I am exploring the quality of the program by asking the perceptions of five stakeholders such as faculty staff, students, lecturers, graduates and principals. Every stakeholder has a different research question because the issues in the faculty staff will be different from students or principal. Only student data collection which used mixed methods sequential design (survey+interview) while the others (different research question) explored by qualitative interview) My question is
1. Is it enough for me to explain in the thesis that I use mixed methods sequential while it is only used for one research question and the triangulation only in that question and the other different research questions are qualitative or should I say mixed methods and qualitative?
2. Is it enough for me to explain in my thesis that my research paradigm is pragmatism even I use a lot of qualitative in big parts of the research question because qualitative is used because of pragmatism approach. I used the interview to other stakeholders such as faculty staff, educators or graduates and principals because it is the method that works better and practicality reason because I have limited access and resource? Or should I explain it is also interpretivism in the thesis even it is done for a practical reason?
From your explanation, you are using mixed-methods. Simple! Don't make it more complex than that
Dear Pipit Novita ,
This question may require the advice of your supervisor as the way you present your methodological argument may depend upon your discipline. In general terms I think what you are suggesting sounds sensible and I would not worry about using mixed methods for part of your study and a qualitative approach for the rest. In fact, if you were to view the evaluation of your program as a case study then obtaining and analysing different data from different stakeholders would be a normal approach. I would call pragmatism a philosophy, not a paradigm, but again this might be a discipline related use of language. It sounds like a sensible choice, provided that you can justify it.
Excellent Question!
Lets have an example here. If you are carrying out a research with two objectives. Objective (A), requires a mixed- methods to achieve it and objective (B) requires a qualitative method to achieve it. I would assume that these two objectives are linked to each other. The outcome of one method assist in commencing the questions on the next method, and the results of both of the methods can be applied side by side to reinforce each other. In this case, I would characterize this research as a mixed-methods research. Good Luck!
Dear Pipit, Your study is still a mixed-method study. Your research questions must be related in some way, that's why they are a part of a single study.
Peter Samuels Thank you, I think I will use pragmatism as the philosophy because the rationale of using different methodology is practicality and limited access. M.K. S Al-Mhdawi Very clear answer, thanks, that gives me clarity in explaining it in the thesis. Noman Mohammad Thanks, yes I agree.
I have argued that pragmatism is a general approach that is not limited to mixed methods. Here is an article from the journal Qualitative Inquiry on that topic
David L Morgan Thank you, it is very useful, that will be part of my argument in the thesis.
Yes, just because the current interest in pragmatism started among mixed methods researchers does not mean that it is limited to mixed methods. Instead, I like to think of pragmatism as offering a "theory of knowledge" that can apply to any type of research.
From your explanation, you are using mixed-methods. Simple! Don't make it more complex than that
I think your research is mixed-method but pragmatism is more related to quantitative methods (survey), and interpretivism the is more related to qualitative methods (interview).
In general, a study where the qualitative methods follow the quantitative methods is called an explanatory sequential design (QUAN --> qual). The goal in that design if to use the qualitative methods to help understand the results of the quantitative portion of the study.
If the contents of the qualitative portion of the study do not address the results from the quantitative portion, then it is not truly sequential; instead the studies are simply done at two points in time.
The most important thing is that you are using different methods in the research design. This can simply be referred to as mixed methods.
I aggre with earlier answers about mixed methods. The most important thing is that you describe how you will use and combine these methods.
Mixed Research Methodology. If you want to examine :
https://education.nova.edu/Resources/uploads/app/35/files/arc_doc/mixed_methods.pdf
https://methods.sagepub.com/book/sage-mixed-methods-research
If you are using methods from different paradigms you may call it triangulation. However, if you have incorporated methods from the same paradigm, it would be referred to as mixed methods. In other words, all triangulation are mixed methods but all mixed methods are not triangulation.
Sayendri Panchadhyayi, I'm not sure that all triangulation involves mixed methods. For example, isn't it possible to triangulate interviews of husbands with the interviews of wives (just to pick a situation that comes quickly to mind), but the same method be used for both sets of interviews?
Sir, actually as far my understanding triangulation would involve methods from more than one paradigm. What you are saying, I agree if an a structured interview (Derived from the epistemological standpoint of Quantitative Research) is combined with semi-structured or unstructured interview schedule (Derived from the epistemological standpoint of Qualitative Research). However, in such cases it needs to be clearly mentioned the technique of interview adopted for the concerned research.
I agree with Robert Trevethan, you may use only one method (qualitative or quantitative), but you can use triangulation . I mean you can use different source of data for better understanding the subject/phenomenon.
Omid Mahdieh I suspect that you are saying it's possible for researchers to use only a qualitative OR a quantitative method - and, within each of them it's possible to conduct triangulation by comparing different data sets.
Sayendri Panchadhyayi, following on from that, I have never had the sense that triangulation can occur only when different paradigms are involved. As you point out, however, regardless of what researchers do, they should describe their methods clearly.
Dear Robert Trevethan,yes, I meant that. I think researchers can use triangulation, no matter what method they use (quantitative, qualitative or mixed).
In terms of mixing methods from different paradigms, I think some of the confusion comes from calling qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods "paradigms." Going back to the introduction of the term paradigms into the social sciences by Lincoln & Guba (1985), it was originally intended to distinguish things like post-positivism and constructivism. Lincoln & Guba were quite clear that they were referring to issues of ontology, epistemology, and methodology, rather than specific choices of methods.
Because Lincoln & Guba argued that different paradigms were "incommensurable," they would never have argued for any approach that combines post-positivism and constructivism, for example.
As for triangulation, this discussion is a nice illustration of the range of different meanings that have become confused within this one label, which is why the editors of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research no longer accept papers that use a triangulation as a motivation.
1. Mixed-method is qualitative and quantitative together is Triangulation.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science
- Reasoning