Hi Sajid - you answer your own question here. You have already stated that you are biased - which leads to a retort that will look to neutralise that. Certainly, the value of mixed methods cannot be denied in terms of pragmatic research. However, your blinkered view of mixed methods does not sit at all with the contemporary view of it. The main reason to use mixed methods research is to view a complex issue from different paradigm worldview's. Of research, it is extremely limited to make a comment such as 'why on earth would a researcher want to...'. It's always to extend beyond a singular and linear view of the world. What 'is known' is only known until it is challenged. Nothing is set in tablets of stone. There are many different forms of mixed methods - and you state that qualitative comes first - followed by quantitative. It can easily occur the other way. It can easily also be just a quantitative approach or a qualitative approach. 

The attached chapter on mixed methods may help to assist overcoming the paradigm tension that is often unhelpful and initiated by those that cannot see the 'bigger picture' 

Hi Sajid - you answer your own question here. You have already stated that you are biased - which leads to a retort that will look to neutralise that. Certainly, the value of mixed methods cannot be denied in terms of pragmatic research. However, your blinkered view of mixed methods does not sit at all with the contemporary view of it. The main reason to use mixed methods research is to view a complex issue from different paradigm worldview's. Of research, it is extremely limited to make a comment such as 'why on earth would a researcher want to...'. It's always to extend beyond a singular and linear view of the world. What 'is known' is only known until it is challenged. Nothing is set in tablets of stone. There are many different forms of mixed methods - and you state that qualitative comes first - followed by quantitative. It can easily occur the other way. It can easily also be just a quantitative approach or a qualitative approach. 

The attached chapter on mixed methods may help to assist overcoming the paradigm tension that is often unhelpful and initiated by those that cannot see the 'bigger picture' 

In my view, "qualitative" , "quantitative", "mixed-methods" are all very handy labels that help us navigate, and no more than that. At the current stage we need these labels, even though we disagree about their adequacy and their ability to capture rich idiosyncrasies of a scientific inquiry.

Just an example of how restrictive/confusing/ inadequate labels can be and a caution against biases. It is often argued that QUAL research operates with concepts while QUAN with figures and numbers. Then, how about mathematics that operates with both concepts and (or, perhaps, "through") numbers and figures? 

Hi Sajid.

This is a topic i am very interested in. I'm involved in social work research, and i feel there is a general preference for qualitative research in my area, and i think, a misunderstanding of the role of qualitative research. Having recently completed a large qualitative study recently i am more convinced than ever that qualitative research is an 'exploration,' and exercise in generating ideas and setting direction for quantitative research (crucially, in my field, it should lead to the adjustment/development of interventions and then the trialing of these interventions).

So, i would disagree with your comment: "We do qualitative research to solve a problem" i would suggest that we do it to explore a problem. I would add that if you look at what discursive psychologists (for example "Edwards, Derek. "Discursive psychology." Handbook of language and social interaction (2005): 257-273.) have shown us about what is really going on when we interview a study participant, you have a theoretical underpinning for the fact that talk is just talk, really, at the end of the day. There may be something in it that which can guide your enquiry, but until you prove the value of your qualitative findings, through some kind of rigorous trial, correlational or observational study, your qualitative findings are just your interpretation of your participant's interpretation of what is you are talking about; add in rhetorical repertoires, ego-protection and the fact that you, the researcher, have so much influence on what your participant says, and you really start to see that your qualitative research is more of a scoping, brain-storming-type exercise than stand-alone evidence.

Mixed methods works if you use the qualitative for direction on how to shape your quantitative project. Or use the qualitative to get an understanding of what lies beneath your quantitative findings - for example, why did the intervention not do better than the comparison group - this provides direction when you are re-shaping the intervention before trialing it again. See: Campbell, N. C., et al. (2007). Designing and Evaluating Complex Interventions to Improve Health Care, British Medical Association: 455. for more on this approach

Dear Sajid

It is not a matter of generalizing.  But, imagine that you try an interesting and innovative intervention in a certain school.  Wouldn't it be worthwhile to also look and analyze the improvement in scores? grades? (If that is one of the aims of the new program)

@Dean Whitehead 

Hi Dean,

Thank you for your input. My bias – academic bias implied – is caused by my relating to a particular paradigm – something no researcher and academician can escape. I see mixed-methods as a (political) compromise (the misnomer “bigger picture” being an expression of the compromise) between the two “competing” paradigms (I am sure most of us are aware of the “paradigm wars”). I see a problem with these compromises and I am not alone.

Furthermore, I never suggested the supremacy of QUAL over QUAN.

@Larisa Nikitina

Dear Larisa,

Thank you for your input. The example of mathematical reasoning is an interesting dimension and I am going to take some time to understand it.

@Tony Mcginn

Hi Tony,

Thank you for your input. I believe we would never explore a problem just for the sake of it; we, rather, explore a problem to solve it.

@Yehuda Bar Shalom

Dear Yehuda,

Thank you for your input. I believe that the worth of the intervention, cited as example, can also be understood in detail through qualitative means.

I don't think there is any reason too drag so-called paradigms into this discussion. Instead, I would emphasize matching the research methods to the research goals. Some goals do involve classic statistical generalization, but others are more about exploring and interpreting -- areas where qualitative methods offer strengths that  quantitative methods methods do not.

I think mixed methods work best when there is a division of labor between the two, so that each performs a specific role within the overall project. In that regard, the exploratory sequential (qual --> QUANT) and explanatory sequential (QUANT --> qual) designs are the best known. But both of these are qualitatively driven, and lately there has been a call for more attention to qualitatively driven mixed methods, which could include designs such as quant --> QUAL and QUAL --> quant.

Overall, I would emphasize the designs need to meet the purposes of the research, and those might be predominantly quantitative or qualitative or a combination of the two,. Everyone has their biases about what they themselves prefer to study, but we can't let that turn into prejudices about what other people should study.

Hi Sajid - thanks for updating and qualifying your stance further. Yes - of course we are talking about the recognised paradigm war/tension here - which doesn't help anyone really. I fully agree with David that is far more constructive and helpful to consider, first and foremost, 'fitness for task'. If you feel the a certain type of approach wouldn't work for you and/or is at odds with your worldview - definitely best not to adopt it. However, as the case with many research dilemmas, if you look hard enough you will find examples where researchers have overcome the 'tensions' to successfully implement and apply methodology and methods. If approached with a 'complimentary' mindset, I personally believe that paradigms are far more inter-related than competing. 

No! it has many usefulness.

Dear Sajib

Briefly, the answer is no. The applications are very varied as well as the possible designs.

I don’t agree with you because one of the most significant characteristics of conducting mixed methods research is the possibility of triangulation whereas we can use several means to examine the same phenomenon. 

Thanks Michael - we are agreed.

Best,

Dean 

The world doesn't divide into paradigms even if some researchers/disciplines end up looking at it as if it did.

Sajid, you state "I believe we would never explore a problem just for the sake of it; we, rather, explore a problem to solve it."

Never "just for the sake of it" we are all too busy for that. Qualitative research - because it is part of the inductive deductive cycle which is at the heart of scientific inquiry, and which is outlined in the first chapters of any 'Introduction to Research' type text. Try getting a study report past peer review stating that you have 'solved' a problem by conducting qualitative interviews. You just started exploring it ...