RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN
5.5. Methodological Considerations
5.5.6. Research Choice (Triangulation)
After extensive deliberation on the various methods of data collection, the researcher decided that triangulation was appropriate for this study, considering the pragmatic stand it took and
the theory it was seeking to prove or disprove. Triangulation can be described as the combination of two or more methods of data collection, when studying the same phenomenon (Rocco, Bliss, Gallaghier & Perez-Prado, 2003). Triangulation seeks to converge and corroborate findings from two or more methods that study the same phenomenon (Onwuegbuzie & Leech 2006). The fundamental principle of triangulation is that all methods have innate biases and shortcomings; the use of one technique to evaluate a given phenomenon will unavoidably produce biased and incomplete results (Plano Clark and Creswell, 2008, p. 123). The pragmatic school of thought ―endorses eclecticism and pluralism (e.g., different, even conflicting, theories and perspectives can be useful;
observation, experience and experiments are all useful ways to gain an understanding of people and the world)‖. In this study the researcher sought to expand the breath and range of the investigation into T&D activities in the NRC through the use of different methods for each component. The researcher also sought to complement the findings of one method through seeking elaboration, enhancement and clarification of the results. A mixed method research study combines both qualitative and quantitative methods (Feilzer, 2010).
Mixed method research can be defined as a study where the researcher gathers and examines data, assimilates the findings, and reaches conclusions using both qualitative and quantitative methods (Tashakkori and Creswell (2007, cited in Plowright, 2012, p, 189; De Vos, Straydom, Fouche & Delport, 2006, p. 361). Mixed method research is preferable when the phenomena under review have different layers, this can be addressed by using quantitative and qualitative methods to measure the different aspects. Comparisons can be made across subgroups of a sample that are within the same level of the sample in concurrent mixed sampling (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007, p. 239, cited in Cohen et al., 2011, p. 162). Both methods can be used concurrently or parallel to each other, such that the overall strength of the study is greater than if only one approach were used (Creswell et al., 2007). In the parallel method, data from one sample do not influence the collection of data from the other, and so on (Cohen et al., 2011).The researcher followed the mixed method research process proposed by Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004).
Figure: 5.3. Source: Adopted from Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004, p. 239).
The mixed method approach was the most appropriate for the present study, as the researcher aimed to establish different categories of employees‘ perceptions of the impact of T&D on employee and organisational performance using different research approaches. Structured and semi-structured interviews were used to solicit information from the Directors of the NRC to identify the outcomes of T&D interventions, while questionnaires and observation were used to obtain information from employees. The mixed method approach enabled the researcher to answer the research questions; this would have not been possible with a single research method. Moreover, some research questions could only be addressed by interviewing the Directors because certain information is not accessible to employees. At the same time, employees have access to certain information that the Directors are not aware of. Therefore, the combination of the data from the two approaches allowed for rich information to be collected to answer the research questions. The data collected were analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively and the results were integrated.
Decision Tree for Mixed Method Design for this Study
Figure: 5.4. Source: Adopted from Creswell, et al., 2003; Creswell and Plano Clark, (2007 cited in Doyle, Brady, & Byrne (2009).
5.5.6.1. Advantages of Mixed Methods
The foremost advantage of using mixed-methods rather than a mono-method is that it allows for triangulation (Saunders et al., 2007). The nature of this study requires that different techniques be used to collect data from different categories of employees. A mixed-method was used because it allowed the researcher the benefit of both quantitative and qualitative data. Furthermore, according to Creswell et al. (2007, cited in Doyle, Brady & Byrne, 2009), mixed method research is best used when research questions cannot be answered by the use of qualitative or quantitative techniques alone, and offers a superior range of tools to achieve the objectives of a study. It can also offer robust proof of conclusions through the merging and substantiation of findings (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).
Data were collected through the use of different data collection methods which enhanced the validity of the research findings (Copper & Schindler, 2008, p, 186). This study adopted Harrison and Reilly‘s (2011) definition of mixed method study. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected concurrently. The data collection process was carried out concurrently;
the quantitative stage of the study did not drive the qualitative stage of data collection. The
qualitative and quantitative results were analysed separately, then merged during discussions and report writing. Further data were collected from NRC brochures, annual reports, magazines and the company journal; this was combined with the data from the questionnaires and interviews. These multiple data resources enabled the researcher to ―obtain multiple perspectives of a single organisation …… at a point in time‖ (Cooper & Schindler, 2008).
Furthermore, as suggested by De Vos et al. (2006, p. 362), the different results obtained from mixed methods led to an improved elucidation of the research problem. Mixed methods can help a researcher to answer a wide range of research questions since he/she is not limited to a particular method or approach (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Therefore, the use of more than one method will make up for the weakness of the other method/s and the validity of the research will be enhanced.
Triangulation enables the researcher to obtain broader, all-inclusive and background representations of the element/s under investigation (Plano Clark & Creswell, 2008, p. 109).
It also helped the researcher to discover distinctive variance which may have been neglected by the use of the mono-method (Plano Clark & Creswell, 2008, p. 109).