Paradigms
4.3 Research methods
Bryman (2008:160) defined research methods as the modus operandi employed by researchers in practicing their craft, which includes the approach and tools for collection and collation of data. It involves use of specific research instruments such as survey questionnaire, structured interview schedule, observation schedule and document review (analysis) to collect data. Ngulube (2020:18) aptly remarked that researchers in the field of Information Sciences should ensure their research is methodologically and conceptually strong to increase the likelihood of such studies making positive contributions to the existing knowledge base and the discipline as a whole. Therefore, describing the methods used in a study is essential because it enables researchers to test the methods used (Ngulube 2015:125) and to replicate the study in a different setting(s). In line with this thinking, literature prevalently identifies three research methods which include quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods (Ngulube and Ngulube 2015:1; Creswell (2014:152; Johnson 2014:7;
Ngulube 2013:10-11).
Creswell (2014:152) distinguished the three research methods by defining them as follows:
i. Qualitative method is where the researcher presents facts founded on interpretivist perspectives. Different strategies of inquiry are used by qualitative researchers such as grounded theory, narratives, ethnographies, phenomenologies or case studies to collect open-ended data with the intent of developing themes from the data;
ii. Quantitative method is where the researcher uses positivist claims to employ strategies of inquiry such as experiments and surveys, develop knowledge, and collect data on pre-conceived instruments that yield statistical data; and iii. Mixed method is one in which the researcher tends to base knowledge claims
on pragmatic grounds by employing strategies of inquiry that involve collecting qualitative and quantitative data either concurrently or sequentially to best understand the research problem.
159
Qualitative research studies are often carried out to address social change (Fusch, Fusch and Ness 2018:20). They emphasise a natural search for relativeness in meaning, diverse interpretations, accuracy, flexibility and detail in studying a phenomenon or its aspect(s) which a researcher has placed his/her focus on (Jwan and Ong’ondo 2011:3). In addition, qualitative research seeks to define and interpret phenomena using non-numerical methods of measurement, specifically focusing on meaning and insight (Jwan and Ong’ondo:2011:4; Kakabadse and Steane 2010:352).
Such studies are therefore not informed by predetermined variables but instead the researcher investigates phenomenon with an open mind, formulating theory and drawing conclusions based on the feedback and views of respondents which can be objective, subjective or both (Dube and Ngulube 2012:70-75). Thus, the qualitative approach situates the researcher in the literature and the social world of the phenomenon being studied (Cibangu 2013:198).
In contrast, quantitative methodologies are used to investigate correlations between phenomena, hence they are employed when researchers seek to determine cause- effect (causal) relationships by establishing how a given phenomenon influences another (Bryman 2012:175). Quantitative approaches to social research involve making efforts to quantify some aspects of the social world and representing them numerically (Clough and Nutbrown 2012:15). Such studies are driven by related variables with one variable influencing the other, hence the concepts of dependent and independent variables (Ambira 2016:131). Data collection is undertaken using structured research instruments, the intention being to predict, describe or test a theory (Babbie 2010:115).
In a nutshell therefore, quantitative research approach is dependent on the collection of numerical data (quantitative data); qualitative approach is distinguished by the collection of non-numerical data such as words and pictures (qualitative data), while mixed research comprises mixing of qualitative and quantitative research approaches, methods, or other paradigmatic characteristics (Johnson and Christensen 2014:82;
Babbie 2010:23). The exclusive use of either a qualitative or quantitative research approach is commonly referred to as a monomethod research study (Johnson and Christensen (2014:657). The main differences between qualitative and quantitative data are summarized in Table 4.1.
160
Table 4.1: Differences between quantitative and qualitative research approaches
Quantitative Qualitative
General framework
Use highly structured methods like surveys, structured observation and questionnaires
Use semi-structured methods like participant observation, focus groups and in-depth interviews
Seek to verify or falsify a relationship or hypothesis about phenomenon
Seek to explore phenomenon
Instruments use more rigid style of prompting and classifying feedback to questions
Instruments use more flexible and iterative style of
prompting and responding to questions in a more
presentable manner Paradigmatic
orientation
Rely more on positivist principles
Rely more on the principles from interpretive or critical social science
Analytical objectives
To describe causal relationships To describe and explain relationships
To quantify variation To describe variation To describe population
characteristics and focus on an outcome or effect found across numerous cases.
To describe individual/case experiences and group norms
Question format Close-ended Open-ended
Data format Hard data (in the form of numbers) obtained by assigning numerical values to responses
Soft data (that is, words, sentences, photos, symbols) obtained from audiotapes, videotapes, cameras, mobile devices and field notes Flexibility in study
design
Study design is subject to statistical conditions and assumptions
Study design is iterative (research questions and data collection are adjusted according to what is learnt) Participant responses do not
influence or determine how and which questions researchers ask next
Participant responses affect how, and which questions researchers ask next Employ a logic that is systematic
and follows a linear research path from beginning to end
The logic arises from ongoing practice and research follows a nonlinear research path, for example, addition or
exclusion of particular interview questions Derived from Neuman (2014:168/9)
161 4.3.1 Mixed methods research
Although qualitative and quantitative research approaches are still occupying large spaces in research, Mixed Methods Research (MMR) and multimethod approaches have emerged from the necessity to effectively analyze important and complex behavioral and social phenomena (Green et al. 2015:510). Researchers should focus on being ‘methodological connoisseurs’, defined as people who ‘‘knowledgeably (often intuitively) select the best techniques available to answer research questions that frequently evolve as a study unfolds” (Teddie and Tashakkori 2010:8). Baskarada and Koronios (2018:3) further opined that combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single study helps to overcome underlying limitations in either of the methods, enhances data accuracy and contributes to a more comprehensive and holistic viewpoint of knowledge. In social sciences research, participants’ and researchers’ prejudices are indisputably present, whether unintentionally or by design, hence applying triangulation (multiple data sources) boosts trustworthiness of the findings and aids in reaching data saturation (Fusch, Fusch and Ness 2018:21).
There has been misunderstanding and confusion about the definition and meaning of
‘mixed methods’ and ‘multi-method’ researches. Ngulube (2010:254) submits that MMR includes gathering, evaluating, assimilating and construing quantitative and qualitative data sequentially or concurrently in the same study or a number of studies investigating a given problem, regardless of which research methodology is given priority, in order to take advantage of the benefits to be gained from merging them and to boost the validity of the findings. In a similar manner, Johnson and Christensen (2014:648) defined mixed research as a study wherein a researcher combines or mixes qualitative and quantitative research techniques and approaches in the same study.
Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) in Clark and Ivankova (2016:59) defined mixed research as the combination of at least one qualitative and one quantitative method or approach.
On the other hand, the term multi-method research is defined as the process of research where researchers integrate multiple quantitative approaches, multiple qualitative approaches, or multiple qualitative and quantitative approaches (Clark and Ivankova 2016:59). The common aspect in the definitions of the two terms is that they both point to the blending of quantitative and qualitative approaches in one study.
162
Creswell (2015:2-3) explains the difference between mixed method and multimethod in the following statement:
Mixed method is not simply the collection of multiple forms of qualitative data (for example interviews and observations), nor the collection of multiple types of quantitative data (for example survey data, experimental data). It involves the collection, analysis and integration of both quantitative and qualitative data. In this way, the value of the different approaches to research (for example the trends as well as the stories and personal experiences) can contribute more to understanding a research problem that one form of data collection (quantitative or qualitative) could not on its own. When multiple forms of qualitative data (or multiple forms of quantitative data) are collected, the term used for the study is ‘multimethod’ (Creswell 2015:2–3).
Creswell (2014:44) identified the following three typologies of mixed methods designs:
i. Exploratory sequential mixed methods – This is where the research process begins with a qualitative phase during which the views of participants’ are explored, followed by a quantitative research phase which constitutes data analysis;
ii. Explanatory sequential mixed methods – In this approach, the researcher starts by collecting data using a quantitative approach then analyzes and expounds on the findings qualitatively (hence the use of explanatory). The use of
‘sequential’ is because the first phase (quantitative phase) is followed by the qualitative phase; and
iii. Embedded (convergent parallel) mixed methods – In this type of MMR, the researcher converges or merges qualitative and quantitative data to provide a complete analysis of the research problem. Both data forms are collected simultaneously and findings are combined and interpreted to compile the overall findings.
Scholars have advocated the “mixing” of qualitative and quantitative methods in different styles. For example, Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2009:273) suggested that qualitative and quantitative approaches can be blended in single or multi-phased studies by using the following four styles: parallel or sequential design, dominant-less
163
dominant or equivalent design, or a multilevel approach where different techniques are applied at different stages of data aggregation. However, exactly how qualitative and quantitative methods may best be integrated is not clearly defined (Baskarada and Koronios 2018:4) and has been a hot subject of debate amongst scholars and researchers. The precise mix deemed appropriate is dependent on the practical and situational issues facing the researcher, the research problem and research questions of the study (Johnson and Christensen 2014:648).
Mixed methods research can be classified as being either a partially mixed methods design or fully mixed methods design. Fully mixed methods design represents mixing of both research designs and their associated characteristics throughout the study, whereas partially mixed methods design demands that both quantitative and qualitative be undertaken separately in a sequential or concurrent manner, before being mixed during data interpretation and subsequent analysis (Laughton 2011:111).
In this respect, Johnson and Christensen (2014:856) advised that when choosing to use MMR, researchers should place into perspective the fundamental principle of mixed research requiring researchers to strategically and thoughtfully combine or mix quantitative and qualitative research approaches, methods, concepts, procedures and other paradigmatic characteristics in a manner that yields an overall design with complementary and multiple (convergent and divergent) strengths and non- overlapping weaknesses.
The present study adopted the embedded (convergent parallel) mixed method research design in adherence to the pragmatic philosophy. The weighting for the methods was partial wherein a dominant-less-dominant design was applied, with aspects of quantitative and qualitative approaches being combined and used simultaneously during data collection and analysis, albeit with a qualitative methods priority (QUAL + quan). The rationale for using MMR in the present study was that neither one of the methods could be used in isolation to comprehensively capture the phenomenon (Gobo 2015:330) and exhaustively address the research problem. Quantitative methods were useful to get numeric and statistical data depicting the attitudes, opinions and characteristics captured in questionnaires that were administered to ICT staff, records officers and administrative staff. Qualitative methods were used to capture participants’ expressions of their perception, meaning or phenomenological
165
the same study”. To avoid such a scenario, the present study used mixed methods triangulation design procedures, using a multilevel research variant where the qualitative and quantitative methods were used to address different levels within the case studies (Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998:48). As preempted in the previous chapter, a considerable number of scholars in records and archives management have used the MMR to address related research problems successfully such as Kabata 2019;
Musembe 2019; Marutha 2016; Maseh 2015; Laughton 2011; Kalusopa 2011; Garaba 2010 and Luyombya 2010. On the flipside however, mixed methods research is relatively new and clouded in controversy as this is an evolving methodology. The development of really integrated qualitative/quantitative methods remains a problem to be solved and universally accepted suggestions for how to integrate both approaches in one method are still awaited (Flick 2018:74).