Type author names here Social Research Methods Chapter 27: Mixed methods research: combining quantitative and qualitative research Alan Bryman Slides authored by Tom Owens

Bryman: Social Research Methods, 4 th edition The argument against multi-strategy research The embedded methods argument: –research methods carry epistemological and ontological commitments –thus multi-strategy research is not feasible or even desirable The paradigm argument: –quantitative and qualitative research are separate, incommensurable paradigms –thus even when combined they are incompatible Pages 629,630

Bryman: Social Research Methods, 4 th edition Two versions of the debate Epistemological version –incompatible epistemological principles of quantitative and qualitative research –e.g. embedded methods /paradigm arguments Technical version –quantitative and qualitative research strategies can be combined –relative strengths and weaknesses of each for data collection / analysis Page 631

Bryman: Social Research Methods, 4 th edition Bryman’s classification of approaches to mixed methods research 1.Triangulation; 2.Offset; 3.Completeness; 4.Process; 5.Different research questions; 6.Explanation; 7.Unexpected results; 8.Instrument development; 9.Sampling; 10.Credibility; 11.Context; 12.Illustration; 13.Utility; 14.Confirm and discover; 15.Diversity of views; 16.Enhancement. Thinking deeply 27.3 Pages 633,634

Bryman: Social Research Methods, 4 th edition Triangulation –Results of one method/research strategy can be cross- checked against the results of another –e.g. Silva and Wright (2008): Cultural Capital and Social Exclusion qualitative interviews conducted to ‘check and correct’ the quantitative data –Planned or unplanned –What happens if results are inconsistent? treat one set of results as definitive but better to re-examine the data Pages 635,636

Bryman: Social Research Methods, 4 th edition Offset and Completeness –When neither research strategy can provide all the answers –e.g. particular methods do not provide access to required information / groups of people –Quantitative and qualitative methods both compensate for the other’s weaknesses –e.g. when ethnographers use structured interviewing or self-completion questionnaires, because not everything of research interest is accessible through observation. Pages 636

Bryman: Social Research Methods, 4 th edition Process  Quantitative research can uncover regularities  Qualitative research reveals social processes  e.g. Holdsworth (2006) used a web-based questionnaire survey to provide a broad picture of differences between university students living at home and living away from home and qualitative interviews and focus groups to explore the processes that lie behind those differences. Pages 639,640

Bryman: Social Research Methods, 4 th edition Different research questions –Quantitative research is better suited to the study of ‘macro’ phenomena (such as social mobility) –Qualitative research is better suited to the study of ‘micro’ phenomena (such as small group interaction) –Different phases in a research study suit one strategy more than another, because of the different aspects studied –Different kinds of research questions are better answered by one strategy more than another –Leading to choices of methods – and how they should be interweaved - in mixed methods research Pages 640

Bryman: Social Research Methods, 4 th edition Explanation Quantitative researchers constantly face the problem of explaining the relationships between variables. Qualitative research can discover the presence and role of intervening variables. Pages 641, 642

Bryman: Social Research Methods, 4 th edition Unexpected results –Research outcomes can yield unexpected results, inconsistent data and puzzling surprises. –Sometimes anticipated results fail to materialize, such that findings are inconsistent with the research hypothesis, –So using a second method can help to explain data (unplanned triangulation), –Or can provide a ‘salvage operation’ as an alternative to reconstructing the hypothesis or simply filing them away. Pages 642

Bryman: Social Research Methods, 4 th edition Instrument development By aiding measurement: focus groups and semi-structured interviews can provide the measurements of concepts to be tested in quantitative research, leading to much more appropriate specification of questions. Pages

Bryman: Social Research Methods, 4 th edition Sampling By providing a basis for representative sampling in qualitative research: samples of people or companies, with particular sets of characteristics, for in- depth interviewing or case study. Pages 644,645

Bryman: Social Research Methods, 4 th edition Credibility  Some quantification of findings from qualitative research can help to make the study seem more believable  Mixed methods research is often done because of its appeal to funders and sponsors Page 645

Bryman: Social Research Methods, 4 th edition Quantitative methods test researcher’s theories; Qualitative methods make participants’ meanings the center of attention; Some research studies require both perspectives. Diversity of views Pages 647,648

Bryman: Social Research Methods, 4 th edition Morgan’s (1998) classification The priority decision: How far is a qualitative or a quantitative method the principal data-gathering tool or do they have equal weight? The sequence decision: Which method precedes which? In other words, does the qualitative method precede the quantitative one or vice versa or is the data collection associated with each method concurrent ? Thinking deeply 27.2 Page 631

Bryman: Social Research Methods, 4 th edition Morgan’s types of mixed methods in terms of priority and sequence Figure 27.1 Page 632

Bryman: Social Research Methods, 4 th edition Reflections on mixed methods research Increasingly common in social research –research methods seen as autonomous –softening of feminist attitudes to quantification Not inherently superior to mono-method or mono-strategy research Pages 649,650

Bryman: Social Research Methods, 4 th edition Indicators of quality in mixed methods research Is it well designed and conducted? Are the methods appropriate to the research questions? Is there an explicit rationale for the mixture? Are the separate components integrated? Is there a detailed account of the entire research process? Are resources spread too thinly, or unevenly? Are the researchers more skilled in one strategy than another? Page 649