Grounded theory was selected for this research because it:
• was a methodology which has as its main objective the aim of theory building, as compared to theory testing;
• had a set of established guidelines for conducting the research and interpreting the data;
• was an interpretivist mode of inquiry, which had its ‘roots in symbolic interactionism and as such gestures, expressions and actions are all considered primary to the experience’ (Goulding 2002, p. 107);
• was a methodology which encouraged creativity and self-development;
• was renowned for its application in the study of human behaviour, which was an influential in this research; and
• was a credible methodology in the social sciences, but has not been used extensively for audit committees, particularly in local government. As such, it was an opportunity to use a legitimate methodology in a different field.
5.3.
Methods
The term ‘method’ is generally understood to mean a way of doing something in agreement with a definite plan. Sections 5.3.1 – 5.3.6 defines the method for the research detailed in
Page 160
5.3.1 Mixed methods
The choice of method for this research is mixed methods. Issues associated with the practical application of mixed methods are elaborated in the following sections: research design (Section 5.3.3), quantitative approach (Section 5.3.4), qualitative approach (Section 5.3.5) and factorial design (Section 5.3.6).
Morse (2003) defined the process for mixed methods as:
the incorporation of various qualitative and quantitative strategies within a single project that may have a qualitative and quantitative theoretical drive. The imported strategies are supplemental to the major or core method and serve to enlighten or provide clues that are followed up within the core method (p. 190).
Creswell, Plano Clark, Guttmann and Hanson (2003); Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004); Maxwell and Loomis (2003); and Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003) were generally in support of the definition by Morse (2003). Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) stated that mixed methods ‘was a class of research where the researcher mixes, or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study’ (2004, p. 17). Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003) considered that most quantitative research seeks to confirm a hypothesis and to verify existing theories, whilst qualitative research, by definition, was exploratory and could involve the generation of new theories. They considered that when the two methods are mixed, it enables ‘the researcher to simultaneously answer confirmatory and exploratory questions and therefore verify and generate theory in the same study’ (Tashakkori & Teddlie 2003, p. 15). They also asserted that mixed methods provided the opportunity and environment conducive to providing stronger or more appropriate inferences from the research and to present a greater diversity of views. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003) noted that mixed methods research studies use quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis in either parallel or sequential phases.
This thesis has used a sequential design, described by Morse (2003) in the following shorthand as a ‘QUAN → qual’ study (p. 205). Morse (2003) considered that this sequencing was best used when ‘quantitative study results are unexpected, unanticipated and qualitative study is conducted to ascertain the reasons for results or to find out what is going on’ (p. 205). One could equally argue that qualitative precedes quantitative in the qual input and informs the QUAN questions to be put in a formal manner. Morse (2003) noted that in terms
of the triangulation of results, the qualitative study provided an explanation for sections of the quantitative study. It was also noted that mixed methods explicitly have the merit of producing triangulated results, if they are congruent. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) listed some of the strengths of mixed method research as:
• words, pictures and narrative can be used to add meaning to numbers;
• numbers can be used to add precision to words, pictures and narrative;
• researchers can generate and test a grounded theory; and
• this approach can provide stronger evidence for a conclusion through convergence and corroboration of findings (p. 21).
Conversely, they noted that some of the disadvantages of a mixed method approach included: (1) the researcher needed to understand different approaches and how to mix them appropriately; (2) methodological purists contend that one should always work within one paradigm; and (3) this approach can be more expensive and time consuming to collect and interpret data. Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2007) and Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006) discussed the validity of qualitative and mixed methods research. In relation to the validity of the latter, Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006) considered that with the overlap between qualitative and quantitative research, there can be difficulties in assessing the validity of the findings, if they are incongruent. They proposed a nine-point model of ‘legitimation’ derived from a combination of inferences from qualitative and quantitative components of mixed methods research (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson 2006pp., pp. 56–60). They considered that researchers should keep these in mind when drawing inferences from their research. They further argued that as legitimation was ‘analytical, social, aesthetic, emic, etic, political and ethical’, researchers should be aware of multiple problems which can occur in mixed methods research (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson 2006, p. 60).
The major advantage of using mixed methods can be in the ‘quality of inferences that are made at the end of a series of phases or strands of the study’ (Tashakkori & Teddlie 2003, p. 35). Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003) differentiated between the terms ‘inference’ and ‘results’, with the latter being the outcomes of data collection and analysis. The former however referred to interpretation and expansion of results, noting of course that two different researchers could draw different inferences or conclusions from the same set of data.