4.3 Research Approaches
4.3.3. Mixed Methods
The mixed method approach is underpinned by the principle of triangulation, which requires a researcher not to overly rely on a single research approach. The researcher employs more than one approach in a single study (Johnson & Christensen, 2008:441; Bryman, 2004:668, 2008:15;
Creswell & Clark, 2011:1), in what Greene (2007:20) called, “multiple ways of seeing and hearing.” It could as well refer to using multiple qualitative or quantitative approaches to investigate the same phenomenon (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003:10-11). In the mixed methodology, the combination of quantitative and qualitative research approaches involves viewpoints, data collection, analysis and interpretation (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007:123). Greene described mixed methodology as:
an orientation toward social inquiry that actively invites us to participate in dialogue about multiple ways of seeing and hearing, multiple ways of making sense of the social world, and multiple standpoints on what is important and to be valued and cherished (2009:20).
Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004:17) defined mixed methods research as “the class of research where the researcher mixes or combines qualitative and quantitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study.” They added that it can be
114
rightly referred to as the third methodology in research, after the commonly known qualitative and quantitative approaches. Summing up several definitions in the literature, Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner (2007:123) fully agreed with Johnson and Onwuegbuzie’s (2004:17) definition and added a purpose statement, “for broader purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration.” In this definition the authors looked further than the method and methodological characteristics of the approach to include the rationale and purpose for its adoption. The various definitions are clear that mixed methods research involves philosophical assumptions of both qualitative and quantitative approaches and their various methods of investigating a phenomenon.
Combining more than one research approach was said to offer a better understanding of the research problem, as each approach added a unique perspective to understanding the phenomenon under investigation (Mertens, 2011:195; Creswell, 2013:4). Mixed methodology aims to benefit from the strengths of qualitative and quantitative approaches, while minimizing their weaknesses in a single study (Creswell, 2003:22; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004:14, 15).
Various authors (Mertens, Bledsoe, Sullivan & Wilson, 2010:193-214; Mertens, 2011:195) stressed that, if adopted by researchers, the approach could be useful as a tool for social transformation. Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007:96) found that mixed methods facilitated collection of data that was more comprehensive and reliable. The mixed method approach yields integrated knowledge that is supported by numbers, images, words and narratives. This gives more deeper and meaningful answers that other methodologies would not be able to give (Johnson and Christensen, 2008:444).
Two main factors that can determine how mixed methods is applied in a given study (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Creswell, 2003; Onwuegbizie et al. 2009; Lopez-Fernandez &
Molina-Azorin, 2011:1460-1461) include the weight/emphasis approach, where the researcher gives the same weight to quantitative and qualitative aspects or greater weight to one of them.
The second factor is the implementation of date collection/time orientation, which refers to the order in which each method is used to collect data. In this case, the researcher either collects data using both methods at the same time (simultaneous), or uses one method first, followed by the other (sequential). Whichever method a researcher chooses will have implications for the research design.
115
Some critics of mixed methods have observed that this approach can be expensive in terms of the time and resources needed to complete the research process (Lieber, 2009:222; Creswell 2003; Creswell & Clark, 2007:10; Johnson & Christensen, 2008:444) and that the investigators might not have the needed skills for a mixed method approach (Mugenda & Mugenda 2003:156).
Among authors who have used mixed methodology in studying student learning experiences is Bowles-Terry (2012), who used the methodology to examine the connections between student academic success and information literacy instruction. She used a quantitative approach and added the student perspective from focus groups to support and fill gaps from the quantitative analysis. She found students appreciated both orientation and discipline-specific library instruction, which made positive differences, as was evidenced in their academic results.
Wakimoto (2010) studied how first-year students at California State University learnt and also their satisfaction, in a required IL course using the mixed methods methodology. Results from questionnaires, pre- and post-tests and focus groups allowed in-depth discussions and evaluation and reflection on their IL experience. Kwon (2008) studied the relationship between critical thinking and library use anxiety at the University of South Florida in the United States.
Surveys were used to capture library use experience and provide quantitative data, while analysis of student essays provided qualitative data. Results of the study revealed a negative relationship between critical thinking and library use anxiety. IL therefore helped reduce levels of library anxiety and improved critical thinking skills among the students.
Selection of the type of methodology for any research is fundamental and has implications for research design, including sampling, data collection and analysis (Durrheim, 2006:47).
Durrheim stated that the decision is informed by the research purpose and the type of data, expected to achieve this purpose. Creswell (2003:21; 2008) noted that choice of methodology depends on the research problem, the personal experiences of the researcher and the audience to whom the report will be presented.
The methodological approach applied for the present study included both qualitative and quantitative techniques. The mixed method approach was found appropriate, because there is a strong move towards using different research approaches to understand information behaviour more clearly (Edwards, 2005:58; Bryman:2006). This researcher adopted the mixed method
116
approach, where qualitative and quantitative approaches were used to collect data in the same study, to facilitate a deeper understanding of fourth-year psychology students’ IL learning experiences, as well as enriching the research and making it more inclusive and reliable (Sales
& Pinto, 2011:248). By using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, this study aimed at leveraging on strengths and minimizing weaknesses of both methods (Johnson &
Onwuegbuzie, 2004:14, 18; Creswell, 2009). Having adopted the pragmatist paradigm, this study ably applied a mixed methodologies approach, since the choice of methodology depends on the approach that best addresses the research questions (Creswell, 2009:10-11). Various authors, including Howe (1988), and Tashakkori & Teddlie (1998) have insisted that pragmatism is the best paradigm for use with a mixed method approach.
Qualitative methodology captured the participants’ accounts of meaning, perception or phenomenological experiences (De Vos et al., 2011: 65, Babbie & Mouton, 2001:53).
Conversely, the quantitative methodology captured statistical and numeric data describing participants’ characteristics, attitudes and opinions.