A mixed methodology approach can be divided into two sub-sections: qualitative and quantitative. These research methodologies are similar in that they are trying to answer research questions through the reduction and analysis of data while comparing it with appropriate literature. Both methods seek to expose and explicate variation, try to evade alteration of data, aim for clarity in the research and address the question of error. They do, however, differ in many ways as outlined in Tabe 3.1 that follows.
Table 3.1: Differences between qualitative and quantitative methods (adapted from Bryman 2008, 13–25)
Qualitative method Quantitative method
Words Numbers
Small sample set Large sample set
Points of view of the participant Points of view of the researcher
Researcher close Researcher distance
Theory emergent Theory testing
Process Static
Less structured More structured
Contextual understanding Generalised
Rich, deep data Hard, reliable data
Micro Macro
Meaning Behaviour
Natural setting Artificial setting
The division of the research methods or approaches is not as dichotomous as is suggested in Table 3.1. There are numerous unclear areas or spaces of ‘overlap’ in the classification of methods, for example, the structured interviews which authors have classified under both methods (see Patton, 1986; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003).
The mixed methodology approach has been used successfully by many researchers (Bakker 2007; Katsi et al. 2007). The above research methods are useful for projects and research where social and physical issues interrelate and have been applied in several water-related fields such as ‘drought’ (Hill and Polsky 2007), ‘water politics’ (Laurie et al. 2002, 179) and ‘water management, water and gender’ (Garcia 2001, 85-98). Bryman (2008) provided some reasons for using a mixed methodology approach, which can be seen in Table 3.2, with examples of their use in this thesis. One of the merits of employing a mixed methodology such as in this thesis, is because it gives allowance for managing a large amount of data in a limited time. It also improves the validity of the results from various investigations, because some of the experiences I had in the field indicated that participants sometimes only say what they think the researcher wants to hear. However, the mixed methodology approach helped with collecting and working with various kinds of data using qualitative and quantitative methods. The mixed approach permits flexibility regarding options for methods, so specific methods are selected to handle specific research questions. The research questions of this thesis were investigated using a mixed methodology approach because both physical issues, like water, and social issues needed to be explored. Initially, the intention was to use the two approaches separately so as to be able to authenticate and investigate the validity of each approach. After the preliminary field visit, however, it was observed that using a mixed methodology would further substantiate the results gained and also contribute to key elements that are outlined in Table 3.2 (Offset, Completeness, Explanation, Method Development, Context, Illustration and Utility).
According to Bryman (2006, 97-113), the mixed methodology approach has some disadvantages:
the mixed approach is “diametrically opposed but with specific epistemological groundings”;
secondly, the individual approaches themselves represent “different paradigms which are incommensurable”. However, the researcher agrees with the claim by Bryman, which queries
(Bryman 2008, 13-25). A diagram of the use of the two approaches together with the methods chosen can be seen in Figure 3.3. The research questions to be addressed in this thesis are introduced in Figure 3.4, showing which methods were used to address each of the research questions (as listed below).
RQ1: What are the indigenous water management (IWM) practices in Ondo State?
RQ2: What is the impact of gender awareness on IWM practices?
RQ3: What are the effects of gender stereotypes on IWM practices?
RQ4: How does women’s participation in local water management improve the quality of water?
RQ5: How do people differentiate by gender use water to enhance their livelihoods?
Table 3.2 Justification for using mixed methodology (Adapted from Bryman 2008, 13-25)
Classification Justification Examples of use in this thesis
Triangulation Methods combined in order to be mutually corroborated, increasing validity and credibility of results
The use of interview and FGD to corroborate questionnaire findings on gender implication in indigenous water management practices in the rural community. Streams and river water were identified as being a community water source, which was then investigated further using observations and interviews with members of the community.
Offset Offset their weakness and draw on strengths The questionnaire was initially used to find out if women were part of the rural water management scheme. The details of the practices and involvements were discovered by the FGD and interviews.
Completeness A more comprehensive account The use of FGD data, photographic data, questionnaire data, interview data and documentation to gain a more comprehensive view of the indigenous water management practices.
Process Quantitative approach provides account of structure and qualitative approach provides a sense of process
The questionnaire data provided the source of information available to the community and the topics.
Different research questions
Each approach is used to answer a different research question in the same context
The use of a questionnaire to investigate indigenous water management practices and interviews and an FGD to investigate behaviours, perceptions and attitude in gender awareness.
Explanation Opposite approach is used to help explain the findings generated by the other approach
The questionnaire was used initially to question respondents about their individual water management practices. Informal interviews and open questions were used to find out why certain practices occurred and why they are preferred.
Method development
The first approach is used to develop a hypothesis or methodology and the second approach is used in the study
The use of the questionnaire to gain data on the types of information available in the field trip.
Context Qualitative and quantitative approaches used to develop a deep understanding of a specific context
The use of FGD, photographic, questionnaire data and documentations were used to baseline the community.
Illustration Qualitative data used to illustrate quantitative findings
The data collected via informal interviews was used to explain indigenous water management practice data gained from the questionnaire.
Utility Using mixed methodology will be more useful to the researcher and others
The numbers generated by the questionnaire data are more acceptable to scientists.
While the FGD, interviews and photographic data are more acceptable to social scientists. By using a mixed methodology approach, the findings should be acceptable for both disciplines and also increase the multidisciplinary nature of this thesis.