OptionsWhen data are gathered
When data are combined
Purpose of combining data:
ResourcesGuides
SourcesCaracelli, Valerie J. and Greene, Jennifer C. (1997). "Crafting mixed-option evaluation design." In J. C. Greene and V. J. Caracelli (eds.), Advances in mixed-option evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. New Directions for Program Evaluation, No. 74. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 19-32.460 Show
Carvalho, S. and H. White. (1997) ‘Combining the quantitative and qualitative approaches to poverty measurement and analysis’, Technical Paper 366. The World Bank: Washington D.C.466 Greene, J. (2007) Mixed Options in Social Inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.465 Greene, Jennifer C., Caracelli, Valerie J. and Graham, Wendy F. (1989). "Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-option evaluation design." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), pp. 255-74.459  As a new approach to conducting social and health inquiry research, mixed methods research has attracted substantial interest and followers during the past 20 years. With the current acceptance and legitimacy of qualitative research and the long-term use of quantitative research, mixed methods provides a means for combining the strengths of both approaches to best understand research problems. Researchers need to be aware of the possibility of combining
qualitative and quantitative methods when appropriate for addressing their research questions. A DefinitionMixed methods is defined as research in which the inquirer or investigator collects and analyzes data, integrates the findings, and draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches or methods in a single study or a program of study. This definition is the current one being used in the call for manuscripts for the Journal of Mixed Methods Research. This definition permits viewing mixed methods as a broad umbrella term encompassing perspectives that see it as a research method of data collection and analysis, a methodology that spans the process of research from philosophical assumptions to interpretations, a philosophy of research, and a set of procedures used within existing research designs such as case studies, experiments, and narrative projects. Overall, this definition has general agreement among leading mixed methods writers today. When researchers apply this definition, they employ an approach that has several characteristics. They are collecting and analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data. This suggests that two “strands” are implemented in a mixed methods study, and that the researchers have the skills needed in both quantitative and qualitative research to engage in these procedures. It also suggests that the collection of
multiple forms of qualitative data (or multiple forms of quantitative data) would not constitute a mixed methods study. This form of research might be considered multimethod research. Also in applying the definition, researchers will mix, combine, or link the data in certain ways. Three ways are apparent in the mixed methods literature for mixing the quantitative and qualitative data: by combining or integrating them, by connecting them from the data analysis step of the first source of data to
the data collection step of the second source of data so that one source builds on the other or helps to explain the other, or by embedding one secondary or supporting source of data into a larger source of data to provide additional information in a study. In the process of research, these three forms of mixing—merging, connecting, or embedding—will occur during various stages of the research, such as during data collection, data analysis, or interpretation. Reasons for Mixing in Different Research DesignsRegardless of the form of mixing, the reasons for mixing the methods in a study need to be clearly identified by researchers. One reason for using mixed methods research is that the use of both qualitative and quantitative approaches will provide a more complete understanding of the research problem than either approach alone. In this case, the researcher
might collect both quantitative and qualitative data at the same time (con-currently) and merge the data to form one interpretation of the data. This interpretation would provide both quantitative information about magnitude and frequency as well as qualitative information from individual perspectives from participants and the context in which they were commenting on the research problem. This design is called the triangulation or concurrent mixed methods design. A triangulation design in mixed
methods is not the same as the use of the term triangulation in qualitative research in which inquirers draw evidence from different sources or different participants to develop a code or a theme. In mixed methods, it means that the quantitative data and the qualitative data are merged by the researcher in the analysis. Another reason for mixing is to follow up on initial exploratory findings. This reason applies when the researcher seeks to explore first qualitatively and then to test
this exploration with a large quantitative sample of a population. For example, the inquirer might collect and analyze qualitative data in the first phase of the study. The results of this analysis might then be used to identify items for a questionnaire or to build a typology of categories to be further tested quantitatively in the second phase. This design is called an exploratory sequential mixed methods design. Another reason for using mixed methods is that the researcher may want to
better explain initial quantitative results. This situation occurs when the researcher begins with quantitative data collection and analysis in a first phase and then follows up with a second phase of qualitative data collection and analysis to help explain in more detail the results of the first quantitative phase. This type of design is called an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. A final reason for using mixed methods research is to enhance a larger data set with a smaller,
more focused data set. For example, an investigator might conduct an experiment and within that experiment collect qualitative data that provides information as to how the participants experienced the intervention. This design would be called an embedded mixed methods design. Mixed Methods as a Field of StudyThe clarification of these types of mixed methods designs and the reasons for using them
has evolved since the 1980s. Although researchers have collected both quantitative and qualitative data throughout the 20th century, the development of mixed methods as a systematic approach to research is a relatively recent phenomenon dating back to the late 1970s. The writings on triangulation in 1979, for example, illustrate the idea of integrating both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study. These were followed by authors who felt that research problems might be best studied
using both qualitative and quantitative data. By 1989, several evaluators had documented the varied purposes of conducting mixed methods studies and had mapped the various evaluation studies that incorporated this form of inquiry. Sociologists also began writing in the late 1980s about the processes involved in conducting mixed methods research. By the late 1990s and early 21st century, writers such as Abbas Tashakkori, Charles Teddlie, John Creswell, and Vicki Plano Clark had extensively mapped
the landscape of mixed methods research and its designs and procedures. Today, numerous disciplines and fields have published empirical studies and methodological discussions about mixed methods, including areas such as sociology, evaluation, education, counseling psychology, family science, nursing, and family medicine. Advances in Mixed Methods ResearchFrom this short history, it is possible to sketch several advances in mixed methods that characterize the field of mixed methods research as it is known today. Much work has been done to specify and to classify the types of mixed methods designs used by researchers. A parsimonious set of four designs can now be specified as general models for conducting this form of inquiry. Also known are the types of decisions needed to select one design over the others. Researchers decide on their type of design by asking themselves if the qualitative and quantitative approaches are used in tandem, or concurrently, or with one following or building on the other sequentially. Further, the researchers decide on the weight or priority to be given to the quantitative and qualitative approaches in the study and on how the two approaches will be mixed in a merged, connected, or embedded fashion. Researchers also decide whether they will use a theory or philosophical perspective as an overall lens for their project. Such a lens might be drawn from feminist perspectives, racial or ethnic perspectives, disability perspectives, or social or health science theories. Advances have also been made in considering the philosophical foundation for conducting mixed methods research. From an either–or adversarial position between quantitative and qualitative research in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the field has evolved into exploring and debating the philosophical basis for mixed methods, the identification of one “best” philosophical paradigm to use, and the use of multiple paradigms in a mixed methods study. The paradigm debate about whether one can mix different realities of quantitative and qualitative research (and thus conduct mixed methods research) were heatedly debated during the middle 1990s, especially in the field of evaluation. This debate is still present, but writers such as those in the Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research edited by Abbas Tashakkori and Charles Teddlie have recently advocated for pragmatism with roots in John Dewey, George Herbert Mead, and William James as the best paradigm. Pragmatism has been interpreted to mean that researchers employ multiple approaches, focus on what works, and acknowledge the importance of the research question rather than the specific methods used. Other writers, such as Donna Mertens have advocated for a transformative-emancipatory perspective as the best approach, a perspective that recognizes the principles of social justice and the study of underrepresented groups. Amid these calls for a best paradigm are those writers such as Jennifer Greene, Creswell, and Plano Clark, who suggest that multiple paradigms may be used in mixed methods research and that they need to be honored, acknowledged, and related to the types of designs chosen by the inquirer. Another development has been the move toward standardizing the language and terms employed in mixed methods research. For example, terms mentioned earlier for describing the types of designs (e.g., triangulation design) are becoming more frequently used. New terms that have a bimethods orientation are reported in the mixed methods literature. For example, Tony Onwuegbuzie talks about legitimacy as a substitute for validity, Udo Kelle refers to inferences rather than to conclusions, and an entire glossary of terms for mixed methods research is found in Tashakkori and Teddlie's Handbook of Mixed Methods. A language of notation for creating diagrams of designs has also developed using arrows to indicate sequence and pluses to show the combination of procedures. Even the shorthand labels of mixed methods (QUAL, QUAN) provide equity in the number of letters and an abbreviated form used in describing mixed methods studies. The name for this form of inquiry—mixed methods—is also open to debate. It has been called multi-method research (especially in the health sciences), integrated research (suggesting that there is a combination
or mixing of information), hybrid research (indicating that it is neither qualitative or quantitative alone), triangulation (showing that the strengths of one method are offset by the weaknesses of the other method), combined research (emphasizing the combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches), and mixed research (illustrating that more than methods are being mixed). Since 2003, with the publication of Tashakkori and Teddlie's Handbook of Mixed Methods, the term mixed
methods has, for the most part, been the standard term used to label this form of inquiry. ChallengesAs mixed methods research attracts interest and reaches an increasingly wider audience in fields of study and around the world, some individuals are voicing challenges to this form of inquiry. Writers are concerned about whether qualitative research has been relegated to secondary status in mixed methods experiments that include a small, embedded qualitative component. They are also concerned about integrating incompatible views of reality when researchers combine postpositivist views of a single reality with constructionist views of multiple realities. Some individuals are concerned about the dominance of certain voices in the discussion about mixed methods and whether the discourse is open and accessible to all writers. Others focus on issues of confidentiality in using the same participants in both phases of a sequential two-phase project. Unquestionably, more discussion is needed about the adaptation and acceptance of mixed methods in various social and health science fields. Continued work needs to be done to better understand the procedures of sampling, the ways of merging quantitative and qualitative data, the suitability of current software programs to aid the mixed methods researcher, how individuals on research teams can effectively coordinate their individual expertise in quantitative and qualitative research, how to bridge the emerging division between philosophical approaches and method approaches, and the challenge to beginning researchers to understanding three approaches to inquiry— quantitative, qualitative, and mixed. Despite these challenges, the movement of mixed methods continues to advance and its growth is seen in an enhanced understanding of it as described in journals, in books, and at national and international conferences. — John W. Creswell
What is it called when a researcher combines both qualitative and quantitative data?Hybrid research is a combination of two market research techniques whether it be qualitative and quantitative, or a mixture of qualitative methods, to deliver the perfect solution. Where qualitative research methods aim to explore, quantitative research focuses on quantifiable statistics and measurement.
When researchers use both qualitative and quantitative research?In practice, most researchers agree that combining quantitative and qualitative techniques (sometimes called “mixed method” research) produces a richer and more comprehensive understanding of a research area.
What is qualitative and quantitative research called?Hybrid Research: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods and More. Apr 3, 2019.
|
