List of Tables
Chapter 5: Research Design and Methods
5.2.1 Mixed methods research design
A mixed methods research design combines quantitative and qualitative techniques in a single study to provide a more comprehensive analysis of different types of interrelated social processes. “While these combined approaches are all termed mixed methods, they differ in the relative emphasis given to one or the other method and in the sequencing of their use in a research project” (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner, 2007:118). In this study, “greater emphasis is placed on the qualitative approach given the research problem and research questions and objectives. The quantitative approach is employed to provide a more comprehensive analysis of the research findings” (Creswell, 2009:4).
Creswell (2009:14), Yin (2009:63) and Stewart and Cole (2006:328) elaborate on the mixed methods research design. Creswell (2009:14) notes that this method is less well-known than quantitative or qualitative research designs. He adds that it arose out of recognition by researchers that all research designs have limitations that can be offset by mixed methods. According to Creswell (2003:4), mixed methods research is
“more than simply collecting and analysing both kinds of data; it also involves the use of both approaches in tandem so that the overall strength of a study is greater than either qualitative or quantitative research alone”.
Similarly, Yin (2009:63) observes “that mixed methods research enables investigators to address more complicated research questions and collect a richer and stronger array of evidence than can be accomplished by any single method”.
Stewart and Cole (2006:328) note that feminist mixed methods research is applicable to gender-oriented studies. They argue that feminist researchers typically ground their research questions in women’s experiences with the goal of understanding these experiences and improving women’s lives. The authors add that using quantitative data to frame qualitative findings offers a way to magnify the strengths of qualitative methods, including depth, validity, and descriptive and interpretive power, either by leveraging the qualitative findings into a more generalised set of findings or by facilitating an understanding of the findings as one piece of a complex system that works at many levels (Stewart and Cole, 2006:334). In this study,
5-127
descriptive statistics on the number, types and outcomes of cases handled by paralegals are used in tandem with the social processes of the role of CBPs and CRJ to illuminate the interaction between CBPs, CRJ and the DVA. Hence, secondary data from the CCJD database of statistics provide a framework for the qualitative data and vice versa.
A deeper examination of qualitative and quantitative inquiries reveals why a mixed methods research design is appropriate for this study.
Scholars cite different reasons for selecting a qualitative research inquiry. Golafshani (2003:600) suggests that a qualitative research inquiry produces findings that cannot be arrived at by means of statistical procedures; it gives rise to findings arrived at from real-life settings where the phenomena of interest unfolds naturally. Similarly, Gadbois, Patterson, Javuis and Cunningham (1999:1) state that a qualitative research design enables a researcher to use techniques based on analysis of real life situations. This “often includes searching for underlying themes or patterns that emerge during the research process”. In much the same vein, Hancock et al (2007:7) observe that qualitative research is “concerned with the social aspects of our world and seeks to answer questions about why people behave the way they do, how opinions and attitudes are formed, how people are affected by the events that occur around them, and how and why cultures and practices have developed in the way they have”.
On the other hand, quantitative research is framed in terms of numbers rather than words (Creswell, 2009:3).
Gadbois et al (1999:1) suggest that quantitative research “can be effective for feminist research gathering statistical information could enable a researcher to recognise the enormity of a widely-occurring problem such as women abuse” which sets women’s experiences in a broader context. Furthermore, it may be comforting for women who have experienced abuse to recognise “that their experience is not an isolated individual occurrence, but one that has been shared by a significant number of other women”. However, despite its methodological strengths, many researchers find the quantitative research process “coercive, constraining, and limited in its ability to fully uncover the complexity of sensitive issues”. (Gadbois et al, 1999:1).
A mixed methods approach was selected for the current study as it was believed that a single research design would not sufficiently develop an in-depth socio-legal understanding of the DVA and the work of CBPs across plural justice systems in general and in CRJ in particular. As Creswell (2009:203) argues, “the problems addressed by social science researchers are complex, and the use of either quantitative or qualitative approaches on their own is inadequate to address this complexity”. The combined use of qualitative and quantitative research provides an expanded understanding of the research problem. More
5-128
insight is gained by combining qualitative and quantitative research on the various issues involving CBPs, victims of domestic violence experiences with the criminal justice system and alternative approaches such as CRJ and the traditional justice system.
Stewart and Cole (2006:335) explain that qualitative methods are often used to unearth or identify issues or themes, while quantitative methods are used to answer questions relating to frequency and association that often cannot be addressed by qualitative methods. While this study seeks to determine CBPs’ role in restorative justice, the types and frequency of cases handled need to be established. Creswell (2009:18) notes that if a problem “needs to be understood because little research has been done on it, this merits a qualitative exploratory approach”. The author adds that this approach is suitable if the “topic has never been explored with a certain group of people”. There is a paucity of research on the work of CBPs and very little research on their approach to CRJ in domestic violence cases. Creswell (2009:12) adds that a mixed methods design has the potential to “serve a larger, transformative purpose to advocate for marginalised groups such as women, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, and others”.
Moreover, mixed methods research is appropriate in public governance research. Public governance is an umbrella term for public administration, public management and public policy pertaining to the public and NGO sectors. The multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary nature of this research study that cross-cuts law, state and non-state justice systems and social science is useful in a study of public governance. The mixed methods research design enables the public governance researcher to cut across fields in a manner that enriches and deepens the investigation. The researcher used a mixed methods design to describe and explore the public administration and informal approaches that have been used to facilitate access to justice for rural women who are victims of domestic violence. The mixed methods design illuminated the type, number and disposition of cases as well as procedures and processes for the CBPs’
handling of domestic violence cases. However, this mixed methods study is primarily qualitative with the quantitative evidence playing a secondary and supportive role without the need for statistical inferences.
The descriptive, exploratory and somewhat explanatory nature of the study enabled the researcher to collect information that is open-ended, thereby addressing the research problem by providing insight into the work of CBPs. The mixed methods design helped fulfil the purpose of this study which was to provide an in-depth understanding of the world as seen through the eyes of CBPs and female victims of domestic violence. It enabled the paralegal sector and survivors of domestic violence, through narrative adduced by this study, to advocate for the kind of justice that will meet their unique needs across plural justice systems. As Creswell (2009:4) notes, the aim of a mixed methods research study is not to impose preordained concepts and
5-129
hypotheses. New theories may be generated or existing theories built upon during the research. In this study, the quantitative data revealed the number, types and disposition of domestic violence cases handled by CBPs, including the number of cases resolved through restorative justice and through the criminal justice process. Again, this secondary data sets the experience of women in a larger context.