The whole PhD project will be conducted (in a palliative care context) in phases using a combination of questionnaires, interviews, focus groups and possibly reference groups along with analysis of conversations between clinicians and patients and an audit of patient records. I intend to use a pragmatic approach using both inductive and deductive analyses. The parts of the study may potentially stand alone, but better triangulated with a synthesis at the end. I keep going back and forth between calling this mixed methods and multi methods. I thought I nailed it when I called it multi-stage mixed methods!
Then I came across this little gem regarding case study research that was written in the same context as my study (palliative care):
"To understand the nature of case study research, it is useful to conceptualize it as an approach to research rather than a methodology in its own right. In other words, when considering the phenomenon of interest and the research questions it raises, the case study researcher selects the methodological position most suited to answer the particular research questions. The methods used in case study research are pragmatically – rather than paradigmatically – driven". Rosenberg, J. & Yates, P. (2007).
Using this logic, can I identify my study as using a pragmatic case study design, and not even touch upon qual/quant/multi/mixed method at all?
If so, are there any other references to substantiate this position?
First, the editors of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research have issued a statement that they consider mixed methods to be a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. There is less consensus about multi-methods, but some consider it to be a broad classification that contains not only mixed methods but studies that combine qualitative methods with qualitative methods and quantitative methods with quantitative methods.
As for case study designs, I would pick a well-known author such as Stake or Yin who describes the type of case study that you want to do, and then use their approach as your justification. Beyond that, I would not worry very much about labels -- your actual strategies for data collection and analysis are what matter most.
A suggestion: You could mention that you are using the case study approach as research strategy; and the various methods(appears like a mixed methods to me as per your description) embedded within the strategy.
Agree with David's view to read Stake or Yin. I find Yin more useful, but that's irrelevant here.
Does it make sense?
Hello there dear Andrea,
First of all, as a reminder, I like to note the fact Rosenburg mostly works on philosophy (specifically of science and/or social science). Hence, he is not considered as a person to develop a research methodology on his shoulders.
The point he is making out is that someone as a researcher should act more reflective in methodology (like the comprehensive issue of Reflexive Sociology brought up by Bourdieu or the Cybernetics sciences brought up by Wiener) and the researcher should choose her/his steps after the confrontation.
By the way, most of the techniques which you have considered for conducting your project will fit well under the qualitative methods. May there be quantitative analysis afterward. This would be recognized after your field studies and your research design process.
As a recommendation, I think this book will help you after all.
Have a great research and enjoy your journey.
https://www.amazon.com/Social-Research-Methods-International-Quantitative-ebook/dp/B00IZ0BE3Y
I suggest you do so reading on the relationship between ontology, epistemology and methodology as that will help understand your choice of methods.
I suggest that instead of getting bogged down in abstract discussions about the philosophy of science, you should read up on what is being said within the mixed methods community itself. Here is a link to the statement from the editors of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research about their definition of mixed methods:
Article The Journal of Mixed Methods Research Starts a New Decade: P...
And here is some similar information from the new International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches:
https://ijmra.org/aims-and-scope/
My plea for for an understanding of the relationship between ontology, epistemology and methodology is rooted in my own methodological liberation and my observation of the methodological progress students placed under my supervision have made once they have done a bit of informed dabbling. My call is not one of a 'deep end' 'bogged down' treatment of the said relationship, but an informed one - one that will help an understanding of mixed methods.
Discussions of ontology, epistemology and methodology originated in the 1980s, when they helped increase the legitimacy of qualitative research. But since mixed came on the scene from roughly 2000 onwards, this approach has become increasingly irrelevant. instead, that field relies much more heavily on pragmatism and critical realism as alternative paradigms.
Of course, those who were taught under the old system are likely to continue teaching it themselves. But even so, what it has to do with the difference between mixed methods and multi-methods is not clear to me.
If you were researching the management of tribulus terrestis poisoning in sheep from a veterinary perspective you could employ mixed methods. If you were researching the management of tribulus terrestis poisoning in sheep from a rural development perspective you would have to employ multi-methods. In the veterinary perspective you will remain in the realm of a realist ontology and a objectivist epistemology. In the rural development perspective you will need to begin with the realist ontology with its objectivist epistemology and then move into a relativist/ interpretivist ontology with its subjectivist epistemology. Veterinarians are concerned about animals, the diseases they endure and the causes and mitigations of those diseases. Rural development practitioners are interested the manner in which farmers utilize technical information, their indigneous knowledge and the choices they make in a complex rural world. In order to understand what the farmers are dealing with the rural development specialist needs to borrow the Vets white coat for a moment and once he/she understands the what realm of farmers they can move into the how realm of farmers. To do so, they need multi-methods.
And now the new question is, if the study uses mixed methods and the processes of gathering data and analysing the data are different- is there a consistent philosophical underpinning? E.g. realist, constructivist? Or does pragmatism cover all of these issues- basically designing with a utilitarian approach to conducting the study with 'whatever works'?
Issue of philosophical consistency are receiving less and less attention in mixed methods. Instead, the emphasis is on research design, and especially on how the qualitative and quantitative results are integrated. So, the question is the goals that you are using for each of your methods, as well as how you plan to connect those methods.
Dear Andrea Bryk ,
As David L Morgan said, philosophical consistency is not a problem here. What research design are you using for data collection? Also, what design do you intend to apply for the data analysis? What informs those designs? Too much of the philosophical words or discussions around them have the capacity of reducing your enthusiasm for the study. However, pragmatism covers all procedures around the mixed methods approach, except if you are using a concurrent mixed methods design that demands to collect the two strands of data concurrently, analyze separately and converge afterward.
Good luck.
With regard to "using a concurrent mixed methods design that demands to collect the two strands of data concurrently, analyze separately and converge afterward," I would not say that pragmatism does not cover this design. Instead, I would say that this is weak design, so it would be wise to consider alternative designs if they are available.
I'm not sure what collecting two strands of data concurrently means! As the researcher I plan to gather data from interviews, focus groups, observations, documents and recorded meetings of my participants. The data will be analysed separately- as they are different types of analyses and then I envision being converged as descriptive reporting in addition to charts that seek to compare and contrast the data. From what I've gathered, this is a widely used study approach that seems to gain strengths from 'triangulation' or using multiple sources of data to examine the phenomenon.
The contrast to "concurrent" is "sequential," where the results from one type of data effect the design for the other -- as in qual --> QUANT or QUANT --> qual etc. so, it sounds like you are collecting your data concurrently, then analyzing it separately, and the planning to assess the convergence of the results.
The weakness of this design is that it does not build in any points of convergence or divergence, so it is not obvious how to "compare and contrast the data." One recommended approach is through "joint displays" (Guetterman, Fetters, & Creswell, 2015).
As for triangulation that term is disappearing from the literature because it meant too many different things (the editors of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research have announced that they will no long accept papers that are based on claims about triangulation).
Although David L Morgan has explained what collection of two strands of data means using Qual & Quant. However, if you are using mixed methods, you have to be careful of what specific design or procedure you intend to use. Collecting two strands of data concurrently means collecting both qualitative and quantitative data at the same time. The methods of data collection you have mentioned are qualitative in nature. What type of quantitative data do you intend to collect? Or are you intending to code them and analyze quantitively? The 'mixing' point is what you have to be careful of. I recommend the explorative sequential mixed method (Cresswell, 2014) for your research. Also, note that triangulation and mixed-method are not the same. Thanks.
Thanks for your response. I think I can see your point about concurrent collection of data. I should have clarified, I will follow a sequence of data collection and data from one phase of the study to the next will be analysed to build knowledge and to inform subsequent stages as the study progresses. Within phases some of the data will be concurrent, but then integrated across phases. Finally, data will be synthesised to report the overall outcomes. The Guetterman, et al article is very good example of displaying the convergence of results. This is what I had in mind. I did find another paper that really captured a multi level design using mixed methods with a pragmatic paradigm with integration throughout phases and at the end (it does use the old terminology of triangulation-albeit well defined in the study):
Youngs, H. & Piggot-Irvine, E. (2011) The application of a multiphase triangulation approach to mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research.
Having said that I also read your recommendations from the first response in this thread re: triangulation and and found it helpful. It's a matter of me shedding the idea of triangulation as I understood it, and finding new ways of describing how multiple data points strengthen the study results. Most importantly how decisions about my study design will impact on the results of my study!
Thank you to all who have contributed to this post.
While late to the party I will add one thought. Not all sampling methods are equivalent. I would certainly pay attention to that here esp wrt to the quantitative methods. Remember Proper Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance. My start for all things sampling is: W G Cochran, https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk01pjmzWZd_BPoa43LysJHJGpnOyzA%3A1588388194269&ei=YuGsXq2EENjWtQbD16GgCw&q=cochran+sampling+techniques+&oq=cochran+sampling+techniques+&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIECCMQJzICCAAyAggAMgIIADIECAAQQzIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB5QvU1Y3VNgo1xoAHAAeACAAXuIAc4EkgEDNC4ymAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwitvdaQl5TpAhVYa80KHcNrCLQQ4dUDCAw&uact=5
Best, D. Booth
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology