Can methods / methodologies rooted in social constructivist paradigms (e.g reflexive TA (Braun and Clark) or grounded theory (Charmaz) ) be meaningfully integrated in mixed methods studies? Or is one restricted to only using post-positivist yet qualitative/semiqualitative methods like the interrater -reliability coding method of TA (Boyatzis, 1998) if the goal is to incorporate it into a sequential mixed methods study?
The reason I ask is that most social constructivist paradigms do not lend themselves well to the idea of "variables" which are at the heart of any quantitative study.
My design is a exploratory sequential mixed methods study where a smaller qualitative study will inform a larger quantitative one. I am asking if a theory of trauma (developed in a different cultural context , but well researched- already has established questionnaires etc.) is applicable as a backbone to map familial violence on in a culturally different and diverse South Asian scenario. The idea is to understand the manifestation of violence and trauma , identify cross cultural mediators etc. through the qualitative data, before moving on to using the established quantitative questionnaires (which may require adaptation based on the qualitative data).
Any discussion, resources on this issue, examples of papers where different paradigms have been meaningfully integrated into a mixed methods design, will be very helpful.
Thank you.
I am unclear how your qualitative data would affect your use of an established questionnaire. Usually, the qualitative data in an exploratory sequential study contribute to the creation of a questionnaire.
I'm generally inspired by Michael Quinn Patton's approach to qualitative studies, he's happy mixing methods as longs as it fits the purpose of investigation at hand, and as long as the involved researchers has sufficient skill in the methods they apply. His "Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods" is highly recommended.
Adopting a qualitative and quantitative approach does not necessarily mean using a "mixed method". The analysis must be conducted on the same source of data, which is typically the case in studies that utilise questionnaires with both open and closed questions. I agree with the comment above. A study that combines an exploratory qualitative study with a subsequent quantitative study is not classified as "mixed methods" and does not present a problem, as previously stated. With regard to the utilisation of the constructivist paradigm, it is recommended that consideration be given to the relationship between the research problem and the methods chosen for the analysis of the data sources. It would be beneficial to examine the Research Onion proposal by Saunders et al. [Saunders, M. N., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research Methods for Business Students]. I would also recommend the following books for you to read, when possible: Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education. Routledge; Flick, U. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. [Sage]. I wish you every success in your research.
Rooney Pinto In a sequential exploratory design (qual --> QUAN), the analyses are not conducted on the same source of data. Instead, a smaller preliminary set of qualitative data (e.g., several focus groups) is collected to guide the larger quantitative project (e.g., the construction of a survey research questionnaire).
Since the purposes for the qualitative method are different from most full-scale qualitative studies, the methods should be chosen to meet the goals of this specific project. For example, because you will not be generating a theory, there is not reason to pursue Grounded Theory. The most common use for the preliminary qualitative methods is to generate a set of themes that can be converted into survey items, but this does not require the full complexity of Braun and Clarke's (2022) most recent version of Reflexive Thematic Analysis. Instead, the goal of RTA its to generate a deep understanding of a set of research questions.
- Badges
- Science topic