4.3 Research Approaches/Method
4.3.3 Mixed Methodology
This study made use of the mixed methodology. According to Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009), mixed methodologists work primarily within the pragmatist paradigm and are interested in both narrative and numeric data and their analysis. Researchers using this methodology collect, analyse and mix both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or series of studies (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). Different terminologies such as integrative, combined, blended, mixed methods, multi-method and multi-strategy have been used by different scholars to refer to this method (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2009). However, the term mixed methods has come to be accepted by different scholars across disciplines (Connaway and Powell, 2010; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Creswell, 2009). Mixed methods research is relatively new having come into wider use over the past thirty years or so hence most of its designs are equally new.
A number of scholars (Hibberts and Johnson, 2012; Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007) have studied mixed methods research, and argued for the use of the method. Some of the advantages of this methodology, according to these scholars, are:
104
It provides strengths that offset the weaknesses of both quantitative and qualitative research, and, therefore, has the potential to provide better (stronger) inferences.
It can provide fuller, deeper, and more meaningful answers to a single research question.
It eliminates different kinds of bias, explains the true nature of phenomenon under investigation and improves various forms of validity or quality criteria.
Mixed methods research also has its own disadvantages. These are:
It is difficult for a single researcher to understand and conduct both quantitative and qualitative research hence might require a research team.
It is more expensive and time consuming to conduct.
In spite of the few weaknesses that are associated with this method, the researcher still opted to use it in this study as the advantages tend to outweigh the weaknesses. Moreover, Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) observed that these challenges are not insurmountable because certain strategies have been developed to address them.
Tashakkori and Teddlie (2009) and Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) are of the opinion that the study’s research question(s) should be of primary importance – more important than either the method or theoretical lens, or paradigm, that underlies the method. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2009), in particular, emphasise that the use of qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods must be evaluated in terms of the quality of potential answers. Since research questions are derived from the statement of the problem, it can as well be said that the nature of the research problem should be taken into consideration in choosing what type of method to use in a study. The decision to deploy a mixed methodological approach was hence taken based on the nature of the research problem and questions that follow that required the researcher to collect both quantitative data (such as funding trends, available e- resources, and more) and qualitative data (such as verbal responses on the availability of policies, librarians’ assessment of library staff attitudes towards the use of mobile phones in service delivery, and others). For instance, the main research questions 1, 2, 4 and 5 respectively captured in section 4.1 have some aspects of probing attitudes of library staff, academic staff and students towards the use of mobile phones in the delivery; access to library services; and factors that influence the use of mobile phones which were addressed by analysing qualitative data in a form of perceptions and observations solicited through
105
interviews conducted with the university/college librarians and ICT directors of the universities/colleges. Similarly, the third research question and some aspects of the fourth and fifth research questions focussing on attitudes of academic staff and students to the use of mobile phones in the delivery and access to library services and factors that may influence the use of mobile phones by both academic staff and students was addressed by analysing quantitative data in a form of mobile phone usage trends, ease of accessing library services using mobile phones, and more, collected through questionnaires administered to academic staff and students. The researcher believes that the flexibility of using both qualitative and quantitative methods in this study made it possible for the research questions to be answered in a more effective way (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2009).
Mixed methods has been used by a number of other researchers in different studies. In a longitudinal study spanning a period of two years, Glackin et al. (2014) used the mixed methods approach to examine the impact of e-books and mobile devices on student learning at Boise State University in the USA. In this study, the researcher used a survey method to collect data from graduate social work students including undergraduate and graduate nursing students. Thereafter, the researcher conducted a sixty minute focus-group discussion with some of the students. In another study, Boateng (2011) investigated the impact of mobile phones on the micro-trading activities of traders in Ghana. In this study, a mixed methods approach consisting of a descriptive survey of 136 traders and a case study of two traders was adopted. Yet another study that made use of the mixed methods approach was conducted by Cawley and Hynes (2010) in Ireland. This study examined the social adoption of the mobile phone by Irish teenagers in city, town and rural settings. The study used original empirical data from a survey of teenage respondents and six focus groups.
4.3.3.1 Types of Mixed Research Design
Several authors (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007; Creswell, 2009) have developed several typologies of mixed methods research designs. These include the exploratory mixed methods design, explanatory mixed methods design, triangulation mixed methods design and the embedded mixed methods design. Each and every one of these designs are categorised according to two main dimensions: time orientation and paradigm emphasis. According to Hibberts and Johnson (2012), time orientation refers to when
106
researchers incorporate methods/strands from quantitative and qualitative research into their mixed design.
In practice, researchers can either use methods from each paradigm concurrently or sequentially. Paradigm emphasis, on the other hand, refers to the type of mixing of quantitative and qualitative methods and epistemological/paradigmatic assumptions (Hibberts and Johnson, 2012). In this particular case, the researcher has the option of using paradigms of equal status or a dominant status. The former implies that methods (quantitative and qualitative) are given equal status whilst the latter means that one method is given more prominence and the other method is just used to support the main method.
4.3.3.1.1 Sequential Explanatory Design
This design is characterised by the collection and analysis of quantitative data followed by the collection and analysis of qualitative data (Creswell, 2003). Priority is given to the quantitative data, and the two methods are integrated during the interpretation phase of the study. Qualitative data collected in the second phase of the study helps to explain or build upon initial quantitative results (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007).
The advantages of this design are that it is easy to implement, describe and report. The main weakness of this design is that the two separate phases of the design takes long to implement.
The researcher may also need to have mastery of both quantitative and qualitative techniques to implement it.
4.3.3.1.2 Sequential Exploratory Design
This is a two-phase design just like the previous one which starts with the collection and analysis of qualitative data followed by the collection and analysis of quantitative data. This design is particularly useful in instances where the researcher needs to develop and test an instrument when one is not available, when variables are unknown, when there is no guiding theoretical framework or when a researcher wants to explore a phenomenon in depth and then measure its prevalence (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). Both sets of data (qualitative and quantitative) are integrated during the interpretation stage but priority is given to the
107
qualitative aspect of the study (Creswell, 2003). The advantages and disadvantages of the explanatory design also apply to this design.
4.3.3.1.3 Nested/Embedded Mixed Design
The embedded mixed design is one in which one data set provides a supportive, secondary role in a study based primarily on the other data set (Delport and Fouche, 2011). In this design, the two data sets may be collected either at the same time (as in concurrent nested design) (Creswell, 2003) or at different times. The priority can be given to either the quantitative or the qualitative phase. This design is particularly useful when, for instance, a researcher needs to embed qualitative data within a dominant quantitative experimental design by collecting qualitative data through interviews with the respondents, in order to follow up on the results of the experiment.
4.3.3.1.4 Concurrent Triangulation Design
Concurrent triangulation method is a one-phase design in which the researcher uses both quantitative and qualitative methods during the same time frame and with equal weight to best understand the phenomenon of interest (Delport and Fouche, 2011). Although theoretically it is acknowledged that both methods are given equal weight, Creswell (2003) argues that in practice greater weight is put on one of the two methods (quantitative or qualitative). Concurrent triangulation method also involves the concurrent, but separate, collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data in order to compare and contrast the different findings to see the extent to which they do or do not agree with each other. The data collected is usually integrated in the interpretation of the results.
This method has several advantages. Most notably, the method can result in well-validated and substantiated findings whilst data collection happens in a shorter time frame (Creswell, 2003). The method also has its limitations. Firstly, it requires great effort and expertise to adequately study a phenomenon with two separate methods. Secondly, a researcher may not be clear on how to resolve discrepancies that may arise in the results (Delport and Fouche, 2011; Creswell, 2003).
108
Triangulation in a study is not only restricted to methods but goes well beyond this.
Triangulation also includes mixing of data sources, use of multiple theories to explain and interpret data, and even using multiple researchers to collect and analyse data (Sekaran and Bougie, 2010). All this is done not only to provide corroborating evidence (Creswell, 2013) but also to make use of different expertise as mixed methods is known to be a complex undertaking requiring a diversity of skills to accomplish (Delport and Fouche, 2011).
The present study made use of the concurrent triangulation design (methodological triangulation) whereby both quantitative and qualitative methods were accorded equal weighting. Data sets were also triangulated. In practice, quantitative data, collected through self-completion questionnaires administered to students and academic staff, and qualitative data, collected through semi-structured interviews conducted with the university/college librarians and ICT directors, were collected at the same time. Such type of data were integrated during analysis and interpretation of the results. The study also made use of theoretical triangulation whereby the UTAUT model and the TOE framework were used jointly to provide a theoretical lens to the study.