant, time and space.

 Investigator: this involves the use of different researchers.

 Theory: this involves the use of multiple perspectives and theories to interpret the results of the study.

 Methodological: the use of multiple methods to study a research problem. Even though my study did not specifically aim for triangulation, data and methodological triangulation were used. For the data triangulation, my study elicited information from parents and headteachers (informant triangulation) and gathered data from the three regions in Ghana piloting IE (space triangulation).

For the methodological triangulation, I used questionnaires (with Likert scale items and one open-ended question making it qualitative in nature) which were analysed quantitatively (see chapter 5). The data from the interviews was analysed

thematically although I quantified the number of interviewees who gave specific responses (see chapter 6). I did not quantify the entire data from the interviews because it was intended to add depth to the information derived from the questionnaire. Using qualitative means of analysing information helped to add the depth and understanding I anticipated.

Denscombe (2010) identified two types of methodological triangulation: within methods and between methods triangulation. The former involves the use of either multiple quantitative or multiple qualitative approaches in one study. The latter involves the use of both quantitative and qualitative approaches in one study. Within method triangulation has limited value because the weakness of the method being used will still persist (Denscombe, 2010).

For my study, both quantitative and qualitative approaches were utilised. This eventually facilitated the comparison of the results. Additionally, since I used two sets of respondents (parents and headteachers), the information generated from both groups further facilitated the comparison, as in most instances they were asked to respond to the same sets of items (see Appendix B and C). This approach was used because it helped me elicit useful and meaningful data.

Instrument development is another reason advanced by Bryman (2006) for the use of mixed method research. This is the situation where the results obtained through one method are used to shape subsequent instruments, sampling or analysis strategies of the other method (Kelle, 2006), meaning that, one method shapes and informs the next method. For example, after a review of the literature, a researcher finds very little empirical information to help him/her develop a questionnaire. As a result, the researcher decides to do some initial investigation to help understand the issues before developing a survey.

He/she then decides to interview people for information. Based upon the information generated, he/she develops a questionnaire and does his/her research. Or, for example, in my current study I decide to first administer a questionnaire and then, based on the responses, I decide the type of questions I would include in my interview guide. This means that the information derived from the questionnaire would assist me in the next stage of my research.

According to Bryman (2006) completeness is based on the view that mixed methods research would result in a more rich and detailed or comprehensive study than the use of only one method. This is because it offers the researcher the opportunity to view the issue from different perspectives (Denscombe, 2010). Further advancing

this view, Creswell and Plano Clarks (2010) suggest that this approach may be used to enhance the study or when the researcher realises that one source of data is insufficient.

In the current study, for example, the data that was generated from the interviews was used to enhance meaningfulness in the statistical figures that the analysis of the questionnaires generated. Kelle (2006, p.309) said that “results from the qualitative part of mixed research design can help to understand previously incomprehensible statistical findings”. Furthermore, the data from the qualitative interviews helped me to identify unobservable heterogeneity in the quantitative data and identify factors that impacted on PI in IE in Ghana.

According to Bryman (2006, p.106) ‘‘credibility refers to suggestions that employing both approaches enhances the integrity of findings’’. Credibility or trustworthiness of the findings is enhanced when the two methods used produce the same results. Even if they produce different results the researcher can investigate the reason for this and report the findings. This further adds to the authenticity of the study. The credibility of the present study was enhanced when some of the findings from the qualitative data confirmed that of the quantitative findings. Based on the quantitative data, for example, parents volunteering their services recorded the lowest means, meaning that not many parents did this (see Table 5-25 and 5-26). The results from the interviews in section 6.4.1.5 confirm this result as 4 out of the 19 parents interviewed said they engaged in this.

Offset is one of my rationales for engaging in mixed methods research. Bryman (2006) points out that mixed methods research is used to utilise the strengths of both methods and that the strengths of each method offsets the weaknesses in the other. In the present study, for example, I was able to statistically establish relationships among some of my variables using the quantitative data which I could not do with the qualitative data (see section 5.4 for examples). The qualitative data on the other had provided rich, accurate and detailed responses for example, compare the information in Table 5-25 and parental responses on the same issue in section 6.4.1.5.

In the literature search there were two studies that mentioned using the mixed approach and they had nothing to do with IE (see section 3.3.3). Dhingra et al. (2007) did not describe how they used the qualitative aspect in their methodology or report its findings while Foot et al. (2000) failed to clearly report their interviews results. Thus, even though the researchers reported using mixed methods, there is

no evidence, suggesting that, mixed methods research is professed to be used by some researchers but in reality is not (Bryman, 2006; Niglas, 2004).