A research design is defined as a plan that guides a researcher in carrying out a study. The plan comprises strategies informing the research framework, methods, technologies and instruments suitable in collecting and analyzing data, (Briggs, Coleman and Morrison, 2012). McMillan and Schumacher, (2012) describe a research design as a grand strategy used by a researcher to bring together different parts of the study into one meaningful and logical presentation. In the same vein, Yin, (2013) explains that a research design provides a connection between the research purpose and important questions to the processes of data collection and analysis for the production of credible conclusion in a given research study. Thus, a viable research plan should embrace the purpose of the study and the critical questions which guide the type of inquiry. In my study I have already laid down four sub questions in chapter one which have given rise to the adoption of this research design.
67
As reflected in my introduction, I adopted the mixed methods research design cognisant that if I blend the qualitative and quantitative paradigms, my study would generate and collect valuable data which would be crucial in producing a balanced research report. Corruption is relatively a new phenomenon in educational research and I strongly believed that a mixed methods approach would enrich my findings by considering both the qualitive and quantitative paradigms on the role of public education in addressing corruption in Zimbabwe. The qualitative paradigm was very important for exploring perspectives and shared meanings as well as developing insights and deeper understanding of social phenomena in a given environment through the generation of predominantly narrative data, (Burton, et al 2010). Stake, (1994) and Yin, (2003) concur that in qualitative research, the researcher establishes deep rooted issues about a given problem within clearly stipulated boundaries. My area of concern was on the experiences and perceptions of multiple stakeholders on the effectiveness of public education in addressing corruption. To get the required incites, I considered it prudent to tap information from individuals in government, parastatals and civil society organisations. As Creswell, (2007) would put it, it is critical in research to interrogate different experiences and perspectives of chosen participants in their varying circumstances and contexts. With this in mind, I approached the participants as individuals but went further to glean more information from them as actors from the three different fields they represented. I considered this a naturalist approach where reality is perceived as a human construct and therefore does not emphasize the issues of controlled conditions as is the norm with the positivistic paradigm.
This paradigm works well especially in investigating issues relating to corruption offences in the sense that corruption, just like other critical activities, for example sex and rape, tend to be perpetrated in very private places where the occurrence could be limited to at least two people. Unless corruption could be dramatized, it does not normally happen in full glare of the public. “Mixed methods” therefore allow for a deliberate overlap between the positivistic and the interpretive paradigms which create a fertile ground for combining qualitative and quantitative data focusing much more on ‘what works’ on getting research questions answered, (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). Therefore, in this case, ‘mixed’ methods imply using multifaceted
68
procedures of combining, integrating and linking the different types of methods and data.
The Mixed Methods approach is also credited with the idea that researchers learn more about a research topic if they combine the strengths of qualitative and those of the quantitative research while compensating for both of their weaknesses, (Punch, 2009). The idea is supported by Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, (2004, p.18) who say,
“Combining the methods in a way that achieves complementary strengths and non- overlapping weaknesses” as a fundamental principle of Mixed Methodology. The perceived strengths of quantitative research could be simply summarized as,
“…conceptualizing variables, profiling dimensions, tracing trends and relationships, formalizing comparisons and using large and perhaps representative samples”, (Punch, 2009 p. 290). This is different from the strengths of the qualitative research which is believed to bring about sensitivity meaning to context, local groundedness, the in-depth study of smaller samples, and great methodological flexibility which facilitated the ability to study the process and change, (Creswell, 2008). The aforesaid considerations depict that qualitative methods could be strong in those areas where quantitative methods might be weak and vice versa. Thus, the complementary aspect provides a platform for combining the two sets of strengths which could in a way compensate for their weaknesses. In this regard, Mixed methods would be the most appropriate in investigating the people’s experiences and perceptions concerning the role of Public Education on addressing Corruption for this study.
I also chose the Triangulation Design among several other mixed methods for the benefit of this study. As espoused by Creswell and Clark, (2007) the Triangulation Design is a one-phase design where the two types of data could be generated in the same time frame and are given equal weighting. This design boasts of the view that qualitative and quantitative data could complement each other in one research topic.
The possibilities were that the two sets of data could be merged or connected in some way. In this study, the two types of data were generated concurrently and were accorded equal weighting status. For example, I generated qualitative data using individual interviews while quantitative data was collected through semi-structured
69
questionnaires. The two sets of data were merged into one overall interpretation after making sure that all the variables were fully catered for.
The triangulation design is quite handy particularly when examining people’s experiences and perspectives on a given subject. In this case it was quite amenable to the use of both the qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. In my study, participants’ views were expressed statistically (quantitatively) as well as in words (qualitatively) in order to ensure that the study is not starved from critical issues which might not be regarded important with other methods, (Burton et al 2008). Miles and Huberman, (1994) give credence to the qualitative method for its ability to provide data which is rich and contextual in detail. Berg, (2001), observes that heavily depending on quantitative data had the ripple effects of reducing people’s actions into numeric and statistical indices thereby losing sight of the social aspect of the world. However, Briggs and Coleman, (2002), argue that moving away from the analysis of given, measurable and objectively verifiable facts to the analysis of thoughts, feelings, expressions and opinions which were open to debate required the researcher to give parameters of what to include and not to include.