Transcript Writing your thesis - University of Exeter

Mixed-methods
MSc Designing and Communicating Research
Dr Alexandra Allan
Overview and aims
•
•
•
•
•
Definitions
History
Common principles
Typologies/designs
Real research examples
Mixed-methods research
Combining
Integrated
Multi-trait multi-method
‘Empirical research that involves the collection
and analysis of both qualitative and
quantitative data’
Mixed-model research
Methodological triangulation
Mixed-methods research
Moran Ellis’ (2006) distinctions:
Integration = Each method given equal weight
Combining = One method is given higher priority
than the other
Cronin’s (2007) definition:
‘the use of two or more methods in a single
research project (or research programme)’
A brief history…
1950’s – The formative period
• Initial interest in mixing methods
• Campbell and Fiske’s work on psychological
traits
• The ‘paradigm debate period’
1970’s – Shifting paradigms
• Increased acceptance of qualitative research
A brief history…
1990’s – Acceptance of mixed-methods
• Greene, Caricelli and Graham’s influential publication
in 1989
• Cresswell’s (1994) distinctions between the three types
of design
• Tashakkori and Teddie’s (1998) mapping of contours
•
•
•
•
2000’s – Advanced stages
Conference for mixed-methods research
Journal for mixed-methods research
Handbook for mixed-methods research
A distinct research practice in its own right
Some benefits of this approach…
‘The combination of qualitative and quantitative
approaches provides a better understanding of
research problems than either approach
alone…[we can] combine the methods in a
way that achieves complementary strengths
and non-overlapping weaknesses’
Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004:18)
Some benefits of this approach…
1)
Mixed methods research can provide strengths that offset the
weaknesses of either approach alone
2)
It offers a more comprehensive approach
3)
It helps to answer different research questions
4)
It encourages elaboration
5)
It provides the opportunity to present a greater diversity of divergent
views
(For more see Bryman 2006)
Some benefits of this approach…
Deacon et al (1998:61):
‘ Whatever short-term inconvenience this may cause, in many cases the
reappraisal and re-analysis required can reap long term analytical
rewards: alerting the researcher to the possibility that issues are more
multi-facted than they may have initially supposed, and offering the
opportunity to develop more convincing and robust social explanations of
the social processes being investigated’ .
Greene’s five reasons
Greene (1989):
• Triangulation – mutual corroboration of results
• Complementarity – enhancement for the results
of one method using those of another
• Development – results from one method develop
another
• Initiation – the discovery of paradox or
contradiction
• Expansion – extending breadth and range of
enquiry
Question…
If these are the justifications/advantages of a mixed
methods approach, what do you think the
disadvantages may be?
Paradigms and philosophy
Two commonly recognised paradigms:
Positivism
Interpretivism
Usually associated with quantitative
approaches to research where
researchers make claims for knowledge
based on cause and effect thinking and
the selection of variables and testing of
theories
Usually associated with qualitative
approaches to research and with an
interest in the understanding of
meaning of phenomena from the
participant’s subjective views
Six different paradigmatic stances
Tashakkorri and Teddie (2003):
1) The a-paradigmatic stance
‘in real world practice, methods can be separated from the epistemology
out of which they emerged. One can use statistics in a straight-forward
way without doing a literature review of logical positivism…’
(Patton 1990:90)
2) The incompatability thesis
3) Complementary strengths thesis
Six different paradigmatic stances
Tashakkorri and Teddie (2003):
4) The single paradigm thesis:
a) Pragmatism – a ‘what works’ approach
‘Study what interests and is of value to you, study it in different ways that
you deem appropriate, and utilise the results in ways that can bring about
positive consequences within your value system’ (1998:30)
b) Transformative/emancipatory – creation of a more just
society
Six different paradigmatic stances
Tashakkorri and Teddie (2003):
1)The a-paradigmatic stance
2)The incompatability thesis
3)Complementary strengths thesis
4)The single paradigm thesis
5)The dialectical thesis
6)The multiple paradigms thesis
Question…
Which paradigmatic stance convinces you the
most?
Mixed-methods research designs
Over forty designs have been identified, but Cresswell and
Plano-Clark summarise this range using four different
typologies:
QUAN
1)
•
•
•
THE TRIANGULATION DESIGN
Interpretation
based on QUAN
and QUAL
results
QUAL
‘to obtain different but complementary data on the same topic’
Different models= convergence, data transformation, validating quantitative
data model, multi-level model
Strengths = data can be collected separately, efficient design, makes intuitive
sense
Weaknesses = considerable effort and expertise needed
Mixed-methods research designs
2) THE EMBEDDED DESIGN
QUAN
qual
Interpretation
based on QUAN
(qual) results
QUAL
OR
quan
Interpretation
based on QUAL
(quan) results
‘where one data set plays a supportive secondary role in a study based primarily on
the other type of data’
•
•
•
Different models = the experimental model and the correlational model
Strengths = Easy to implement due to two phase model, appealing to
quantitative and qualitative researchers
Weaknesses = Implementation in different phases, considerations over
participants
Mixed-methods research designs
3) THE EXPLANATORY DESIGN
QUAN
qual
Interpretation
based on QUAN qual results
A two-phase design where the researcher uses qualitative data to explain or build on
initial quantitative results
•
•
•
Strengths = commonly used in educational research as a participant selection
model, easy to implement
Weaknesses = Takes time to implement, participants need careful consideration
Example = Jackson (2008) research on lads and ladettes
http://wirksworthii.nottingham.ac.uk/v-resort/narratives/carolyn/q4/2.InstrumentRelationship/2.InstrumentRelationship_files/
Mixed-methods research designs
4) THE EXPLORATORY DESIGN
QUAL
quan
Interpretation
based on QUALquan results
Based on the premise that quantitative research is inappropriate until exploratory
qualitative methods have been used to build a better foundation of
understanding
•
Different models = instrument development model and taxonomy development
model
•
Strengths = easy to implement and appeals to many researchers
•
Weaknesses = takes time to implement, second phase tentative and so not
detailed in advance
Choosing a research design
1)
What will the timing of the quantitative and qualitative
methods be?
2)
What will the weighting of the quantitative and qualitative
methods be?
3)
How will the quantitative and qualitative methods be
mixed?
Question
Look at the abstracts provided for you:
Which design do you think these researchers were using in
these studies?
The Young Lives Project
• An international study of child poverty
seeking to: ‘improve understanding of
child poverty and inform the development
of related policies’
• Tracking the lives of 12,000 children
growing up in four developing countries
(Peru, Ethiopia, India and Vietnam) over
fifteen years
• Integrating ‘regular questionnaire based
surveys with more in-depth participatory
methods and monitoring of policy’
The Young Lives Project
Research questions
1)
2)
3)
4)
What are the factors that shape children’s lives to either increase or
reduce poverty and its effects?
How do children in different circumstances experience poverty?
What impact does poverty have on children’s lives, both during
childhood and into adulthood?
What part do pro-poor policies (especially social protection and basic
services) play in reducing childhood poverty?
The Young Lives Project
‘The breadth of the project design enables us to
generate empirical data about how boys and girls
of varying ages are affected by poverty while at
the same time contributing to a deeper
understanding of why poverty persists and how to
tackle persisting poverty’
The Young Lives Project - Methods
Secret box method
Observations
Vignettes
Essays
Resource allocation
game
Body maps
Well being exercise
Drawings
Diaries
Seasonal calenders
Social maps
Guided tours
Who matters?
Spider diagrams
What if?
Social networking
Focus group
discussions
Stimulus materials
Science Education for Diversity
Brief summary:
The Science Education for Diversity (SED) project will run from January
2010 to December 2012. The aim is to understand how countries in
both Europe (England/Netherlands) and the partner countries of India,
Turkey, Lebanon and Malaysia are addressing the issue of gender and
cultural diversity in regard to engaging young people in science
education.
Aims:
•
How do teachers’ perceive these issues?
•
What factors affect students opting for science?
•
What educational policies are in place in each of the partner countries?
•
What constitutes a 'successful' policy or practice?
http://www.science-education-for-diversity.eu/
Science Education for Diversity
WP
No
Work Package title
Type of
activity
1
Project Management
MGT
2
3
Exploration - Documentary
analysis
Exploration- Case studies
Lead
Lead partic.
participan short name
t no.
Person /
months
Start
month
End
month
1
UNEXE
6
M1
M36
RTD
2
UK
TIFR India
33
M2
M12
RTD
5
TU/e
33
M2
M12
The
Netherlands
4
5
6
Theoretical Frameworks
RTD
Intervention / Evaluation /
Refinement
RTD
Dissemination /
Valorisation
RTD
1
UNEXE
44
M10
M19
4
UK
AUB
51
M17
M32
3
Lebanon
PAU
39
M4
M36
Turkey
Science Education for Diversity
Using the methods with young people as a way of:
• Exploring students’ views about cultural beliefs about the nature of science
as a way of knowing, and the image of scientists,
• Exploring how such beliefs may be in tension with, or congruent with,
religious values, local cultural or alternative worldviews and values, or
desirable gender identities
• Exploring students’ level of scientific literacy
• Exploring students’ perceived instrumental value of science as a career
path, or scientific knowledge as grounding for a career path
• Exploring students’ perception that science is boring or interesting, and why
Science Education for Diversity
Using the methods with teachers as a way of:
• Understanding science teachers’ understandings of diversity;
• Understanding science teachers’ worries, concerns about teaching science
to diverse learners;
• Understanding teachers’ personal (religious) beliefs, and the way their
beliefs are rooted in their cultural background and influence the teaching
to diverse students;
• Understanding the barriers of teaching socio-scientific issues
• Understanding the teachers and students’ perspectives of the sociocultural contexts around them, including socio-economic classes, value
systems and cultural traditions and how these contexts
Some final reminders…
1) Be aware of the work that is involved in these projects
2) Mixed-methods research requires competency in a
range of skills
3) More methods = More data = More writing up?
4) Consider what you would do with inconsistent results
5) Be aware of why you are using mixed-methods
Key references
Cresswell, J. and Plano Clark, V.L. (2007) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research.
London: Sage.
Bryman, A. 'Why do researchers integrate/combine/mesh/blend/mix/merge/fuse quantitative and
qualitative research?', in M. Bergman (ed.), Advances in Mixed Methods Research, (Sage, 2008) pp.
87-100.
Bryman, A. 'Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?', Qualitative Research, 6,
2006, pp. 97-113.
Greene, J.C. and Caracelli, V.J. (1997) Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and
Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cresswell, J. (2003) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004) ‘Mixed methods research: a paradigm whose time has
come’, Educational Researcher, 33(7), 239-271.
Tashakorri, A. and Teddlie, C. (2003) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioural Research.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Mason, J. (2006) ‘Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way’, Qualitative Research, 6(1), 9-25.
Atkinson, P. and Coffey, A. (2003) Key Themes in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.