Proposed Theoretical Models, Research Questions and Hypotheses
Study 1: Development and Preliminary Validation of Occupational Stress Scale for Soldiers (OSSS)
4.2 Research Design
A mixed method research design was employed with both quantitative and qualitative approaches as far as study 1 is concerned. Since the prime focus of this study was to develop and validate an assessment instrument to measure the occupational stress levels in the soldiers, it was pertinent to identify the key dimensions of occupational stress in military life. This aspect remains unexplored in the current literature and thus inputs from experts with long careers in the military were incorporated during the scale construction process. This qualitative approach was later supplemented with a quantitative one during the process of measurement of the construct. Thus, a research design that could accommodate both these approaches was important for the fulfillment of this research objective.
According to Teddlie & Tashakkori (2009, p.31): “Mixed methods research is the type of research in which a researcher or a team of researchers combine elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g. use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the purpose of breadth of understanding or corroboration.” This research seems to fit closely with the above definition of Mixed-Methods (MM) research. In addition to this, literature suggests that the studies that aim to develop an instrument to measure certain phenomenon are usually classified as mixed method studies. This is because the researcher, in such research, collects and analyses both qualitative and quantitative data, mixes the data and reports the study as a single mixed methods study (Ivankova, Creswell, & Plano-Clark, 2007). Thus, considering the that this is a scale development study involving a mix of both, qualitative and quantitative techniques, this study was classified as a Mixed-Methods research.
Mixed-Methods adds value to the research that a quantitative or qualitative approach alone cannot provide. It is argued that quantitative research does not allow a) voices of participants to be directly heard, and b) a discussion of the researcher’s own personal views and interpretations since the researcher stays in the background (Ivankova, Creswell, & Plano- Clark, 2007). A qualitative approach is said to overcome these weaknesses. Another major advantage of adopting a mixed- methods research is that it enables the researcher to ask both explanatory and confirmatory questions (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). In other words, it allows the researcher to generate and verify a theory in the same study. For these reasons, MM research design was found to be appropriate for the first objective of our study.
Since MM research is a combination of qualitative and quantitate approaches, there are different types of research designs that determine how these two approaches are combined. There exists two major classifications. First, the research design can lend equal weight to both approaches by using
qualitative and quantitative data in a concurrent manner which is referred to as the Parallel Mixed Design (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). The second approach which is known as the Sequential Mixed Design classifies one type of research approach (either qualitative or quantitative) as a primary source of data, which then extends through the other type of approach. Basically these two research designs differ on the basis of importance or weight assigned to the quantitative and qualitative research approaches (Creswell et al., 2008). Since this research involves a sequential use of both qualitative and quantitative approaches where quantitative builds on qualitative, it conforms closely to the definition of sequential mixed methods research design. Therefore from this point onwards only issues relevant to this design will be discussed in detail.
Teddle & Tashakkori (2009) suggest that when adopting a sequential mixed design, the researcher needs to sequentially plan the use of quantitative and qualitative research approach into two stages.
The second stage is build up on the dataset generated from the first stage. Thus it is important for the researcher to ensure that the phases are complementary to each other to arrive at the required dataset.
There are three types of sequential designs design to choose from – explanatory, exploratory and embedded (Creswell et al., 2008). Exploratory design seemed most appropriate for this research where the quantitative research is built upon qualitative data and findings.
Many researchers recommend the use of an exploratory sequential design to develop and test an instrument that has not been developed before (Creswell, 1999; Creswell et al., 2009; Ivankova, Creswell, & Plano Clark, 2007). This is because a qualitative phase helps in developing and setting the foundation for the instrument after which it can then be empirically validated through quantitative techniques.
The exploratory sequential design has further two classifications namely: the instrument development model and the taxonomy development model. While researchers use Exploratory – Instrument development model when there is a need to develop and implement a quantitative instrument based on qualitative findings. The taxonomy model is usually adopted to develop and test an emerging theory using qualitative and quantitative methods. The instrument development model is more relevant to the aims of this research. When using the Instrument development model, the research topic is first explored qualitatively and then validated using quantitative techniques. For this research, this step was carried out in two stages of scale development process through interviews and expert panel review which provided a set of qualitative findings which acted as a guide and road-map to develop a list of items. In the second step, quantitative data was collected through an online survey. This data assisted in developing and validating the final scale.
Fig 4.1 sums up the research design decisions.
Fig 4.1. Research design decisions
This study (scale development) included the following phases-