CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.4 RESEARCH APPROACH OF DISSERTATION
A “pragmatic” approach was adopted for the present study. Pragmatism is a philosophical assumption for mixed-methods research and uses the approach of “what works” (Tashakkori &
Creswell, 2007; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2006). The central focus of a pragmatic approach is not simply the pursuit of knowledge through inquiry but through methods that are appropriate and workable (Morgan, 2007). A pragmatic approach emphasises what is workable and takes into cognisance that researchers’ values, beliefs and views are always a part of who they are, how they act and how they view phenomena. The pragmatic approach recognises that values and beliefs even impact on what researchers choose to study and how they choose to study the phenomenon.
Pragmatism offers a reciprocal approach between the quantitative and qualitative paradigms which are two diametrically opposed but potentially complementing paradigms. According to Morgan (2007), a pragmatic approach relies on abductive reasoning, which moves back and forth between deductive and inductive reasoning. Morgan notes that abduction implies moving back and forth between the separate qualitative and quantitative components in a mixed-
methods study. The researcher seeks to connect data from the two approaches in attempts to answer the research questions which were posed to guide the study.
The use of a mixed-methods approach which relies on quantitative and qualitative methods in this study was done with the awareness of the criticisms each method has attracted. The central arguments relate to the inherent assumptions about epistemology and ontology that each method purports to have as its basis. It is commonly understood that a positivist epistemology underpins the use of quantitative methods which are considered scientific, objective, reliable, valid, deductive and generalisable (Morgan, 2007). An interpretive epistemology on the other hand usually underpins the qualitative approach. Research taking a qualitative approach is considered constructivist, subjective and inductive. While the former is often associated with theory testing the latter is often associated with theory building (Spicer, 2004). It is important to note, however, that all research makes assumptions which are susceptible to dispute and contradiction and hence, no methodology is without its dangers (Charmaz, 2005). While the qualitative approach has in the past been judged to be inferior, there is increasing recognition of the value of qualitative research in answering questions that are not easily addressed
exclusively by experimental methods. At the same time it is increasingly being realised that the type of knowledge generated by each method and the way it can be used are different (Robinson et al., 2005).
According to Hanson, Creswell, Plano-Clark, Petska and Creswell (2005) and Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), there are various reasons why researchers choose a pragmatic approach which entails mixing methods. Reasons include the following:
• The two approaches may be used for complementarity. Researchers can use the findings from one method to explain the findings from the other method;
• Results from one method can be compared to results from the other method;
• The findings from several methods can also be used to expand the breadth of the study by using different method to focus on different areas of inquiry;
• After obtaining quantitative results from a sample of a population, researchers can use them to identify a few individuals who meet some defined criteria so as to expand on the results using qualitative data;
• Researchers can use mixed-methods to improve their understanding of the research problem by bringing together numeric trends from quantitative approaches and specific explanations and descriptions from qualitative approaches;
• Through qualitative approaches, researchers can identify constructs that may be measured subsequently through the use of existing quantitative instruments or the development of new ones;
• In the process of developing the research, results from one method can play an important role in shaping the research as well as in informing the other methods.
As with any design, there are strengths and weaknesses in using the mixed-methods approach.
Importantly it enables researchers to combine analytical, interpretive, deductive, exploratory and experimental approaches. These approaches and methods substantiate one another to verify validity. The following strengths have been noted regarding the mixed-methods approach (Creswell, 2003; Cresswell & Plano-Clark, 2007; Greene & Caracelli, 2003; Morgan, 2007):
• Pictures, words and numbers are used to add meaning to each other. In some cases, it may not be adequate to provide only statistical data about a specific issue without adding descriptions as a way of showing how people experience that phenomenon.
• Researchers can test theories effectively by using qualitative approaches to formulate grounds for verification.
• The researcher is provided flexibility to find relations between different variables and draw conclusions.
• The researcher is provided with more space to actively participate in the generation of the data and their interpretation in a direct way.
• The use of quantitative and qualitative methods provides more insights and understanding that can be missed if only one approach is used.
The same authors point out the following weaknesses that are applicable to the mixed method approach:
• A study using a mixed method approach can be difficult for a single researcher to manage due to the quantity of work and the expertise which may be necessary.
• Research teams, including consultants, may need to be used, instead of a single individual. This has budgetary implications as well as other consequences related to team dynamics and project management.
• Mixed method research may be time consuming.
• The researcher must have sufficient knowledge and skills in both qualitative and quantitative methods, and sufficient understanding is needed to mix the data.
• Mixed-methods research is a new area which is still undergoing development. It is possible that mixed-methods researchers may encounter some difficulties which may be difficult to resolve, including some conflicts that can be brought about by the different schools of thought and underpinnings.
The combined data collection approach was deemed suitable for this empirical study as it allowed for the flexibility to pursue topics that arose during the process of data collection that would not have been anticipated at the planning stage. For this study, a quantitative approach
was specifically employed for two reasons. Firstly, the quantitative approach makes the analysis of large sets of data possible. Quantitative methods are preferred over qualitative methods especially when the proposed research is quantitative in nature (how much of a phenomenon) and hence involves a large number of cases. Large numbers of cases are very important for descriptive and explanatory analyses, especially where several variables are to be analysed simultaneously (Babbie & Mouton, 2001). Secondly, the quantitative approach allows for the standardisation of measures and responses.
A qualitative approach was adopted in order to complement data collected using the
quantitative approach. It is often difficult to capture personal meanings and feelings adequately using quantitative methods since they emphasise numbers (Silverman, 2004; Sullivan, Monette
& DeJong, 1998). Feelings and personal meaning are better captured through narrative
descriptions. This study dealt with a phenomenon which is yet to be fully understood. Against this background, a qualitative approach was found to be more useful as a complementary and confirmatory tool because it is more exploratory in nature. For example, the quantitative results of this study would provide a priori information on aggregated levels of understanding of the concepts under study, while the results of the qualitative section would show how trial participants interpret the concepts. The qualitative approach was also used in pre-testing and amending the quantitative tool to help ensure correct usage of words used.
The present study benefited in several ways from the following strengths of the qualitative approach:
• Depth and detail which may not be obtained from structured approaches using tools like questionnaires
• Openness, bringing about the potential to ellicit phenomena not dealt with by previous studies
• It assists the investigator to view the phenomenon from the world view of those under study – their meaning rather than imposing meaning
• It attempts to avoid pre-judgments. The aim is to unravel what is happening rather than having preconceived ideas about what may be happening (Sullivan et al.,1998).
As part of the pragmatic approach, a sequential design which involves the mixing of the two approaches in a sequential manner was employed. The sequential design involves sequencing of approaches and methods in a justified manner. The sequential usage of the two approaches in the present study, while aimed at taking advantage of the strengths of both approaches, was also aimed at countering the weaknesses of both methods in an attempt to answer the research questions. The sequential design is presented in greater detail in Chapter 5.