Did you apply the explanatory design of mexed methods reseach according to J. Creswell (Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research)? Your research project description sounds like the explanatory design. We conduct quantitative research, analyze data and then conduct qualitative research to explain some observations from the quantitative study. I may be wrong but I think the main condition to define a project methodology as the mixed methods research is to apply both quantitative and qualitative methods to answer the same research questions. In my opinion, the main question is did you apply both methods to answer the same question?

Thank you for your question. I am interested in other opinions and I will follow the discussion to learn more.

Hi Suzanna, I did not complete any data analysis before conducting the qualitative interviews. I simply took at the the results of the survey and took the emerging themes from my survey questionnaire and designed the interview agenda so that I could further explore the responses form the questionnaire. I took the survey questionnaire results and analysed using content analysis and used thematic analysis to analyse the interviews using Atlas.tI. my next plan is to present the results together and discuss.

It is not a mixed method study if you wish for the sciences to begin to progress, It is 1) a unified approach to the study of the sort of which has been my own to Recalling Sociology, Rethinking Social science 2) it is the adoption of a quantitative approach that allows for the unified aspect of the division (of the sort that Durkheim employed in his study of the social phenomena of society (treated as a thing) by way of suicide and that I as well employed in a study of attitudes towards suicide and in a study of 11 years of college sports a particular college 3) it is the adoption of a qualitative approach (such as the one employed to substantive problems in a study of the origins of Chinese thought, culture and civilization (Goldstein, 1991, Goldstein 1982, (Max Weber's Sociology of Science, unpublished), The Problem with Robert Merton's Ontology of Social Reality (unpublished() , Bensman, 1982) or 4) the adoption of an approach that allows for interaction effects (of the sort that George Simmel's thoughts allowed for. What approach should one adopt? Your choice so long as there is consistency. In its absence, there will be no real progress consistent with the thoughts of Comte and those of us who have followed in his' footsteps or in my own case advanced our understanding of the problem a bit further in a way that an analysis of Spencer's thoughts allowed for. I taught this aspect of my research today. Re 1) i was referring to the unified approach to the problem of the subject-object division/

It sounds like you used the same data set for both of your analyses? If so, there is indeed debate about whether this counts to mixed methods. Some authors, such as Sandelowski, Voils, and Knafl have characterized versions of this approach as "Quantitizing" and treated it as mixed methods.

No I didn’t use the same data set at all. Just so we are all clear. The study has 2 separate phases. Phase 1, survey questionnaire asking19 questions. Some quantitative questions (age, number of years worked etc) And some qualitative questions. 2nd phase used 10 qualitative questions exploring emerging themes. Survey questionnaire data was analysed using content analysis. Qualitative interview data set was analysed using thematic analysis. 2 separate data sets. 2 different analytical approaches. Then i quantities the analysed results to produce graphs etc. Nowhere have I implied I asked the same questions or analysed the data as one data set.

Thank you for the clarification. My next question is whether the follow-up qualitative questions explored themes that were emerging from the analysis of the quantitative data. If so, this could be what is known as an Explanatory Sequential design (QUANT --> qual).

But if the follow-up qualitative study primarily explored results from the previous qualitative questions, that would be more likely to get the label "multi-methods" or "multiple methods" rather than mixed methods.

I strongly agree with David.

questions. 1) The use of numbers is quantitative , but how they are used could be either. So how did you use them. Ask a woman of 70 her age and she may say 60. Ask a marijuana smoker how often and when I was in college and such smoking was illegal, they might say never. If you are interested in retaining the integrity of the individuals you study you approach the data differently than if you are interested in generalizing to the group as a whole. Sounds to me that you are not interested in studying a specific problem but rather in generalizing. That is ok. But then you need to be consistent. From that standpoint, your methodology does not sound like it is mixed. Qualitative research employs numbers, but the objective is not the same. It is to specify, not to generalize.

At the most fundamental level, you need to be able to defend the notion that you have done some sort of "mixing" (integration between quantitative and qualitative strands of your study) in order to claim that you've used mixed methods. David noted a couple of ways that this might have been done in his comments above. Can you describe how and at what stage you have "mixed"?

I'm surprised your committee didn't have this discussion with you at your proposal defense rather than after you completed the data gathering and analysis phase! There are some gray areas and that all should have been fleshed out prior - that's unfortunate! There are many good texts on mixed methods studies it's difficult to comment without seeing what your actual analyses consisted of...

Thanks every one. its upsetting that they have only just mentioned this given I was supposed to have a Delphi study and they advised against it. I may have no choice but to accept even though I have quantified my qualitative data from the survey questionnaire. Just to be clear I collected limited quantitative data with my survey questionnaire (ages of participants and numbers of years working) alongside qualitative data.

If you do not have any quantitive results to integrate with the qualitative results, then I personally would agree with your advisors that this is not a mixed methods study.

If you use quantitative tools + qualitative tools in general is a mixed method

Dear Ibrahim Khalil can you explain " quantitative tools + qualitative tools " with an example please?

Anyways, I totally agree with the explanations provided by Prof. David L Morgan

Best Regards

Some mixed method designs

Hi there!

I believed it to be a mixed method which involves the combination of quantitative and qualitative instruments and data analysis

David I’m confused. You said if I do have any quantitative results to integrate with my qualitative results IT IS NOT MIXED METHOD did you mean if I don’t as your assertion isn’t making sense.how can I have both results and it still isn’t a MM study?/?

I’m not sure how many times I need to explain that I collected both quantitative and qualitative data and that I quantitised to produce graphs that can further explain/interpret and you all still say that it is not a mixed method. You have all confused me except Ibrahim... please clarify that first you understand that I collected both and then reply

Sorry for the typo. If you do NOT have any quantitative results to integrate with the qualitative results then it is NOT mixed methods. (I edited the previous post to correct this.)

Hey there

I am highly agree with Prof. Morgan

Mixed method= collection+integration of qualitative and quantitative data

Mixed Method research by Creswell and Plano Clark is a good reference for your posted question. Good luck!

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011).

Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Dear Dr. Ibrahim Khalil it will help if you provide the reference for the mix-method diagram you posted. Best regards

I am now in touch with Dr Hui. I have sent her all my data and we will have resolution today. I believe that my quantitized data, plus my qualitative data, mixed at the level of collection, analysis and interpretation is definitely a mixed method.

Essentially, your quantitative and qualitative data require 'mixing' at the level of analysis and interpretation in such a way that your resultant project report is a more comprehensive explanation of the phenomenon studied than you would have gotten if just using either quantitative or qualitative data.

At the level of collection, you will collect your data either qualitatively or quantitatively.

Thank you everyone

it is a mixed method study

You have done a mixed research as you collected some questions in a quantitative form(structured questionnaire) and some in qualitative form(interview)

The question is what do you hope to gain as in your objective or aim. Example- Max Weber wanted to know why as in motivation certain cultural phenomena are unique to the West? He had a specific question in mind. How did he address the question. Both quantitatively and qualitatively, but holding on to his specific aim or substantive purpose and that meant comparing and contrasting. the specific time period, place, circumstances, specific situation. China, for instance was a country of large walled cities long before the West. Yet, the phenomena (like double entry book keeping, the orchestra... did not develop there. In my own work I focused on why not in China or what warrants the different developments that occurred there -like military organization emerging before all other organizational forms and hence refuting Marx's original materialist claim. See Goldstein Fuchs, 1995, The Essentials of Sociology. and Goldstein, Dissertation Abstracts "Max Weber's Contribution to `Knowledge' of the Origins of Chinese Thought .

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Research_proposal_contents