What is mixed methods research?

What is mixed methods research?

According to Burke Johnson et al. (2007: 121), one definition of mixed methods research, is that it entails “within research paradigm mixing”. In their discussion of the search for a definition of mixed methods research, they remind us that: “The classical pragmatic philosophers (i.e., Pierce, James, Dewey) had it right when they pointed out that the present is always a new starting point.”

Is mixed methods research an opportunity to develop a shared ontology? This would fit well with the description provided by Burke Johnson et al. (2007: 113) of mixed methods research as an approach which attempts to “consider multiple viewpoints, perspectives, positions, and standpoints”.

Perhaps mixed methods research is based upon an epistemological rather than an ontological stance. In his article outlining the paradigmatic history related to mixed methods research, Morgan suggests a pragmatic approach rather than a worldview definition. He considers that methodology should be at the centre of the research design, placing it between methods and epistemology (2007: 68/69). Reflecting upon this has given my original evolutionary and situational approach to grounded theory a slightly altered perspective. Morgan’s exposition (ibid: 71) of abductive reasoning that “moves back and forth between induction and deduction – first converting observations into theories and then assessing those theories through action” is a good description of how a study can be progressed.

As Burke Johnson et al. (2007: 113) describe it, mixed methods research takes account of multiple perspectives. For me, this is the essence of postmodernism. Clarke (2005: xxiv) describes postmodernism in an easily accessible manner when she cites Fontana (2002) explaining that postmodernism abandons “overarching paradigms and theoretical methodological metasystems”. For Clarke, postmodern research involves embracing complexity, partial hypotheses, and contradictions. She continues (ibid) by highlighting the fact that, from the postmodern perspective, all forms of knowledge are socially and culturally produced – and this includes both natural and social sciences, as well as ‘lay knowledge’.

In other words, all knowledge is situated. This implies that tacit knowledge of the field of inquiry is not only valid but also enables the researcher to construct analytical methods which pertain directly to the phenomena being measured.

Burke Johnson (2007: 116) cite Collins et al. (2006) and their “four rationales for conducting mixed methods research: participant enrichment …., instrument fidelity ……., treatment integrity …., and significance enhancement…..” The first of these (participant enhancement), involves ensuring that respondents are all suitable for the aim of the investigation. Instrument fidelity requires that all measurement instruments are also appropriate. Treatment integrity involves maintaining the reliability of any interventions that are made by the researcher. Finally, significance enhancement involves employing thick descriptions (Geertz, Fosket) and thus validating the findings through a process of ‘crystallisation’ (Ely et al.) and providing enough information for the reader to determine a degree of fit (Schofield).

References (I really will get round to these refs)
· Burke Johnson, R., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Turner, L. A. (2007) Towards a Definition of Mixed Methods Research, in Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol 1, number 2, pp. 112 - 133, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California
· Clarke, A. E. (2005) Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn. California, USA: Sage
· Ely
· Geertz
· Fosket
· Morgan, D. (2007) Paradigms lost and Pragmatism regained: Methodological Implications of Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods, in Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol 1, number 1, pp. 48 – 76, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California
· Schofield