It can be summarized that the positivism paradigm is closely linked with quantitative research, while the constructivism paradigm synchronises with qualitative research (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2017; Orsi, 2016; Dwyer, Čorak and Tomljenović, 2017). On the contrary, this study used a mixed methods approach to achieve its research objectives. The pragmatic approach was, therefore, adopted in this study because it is closely linked to mixed methods research.
Review of literature reveals that there are generally three conventional approaches to research design, namely, qualitative approach quantitative approach and mixed approach (Creswell and Poth, 2017; Holloway and Galvin, 2016; Abdullah, 2017; Sekaran and Bougie, 2016). This study discusses the first two approaches separately before dwelling on the mixed approach, which is the next section of the discussion.
4.3.1 Qualitative Approach
Creswell and Poth (2017) discuss the philosophical underpinnings and the fundamentals of five qualitative review methodologies, namely, narrative research, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, and case study. Qualitative research design is predominantly exploratory research (Holloway and Galvin, 2016). It is used to obtain deeper insight of fundamental reasons, opinions, and motivations. Creswell and Poth (2016) also indicate how qualitative research design provides perceptions about the issue at hand or assists to develop philosophies or premises for possible quantitative research. The study partially employs the qualitative approach to establish a deeper understanding of the female entrepreneurs’ experiences as they are narrated by the participants.
4.3.2 Quantitative Approach
Quantitative research design is a proficient method of confirming results and attesting or refuting a hypothesis (Holloway and Galvin, 2016; Creswell and Poth, 2017). It provides a standard structure across various scientific fields and disciplines. Comprehensive study results are obtained after statistical data analysis (Sekaran and Bougie, 2016). Abdullah (2017) is of the view that the quantitative results can be legitimately discussed and published. Following this line of thought, the researcher used the quantitative approach to collect, analyse and present the findings using the statistical methods and techniques.
4.3.3 Mixed Methods
Mixed methods entail the use of both quantitative and qualitative approaches (Cord et al., 2017).
“The philosophical underpinnings of mixed methods research are anchored on the middle ground between positivist and social constructivist worldviews and assume pragmatist and transformative perspectives” (Modesto and Tichapondwa, 2016:70). Some scholars view the philosophical position of all research methods as a variety with three different perspectives which are the purists, the situationalists and the pragmatists (Drury-Ruddlesden, 2017; Prichard, Kinna, Pinta and Berry,
2017; Taylor, 2017; Rossman and Wilson, 1985; Leech and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The purists on either side of the continuum argue that different paradigms have different expectations concerning the environment of the world and knowledge, which are incompatible (Malbin, 2016; Yackee, 2015).
Contemporary researchers assert that mixed methodology is progressively becoming recognised predominantly for its “ability to bring multiple points of view to research, riding on the advantage of the strengths of each of the different strategies used to explain or resolve complex phenomena or results” (Takhar and Chitakunye, 2012: 914). Saruchera and Chitakunye (2013) posit that the use of mixed methods strengthens the research results by bringing in a hybrid product of the study.
Creswell (2006) advanced four major mixed methods designs, with alternatives within each type:
the triangulation design, the embedded design, the explanatory design, and the exploratory design (Creswell, 2006). Table 4.3 tabulates a brief overview of each of these designs: the author, mixed methods design and the general use of the mixed methods.
Table 4.3: Diverse types of mixed methods
Author Mixed
Methods Design
Use of the methods
Creswell and Poth (2017) Triangulation Design
“Both types of data are collected during one phase of the research at roughly the same time. Merge the data during the interpretation or analysis to obtain different but complementary data on the same topic” (Morse, 1991: 122) Creswell, Plano Clark et al.
(2003); Iandola, Han, Moskewicz, Ashraf, Dally, and Keutzer (2016)
The Embedded Design
Embed one type of data within a larger design using the other type of data
Creswell, Plano Clark, et al.
(2003); Bellemare, Masaki, and Pepinsky (2017); Greene et al. (1989);
Lacroix et al. (2015);
Zuidgeest, Goetz, and Grobbee (2017)
Explanatory Design
Considered the most straightforward of the mixed methods designs. Connect the data between the two phases. The results of the first method (qualitative) can help develop or inform the second method(quantitative)
Creswell, Plano Clark et al.
(2003); Bonaca, Bhatt, Cohen, Steg, Storey, Jensen, Magnani, Bansilal, Fish, Im, and Bengtsson (2015)
Exploratory Design
Connect the data between the two Phases
Source: Own Compilation
This study used the convergent parallel mixed methods research design (a single-phased mixed method approach), which can be used to strengthen the research by integrating two data sets (Creswell and Clark, 2011; Mount, 2016). It adds reliability and validity to the results of the study (Yeasmin and Rahman, 2012; Mount, 2016; Creswell and Clark, 2011:2). The usefulness of this method to the researcher and its ability to draw on the advantages of both qualitative and quantitative data (Gill, Kendrick, Davies, and Greenwood, 2017; Tashakorri and Teddie, 2010;
Harris et al., 2017). A combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques provides the
researcher with a probability of getting fair results since the strengths of each method is utilised and the weaknesses of either methods are compensated by the other (Takhar and Chitakunye, 2012;
Cameron, 2011). For this study, the researcher utilised a mixed methods approach, which is a triangulation of the two-conventional qualitative and quantitative approaches (Cord et al., 2017).
Additionally, the study used a mixed methodology for its value diversity as well as for origination purposes to generate new insights in assesSMEsnt of findings by reconciling results from the different methods (Greene, 2005). By using mixed methods, this study integrated both qualitative and quantitative data gathering approaches and the researcher developed an appreciation of the study problem which would otherwise be difficult with one method. The researcher drew conclusions based on both qualitative and quantitative data. Multiple data sources were also used to include both primary data and secondary data sources.
For the purposes of this study, a mixed-research approach, based on a combination of the definitions by Saunders et al., (2009) and Creswell (2013) was used. The research objectives and the research questions guided the choice of research design applied to the current study. In turn, this approach influenced the research methods preferred for the solicitation of data. This research was a combination of both descriptive and exploratory perspectives. The exploratory perspective gave the researcher the best chance to find what was happening (Robson, 2002), namely, which is what has been causing women-owned enterprise failure in Gweru. The descriptive design, on the other hand, was portrayed a more accurate profile of the subjectivities surrounding the current situation regarding women-owned enterprises in the study site.