4.4 Research methodology
4.4.1 Research design
This study takes a case study approach of research within the mixed methods design. According to Remenyi (2012), a case study is “an empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real life context, when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident, and in which multiple sources of evidence are used.” A case study engages the researcher in an in-depth understanding of a given scenario in order to understand real world phenomenon (Yin, 2012). As such, a case study approach provides detailed information required to understand a phenomenon when compared to other methods. In addition, a case study allows for integration of multiple data collection methods which at the end give a complete understanding of a given phenomenon (Denscombe, 2007; Curry et al., 2009). More importantly, this research is based on a case study because it was conducted in the GGEP where the eThekwini Municipality is piloting a conservation management project using the SRA as a legislative instrument.
Leech and Ownwuegbuzie (2009: 265) state that “mixed methods research represents research that involves collecting, analysing, and interpreting quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or in a series of studies that investigate the same underlying phenomenon.” In addition, Creswell et al. (2004:
212) describe mixed methods research as a study which “involves the collection or analysis of both quantitative and/ or qualitative data in a single study in which the data are collected concurrently or sequentially, are given a priority, and involve the integration of the data at one or more stages in the process of research”. It is apparent that when using a mixed methods approach both quantitative and qualitative techniques are integrated in a single study in the data collection and analysis (Gaber and
Overacker, 2012; Heyvaert et al., 2013). The mixed methods approach to research thus provides a flexible way to obtain information and by mixing the methods, best results for the research questions are obtained through triangulation (Johnson and Ownwuegbuzie, 2004; Denscombe, 2007).
Several authors advocate that quantitative and qualitative research should not be combined into one study because of the different philosophies underlying each technique on how knowledge should be obtained (Teedlie and Tashakkori, 2009). The advocates of quantitative research argue that knowledge and the process of acquiring it should be objective and therefore the researcher should be detached from the objects under study (Johnson and Ownwuegbuzie, 2004; Wahyuni, 2012; Harrison III, 2013). On the other hand, the advocates of qualitative research believe that knowledge cannot be objective and therefore in order to acquire it, the researcher should be involved in the process in order to understand the context under which knowledge is gathered (Johnson and Ownwuegbuzie, 2004; Wahyuni, 2012; Harrison III, 2013).
Researchers such as Leech and Ownwuegbuzie (2009), Teedlie and Tashakkori (2009) and Rubin and Babbie (2013) view mixed methods as a new and third paradigm, which should not be seen as replacing quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. Thus, the mixed methods research approach bridges the gap between quantitative and qualitative research paradigms by maximising the strengths and minimising the weaknesses inherent within each (Johnson et al., 2007). However, Onwuegbuzie and Collins (2007) state that mixed methods approaches can have problems of representation, integration and legitimation.
Researchers such as Onwuegbuzie and Collins (2007) and Cameron (2011) have expressed concern over the use of a mixed methods approach to research such as paradigms, pragmatism, praxis, proficiency, philosophical, representation, legitimation, integration, cultural, psychological (cognitive) and practical, among others. However, Mingers (2001) states that the concerns and criticism are not insurmountable.
Therefore, in taking a mixed methods approach, the researcher needs to find a way of overcoming the criticism by:
Having sufficient understanding of the philosophical bases of research to determine if and how apparent paradigmatic differences in approach might influence their work and be resolved
Being familiar with key literature and debates in mixed methods, and with exemplars of a variety of mixed methods approaches to research; learn to take risks, but also to justify choices made.
Being able to determine the appropriateness of a selected method(s), based on the question(s) being asked (be question-driven in their choice of methods), and be able to determine whether mixing methods provides a cost-effective advantage over use of a single method; have knowledge of the variety, rules and implications of different sampling methods, and of alternative approaches
to dealing with ‘error’ or deviance from the norm; be prepared to recognise and admit what is not known, and seek advice; develop skills in working collaboratively with researchers using different approaches or methods.
Having well developed skills in carrying out research using at least one major methodological approach, but also a comprehensive understanding of a range of approaches and methods (if they did not already), particularly to understand the principles underlying those methods; have an ability to interpret data meaningfully, and to ask questions of the data, rather than to simply follow a formula; know and understand how software can be used to assist analysis tasks.
(Cameron, 2011: 96)
4.4.1.1 Rationale for combining qualitative and quantitative research techniques
According to Venkatesh et al. (2013), a researcher can undertake to use a mixed methods approach if doing so will help in answering the research problem. In addition, a mixed methods approach can be adopted “without much consideration of paradigmatic or cultural incommensurability if the researcher is able to overcome the cognitive and practical barriers associated with conducting mixed methods research”
(Venkatesh et al., 2013: 2). The rationale for combining quantitative and qualitative techniques in one study is that on their own, the techniques are inadequate and therefore may not provide enough information to answer the research questions (Ivankova et al., 2006). That is, quantitative methods cannot provide rich information required to understand a phenomenon while the actual meaning can be lost when summarising data and knowledge generated can be too general or abstract to be applied to local situations, context or individuals (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). On the other hand, qualitative methods cannot generalise findings while analyses can be time consuming and findings are rid with personal biases and idiosyncrasies (Anderson, 2010; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Therefore, the inadequacies of one method are overcome by another method’s strengths, for instance, quantitative methods summarises data for generalisations but in doing so some meaning maybe be lost. To overcome this, qualitative methods provide rich detailed data which help explain the generalised information from quantitative methods.
Researchers (Johnson and Turner, 2003; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004) argue that taking a mixed methods approach to research yields greater benefits considering the strengths that each technique possesses. Thus, a mixed methods approach ensures that the information obtained is both valid and reliable (Gaber and Overacker, 2012; Mayoh and Onwuegbuzie, 2013). According to Hanson et al.
(2005), the mixed methods approach is very useful because by integrating quantitative and qualitative techniques, information from one technique can be used to complement, develop, initiate and expand on information from other techniques. The complementary aspect in a mixed methods approach ensures that
a researcher is able to pursue different aspects of the research, clarify issues, seek in-depth understanding and even follow-up on issues arising (Bryman, 2006; Gaber and Overacker, 2012). Qualitative techniques can be used to elicit information to be used to explain quantitative information (Hanson et al., 2005). The expansion aspect in a mixed methods approach can also ensure that a researcher is able to use quantitative and qualitative techniques based on their strengths to pursue different aspects of the phenomenon under study (Bryman, 2006; Gaber and Overacker, 2012; Mayoh and Onwuegbuzie, 2013). Finally, combining quantitative and qualitative techniques ensures that the weaknesses that each technique possesses are minimised (Bryman, 2006).
4.4.1.2 Mixed methods sequential explanatory design
Implementation of the mixed methods approach can be done in two ways: sequentially or concurrently (Curry et al., 2013). Mixed methods sequential design is sub-divided into explanatory, exploratory and transformative methods while mixed methods concurrent design is sub-divided into triangulation, nested and transformative methods (Hanson et al., 2005). The main differences between sequential and concurrent designs are (a) the implementation sequence and (b) the importance attached to each technique (Hanson et al., 2005). In addition, the timing of data collection using each technique determines the type of mixed methods approach (Harrison III, 2013). The decision of which technique takes precedence should be made before data collection or during the course of data collection (Ivankova et al., 2006). In addition, the researcher also has to decide when to integrate the quantitative and qualitative techniques. In mixed methods sequential explanatory design, quantitative data is collected first while qualitative data is collected and analysed last (Ivankova et al., 2006; Curry et al., 2013; Harrison III, 2013). This study adopts a mixed method sequential explanatory design where priority is given to quantitative techniques and therefore quantitative data was collected first.