3.2.1 Introduction
In this section a brief history of mixed methods research will be traced. Next, a definition of mixed methods research will be provided. This will be followed by a discussion of the purposes of mixed methods research. Thereafter, the growth of interest in mixed methods research, and its strengths will be discussed. Finally, the challenges and limitations of mixed methods will be outlined.
3.2.2 A brief historical perspective
The mixed methods research is relatively new and has become established as a research approach in the past two decades (Creswell & Garrett, 2008: 323). The formative period spanned about three decades from the 1950s to the 1980s. It probably originated in the field of psychology in 1959, when Campbell and Fiske used a “multimethod matrix” of quantitative data collection methods in a study of the validity of psychological traits (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007: 15; Ivankova, Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007: 262;
Creswell, 2009: 204; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003: 6; Creswell, 2003: 210; Tashakkori &
Teddlie, 1998: 18). This study encouraged other researchers to use a combination of approaches to generate data within a single study, when considering the limitations of the use of a single approach.
Interest in triangulating different sources of quantitative and qualitative data emerged with Jick’s study in 1979, in which he used surveys, observations, documents and semi- structured interviews to triangulate data to develop a better understanding of the research problem (Creswell & Garrett, 2008: 323; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007: 15; Creswell, 2009: 204; Ivankova et al., 2007: 262; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003: 7; Creswell, 2003:
210). However, the conceptualisation of “mixed methods as a distinct approach to inquiry” only took root as late as 1988 in the United States of America when Brewer and
105
Hunter wrote the first book based on mixed methods research (Creswell & Garrett, 2008:
323).
The period spanning the 1970s to the 1980s saw the emergence of paradigm wars or debates between quantitative and qualitative researchers relating to mixed methods research. The question arose as to whether it was possible to combine quantitative and qualitative data (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007: 15; Ivankova et al., 2007: 262;
Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998: 3). Some researchers were of the view that mixed methods research was impossible on the grounds of incompatibility, since mixed methods required the mixing of paradigms (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007: 15; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003:
17). Although the paradigm debate is an ongoing one, pragmatism has gained favour as
“the best philosophical foundation for mixed methods research” (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007: 15).
The period of procedural developments regarding mixed methods research gained ground during the 1980s, when attention shifted to the procedures or methods for a mixed methods design. Greene, Caracelli & Graham (1989: 258-260) laid the groundwork for mixed methods research design when they analysed 57 evaluation studies and developed a classification system comprising six types of mixed methods designs. Subsequently, several authors have identified ways of classifying mixed methods designs, and in 1989 Brewer and Hunter (in Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007: 15) linked the combination of research methods to the process of research, e.g. the formulation of problems, sampling and data collection.
Since the 1990s authors have advocated the establishment of a mixed methods approach as “a distinct approach to research with its own designs and a set of procedures”
(Ivankova et al., 2007: 262). In 1991 Morse (in Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007: 15) designed a notation system as a guide to researchers for the implementation of the quantitative and qualitative components of mixed methods research. Since then, authors have engaged in formulating specific types of mixed methods designs, and books have
106
been written about mixed methods research. In section 3.2.5 recent growth and interest in mixed methods research will be outlined.
3.2.3 Defining mixed methods research
Various terms have been used in the literature to refer to the mixing of research methods, for example, multimethod spread convergence, integrated, combined, multiple methods, mixed methods, triangulation of methods, methodological mixes, mixed methodology, quantitative and qualitative methods, synthesis, and integrating (Creswell, 2009: 205;
Creswell, 2003: 16; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998: 14). In this study, the term mixed methods will be used for combining quantitative and qualitative methods. Mixed methods research combines quantitative and qualitative methods (Creswell, 2009: 203; Creswell &
Plano Clark, 2007: 6; Creswell, Ivankova & Plano Clark, 2007: 260; Greene, Kreider &
Mayer, 2005: 274; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003: p. x; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998: 17).
When researchers mix both qualitative and quantitative approaches “the strengths of both approaches are combined, leading to, it can be assumed, a better understanding of research problems than either approach alone” (Creswell & Garret, 2008: 322).
Creswell and Plano Clark (2007: 5) define mixed methods research as an approach to inquiry that connects or combines both qualitative and quantitative data to provide a more thorough understanding of a research problem. It involves philosophical assumptions and the linking of both approaches in a study. Thus it involves more than simply the collection and analysis of both kinds of data. Mixed methods research is defined as “a procedure for collecting, analysing and ‘mixing’ both quantitative and qualitative at some stage of the research process within a single study to understand a research problem more completely”
(Ivankova et al., 2007: 261).
Greene et al. (1989: 255-256) define mixed-methods designs as those that include at least one quantitative method (to collect numerical data) and one qualitative method (to collect text data) where neither type of method is directly linked to any particular inquiry paradigm. On the other hand, Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998: 19) define mixed methods
107
studies as “studies that are products of the pragmatist paradigm and that combine both quantitative and qualitative approaches within different phases of the research process”.
A mixed method approach can therefore be described as one in which the researcher makes use of mixed methods of data collection and analysis for pragmatic purposes.
Pragmatism is the overarching paradigm in mixed methods studies. It involves drawing on both quantitative and qualitative data collection procedures, for example, a survey, as well as in-depth interviews which, according to De Vos (2005: 357), involves mixing
“between methods”.
3.2.4 Purposes of mixed methods research
Researchers recognising that all methods have limitations felt that convergence of data sources across quantitative and qualitative methods was a means of neutralising the biases inherent in any single method (Flick, 2006: 37; Creswell, 2003: 15; Tashakkori &
Teddlie, 1998: 42; Greene et al., 1989: 256). This gave rise to the concept of triangulation from which emerged other reasons for using mixed methods. Methodological triangulation is used to ensure that the most comprehensive approach is adopted to solve a problem when a single research method is inadequate.
Greene et al. (2005: 275) state that mixed method approaches to social inquiry were initially viewed as an opportunity to “generate a better understanding” than studies restricted to a single approach. Over time other purposes evolved for the use of the mixed methods approaches.
Greene et al. (1989: 258) on reviewing 57 mixed methods studies from the 1980’s, listed five purposes for choosing a mixed methods approach: (a) Triangulation, or seeking convergence of results; (b) Complementarity, or examining overlapping or different facets of a phenomenon; (c) Initiation, or discovering fresh perspectives, paradoxes and contradictions; (d) Development, or using the methods sequentially, so that results from the first method inform the use of the second method; (e) Expansion, or adding breadth and scope to a project.
108
In this study (a), (b), and (e) are relevant as the purpose of choosing mixed methods research was to seek convergence of results of quantitative and qualitative data, as well as complementarity, to get a broader understanding of the different facets of hearing parents raising deaf children, from an ecosystemic perspective.
Mertens (in Creswell, 2003: 16) holds the view that the use of a mixed methods approach can serve the purpose of transformation and advocacy for marginalised groups, such as people with disabilities. Initially mixed method design was defined by authors from different fields under the general heading of method triangulation. Denzin (in De Vos et al., 2005: 362) who originally coined the term triangulation in terms of research described four types of triangulation: data triangulation, investigator triangulation, theory triangulation and methodological triangulation.
However, Creswell (2003: 14) noted that mixed method design serves purposes beyond triangulation, to include the convergence of results across qualitative and quantitative methods. It involves strategies for collecting and analysing both forms of data in a single study. Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann & Hanson (2003a: 223-229) provide four main reasons for combining both qualitative and quantitative methods within a study. These include:
• elaborating on or explaining quantitative findings with qualitative data
• using qualitative data for developing a theory, or a new instrument for measurement
• comparing both qualitative and quantitative data to come up with well-validated conclusions
• enhancing a study with a set of supplemental data, either quantitative or qualitative.
In this study the use of the mixed method approach serves the purpose of gaining a broader perspective of the research questions through the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods. It enhances the study with the advantages of both quantitative and qualitative data, as different perspectives can be gained from the different types of data.
109
The use of a mixed methods approach will chiefly serve the purpose of gaining an in- depth understanding of an ecosystemic perspective on hearing parents’ experiences of raising deaf children, and how the ecosystem influences their attitudes, opinions, and trends with regard to the way they manage their parenting role.
3.2.5 Recent growth of interest in and strengths of mixed methods research
Recently there has been much growth and interest in mixed methods research, with many writers advocating that it should be recognised as a separate research design alongside qualitative and quantitative approaches (Creswell & Garrett, 2008: 323; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007: 16). Referring to mixed methods research as the “third methodological movement”, Teddlie and Tashakkori (2003: 44-45) state that the time has come for acknowledgement of the need to teach mixed method research courses, and that it will be the way most educators will approach research. Prior to 2003 there were very few text books on mixed methods research. However, Creswell, Tashakkori, Jensen and Shapley (2003b: 620) listed more than 20 books, chapters and articles recently written on mixed methods research. This is indicative of the recent and growing development of “the wide range of available high-quality sources for a mixed methods course” (Tashakkori &
Teddlie, 2003: 44).
Creswell (2003: 208) draws attention to the increasing frequency with which journal articles on mixed methods research are being published in diverse fields such as occupational therapy, interpersonal communication, dementia care-giving, middle school science and AIDS prevention. Since 2003 several workshops in various fields have highlighted increased interest in mixed methods research, and over 60 journal articles employing mixed methods research in social and human sciences between 1995 and 2005 were published (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007: 16-17).
In 2005 a new journal, called the Journal of Mixed Methods Research, devoted exclusively to the publication of mixed methods studies and matters pertaining to mixed methods research, was started by Sage publications. The first issue was available in
110
January 2007. International interest in mixed methods research became evident with two international conferences held in Cambridge University and in Switzerland in 2005 (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007: 18).
With regard to the strengths of mixed methods research, Creswell and Garret (2008: 325) draw attention to the emergence of views regarding “the value-added by mixed methods research”, and state that sixteen reasons were put forward by Brewer and Hunter in 2006 for mixing quantitative and qualitative approaches. Neuman (2006: 149) and Brewer and Hunter (in Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998: 42) suggest that, since a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches allows for data triangulation, it is therefore superior to single method research.
Flick (2006: 37) holds the view that the combining of qualitative and quantitative methods in a single study complement each other and this is viewed as the “complementary compensation of the weaknesses and blind spots of each single method”, while Denzin and Lincoln (2003: 8) state that the use of mixed methods indicates an attempt to gain “an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in question”. Likewise, Morse (2003: 195) holds the view that the major strength of mixed methods designs lies in the fact that “they allow for research to develop as comprehensively and completely as possible”. Creswell (2005: 22) suggests that a mixed method design is beneficial in capturing the advantages of both quantitative and qualitative approaches, especially if a researcher wants to generalise the findings to a population as well as develop a deeper insight into the meaning of a phenomenon being studied.
Jick (in De Vos, 2005: 362) identifies the following “opportunities” or advantages of triangulation in the mixed methods approach for research:
• It gives researchers greater confidence regarding the results. This is the overall strength of mixed methods design
• Triangulation may stimulate the creation of new ways of capturing a problem, to balance conventional data collection methods
111
• It may lead to the discovery of different dimensions of a phenomenon. Divergent results from mixed methods can lead to a better understanding and enriched explanation of the research problem
• Methodological triangulation can lead to a synthesis or integration of theories, as it closely parallels theoretical triangulation, i.e.: attempts to bring different theories to bear on a common problem. Triangulation, by virtue of its comprehensiveness, may serve as a critical test of competing theories.
Methodological triangulation is a means of obtaining complementary findings that add strength to research results and contribute to the development of knowledge. “Smart researchers are versatile and have a balanced and extensive repertoire of methods at their disposal” (Morse, 1991: 122). Mouton and Marais (1990: 169-170) put forward the view that the phenomena which are investigated in the social sciences are so enmeshed that it is not possible to succeed in understanding the full complexity of human nature through a single approach. It would therefore be futile to behave as though any one approach has precedence over the other.
Accordingly, if one adopts the point of view of convergence and complementarity it may help one to gain a deeper insight into human nature and social reality. However, De Vos (2005: 360) points out that these authors offer little advice or practical guidelines on how to combine qualitative and quantitative methods. This leads to the next aspect, namely, the challenges and limitations of mixed methods research.
3.2.6 Challenges and limitations of mixed methods research
Despite the many strengths and advantages of the mixed methods approach, there are also some challenges and limitations. De Vos (2005: 359) and Creswell (2003: 218), draw attention to the limitations that need to be considered when combining both methods in a single study, as the different sets of data have to be transformed in such a way that they can be integrated within the analysis phase of the research. This is an expensive, time-
112
consuming and lengthy task. As pointed out by Creswell (2003: 218-219) there is currently limited literature to guide a researcher through this process.
Moreover, there is not much advice to be found for the resolution of discrepancies that may occur between the two types of data. Morse (2003: 195) points out that the study may be challenged on the grounds that it may not be considered to be rigorous enough, and that “the supplemental data may be considered thin and therefore suspect”.
De Vos (2005: 360) points out a further limitation in that most researchers (and university departments) are often not trained in the skills needed to conduct research from more than one paradigm. Researchers are more familiar with one paradigm, which then tends to dominate their study. Mitchel (in Morse, 1991: 120) states that guidelines for the use of methodological triangulation are lacking, and notes five areas of concern, namely:
• the difficulty of merging textual and numerical data
• the interpretation of divergent results obtained from the use of quantitative and qualitative methods
• the lack of delineation of concepts and the merging of concepts
• the weighing of information from different sources of data
• the problem of ascertaining the contribution of each method when the results are being assimilated.
According to Morse (1991: 122), Mitchel’s problem of weighing the results from different data sources can be resolved if “findings are interpreted within the context of present knowledge”, and that “each component should fit like pieces of a puzzle”. She explains further that this type of interpretation cannot be accomplished through the application of a mathematical formula. Instead, it is an informed thought process that involves wisdom, creativity, judgement and insight. Triangulating different methods can be exciting.
113