ArticlePDF Available

Mixed Methods Research: The Five Ps Framework

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Mixed methods research (MMR) is often referred to as the third methodological movement and has witnessed a rapid rise in popularity in the last 10 years. Prominent authorities in the field now refer to the MM research community which has developed its own philosophical, theoretical, methodological, analytical and practical foundations and constructs for the conduct of MMR. This paper provides a brief overview of some of the more common definitions of mixed methods research and methodology before introducing the conceptual framework of the Five Ps of mixed methods research. The Five P framework will be used to structure an exploration of some of the key challenges facing those who choose the innovative path of mixed methods research and some of the key areas for capacity building. The Five Ps include: Paradigms; Pragmatism; Praxis; Proficiency; and Publishing. This Five Ps framework will be mapped against the contemporary landscape of the MMR movement as developed by some of the most prominent mixed methodologists within the MMR community. These include: the overlapping components of an emerging map of MMR (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2010) and the domains of MMR (Creswell 2010). The Five Ps framework can provide those wishing to embark into mixed methods research with the essential components of a mixed methods starter kit, inclusive of a contemporary checklist of contentious issues, risks and traps that require consideration. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010b: 29) refer to the need for MM researchers to become "methodological connoisseur[s]" whilst Cameron (2011: 263) calls for the need to build "methodological trilingualism" in those wishing to engage in MMR. Both these capacities require advanced research skill levels and competencies. As a consequence the framework also offers higher degree supervisors and educators with a pedagogic tool for guiding and teaching mixed methods.
Content may be subject to copyright.
ISSN 1477-7029 96 ©Academic Publishing International Ltd
Reference this paper as: Cameron, R. “Mixed Methods Research: The Five Ps Framework” The Electronic
Journal of Business Research Methods Volume 9 Issue 2 2011 (pp 96-108), available online at www.ejbrm.com
Mixed Methods Research: The Five Ps Framework
Roslyn Cameron
Central Queensland University, Gladstone, Australia
r.cameron@cqu.edu.au
Abstract: Mixed methods research (MMR) is often referred to as the third methodological movement and has
witnessed a rapid rise in popularity in the last 10 years. Prominent authorities in the field now refer to the MM
research community which has developed its own philosophical, theoretical, methodological, analytical and
practical foundations and constructs for the conduct of MMR. This paper provides a brief overview of some of the
more common definitions of mixed methods research and methodology before introducing the conceptual
framework of the Five Ps of mixed methods research. The Five P framework will be used to structure an
exploration of some of the key challenges facing those who choose the innovative path of mixed methods
research and some of the key areas for capacity building. The Five Ps include: Paradigms; Pragmatism; Praxis;
Proficiency; and Publishing. This Five Ps framework will be mapped against the contemporary landscape of the
MMR movement as developed by some of the most prominent mixed methodologists within the MMR community.
These include: the overlapping components of an emerging map of MMR (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2010) and the
domains of MMR (Creswell 2010). The Five Ps framework can provide those wishing to embark into mixed
methods research with the essential components of a mixed methods starter kit, inclusive of a contemporary
checklist of contentious issues, risks and traps that require consideration. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010b: 29)
refer to the need for MM researchers to become “methodological connoisseur[s]” whilst Cameron (2011: 263)
calls for the need to build “methodological trilingualism” in those wishing to engage in MMR. Both these
capacities require advanced research skill levels and competencies. As a consequence the framework also offers
higher degree supervisors and educators with a pedagogic tool for guiding and teaching mixed methods.
Keywords: mixed methods research; paradigms; pragmatism; publishing; teaching research methods
1. Introduction
Mixed method research is a growing area of methodological choice for many academics and
researchers from across a variety of discipline areas. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010b: 803-804) refers
to the MM community which has:
… gone through a relatively rapid growth spurt…it has acquired a formal methodology
that did not exist before and is subscribed to by an emerging community of practitioners
and methodologists across the disciplines. In the process of developing a distinct identity,
as compared with other major research communities of researchers in the social and
human sciences, mixed methods has been adopted as the de facto third alternative, or
“third methodological movement”’.
The definition of MMR remains are contested area. Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner (2007) asked
21 researchers for a definition of MM and received 19 responses. These definitions were diverse and
were differentiated in terms of what was being mixed, the stage in the research process were the
mixing occurred, the extend of the mixing, the purpose of the mixing and the drive behind the
research. There are limitations as to the extent at which this paper can delve into these definitional
debates and as a result definitions utilised by prominent mixed methodologists have been chosen for
this paper.
The Journal of Mixed Methods (2006), in its call for papers defines mixed methods as ‘research in
which the investigator collects, analyses, mixes, and draws inferences from both quantitative and
qualitative data in a single study or a program of inquiry’. A more comprehensive definition is provided
by Creswell and Plano Clark (2007: 5) who define mixed methods as follows:
Mixed methods research is a research design with philosophical assumptions as well as
methods of inquiry. As a methodology, it involves philosophical assumptions that guide
the direction of the collection and analysis of data and the mixture of qualitative and
quantitative data in a single study or series of studies. Its central premise is that the use
of quantitative and qualitative approaches in combination provides a better
understanding of research problems that either approach alone.
Teddlie and Tashakkori (2010: 5) define the methodology of MM as: The broad inquiry logic that
guides the selection of specific methods and that is informed by conceptual positions common to
mixed methods practitioners (e.g., the rejection of “either-or” choices at all levels of the research
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Volume 9 Issue 2 2011
www.ejbrm.com 97 ©Academic Publishing International Ltd
process). For us, this definition of methodology distinguishes the MMR approach to conducting
research from that practiced in either the QUAN or QUAL approach”.
This paper will explore the challenges of undertaking mixed methods research through a conceptual
framework referred to as the Five Ps of mixed methods research. The Five Ps tend to cover the key
categories of challenges that arise from mixed methods research designs. They include philosophical
considerations and approaches, as well as methodological choices and processes, competencies,
practicalities and political considerations. The Five Ps are aligned against two frameworks for
mapping the contemporary MMR landscape before a more detailed discussion on each of the Five Ps
is progressed. The paper concludes with options for developing research capacity in MMR.
The five Ps of mixed methods research
Several mixed methods proponents acknowledge the controversies/crises/challenges that face those
embarking on mixed methods research (Mingers 2001; Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003; Onwuegbuzie
and Collins 2007). Mingers (2001) described in detail four types of barriers to multimethod research
however he also argues these are not insurmountable. The barriers identified are: philosophical;
cultural; psychological (cognitive); and practical. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003: 672) identified six
continuing points of controversy in mixed methods design and expanded this in 2010 to nine
important issues or controversies in contemporary MMR (Tashakkori and Teddlie 2010a).
Onwuegbuzie and Collins (2007: 304) refer to four major crises to mixed methods research and
indicate how each if these crises can inform considerations of sampling design. The four crises are:
representation; legitimation; integration; and politics. This paper acknowledges these issues and
seeks to provide a practical framework for addressing aspects of these issues that can be utilised as a
pedagogic tool to guide mixed method practitioners especially the novice mixed methods researcher.
Brannen (2005) refered to the ‘three Ps’ when she detailed the rationales behind the choice of
research method in general. The Brannen three Ps include: paradigms; pragmatics and; politics. This
paper has built on from this by expanding the Ps and by focusing upon mixed methods research as
opposed to research methods in general. The conceptual framework of the Five Ps will now be
explored as a means by which to tease out some of the challenges mixed methods research provides
for those wishing to be more comprehensive and innovative in their approaches to research through
the adoption of mixed methods. The Five Ps framework includes; Paradigms; Pragmatism; Praxis;
Proficiency and; Publishing. Table 1 below overviews the framework in terms of the key issues and
challenges that arise from the Five Ps and aligns these with the learning objectives for teaching mixed
methods developed by Bazeley (2003).
Table 1: The five Ps of Mixed Methods Research (MMR)
Five Ps
Issues & Challenges
Bazeley’s (2003) Learning Objectives
Paradigms
P1
Criticism:
From paradigmatic purists and claims
of eclecticism.
Challenge:
Need to document and argue
paradigmatic stance in MMR.
· Have sufficient understanding of the philosophical
bases of research to determine if and how
apparent paradigmatic differences in approach
might influence their work and be resolved.
Pragmatism
P2
Criticism:
Epistemological relativism and short-
sighted practicalism.
Challenge:
Become informed about the key
debates and source MMR literature in
the chosen field.
Rigorously defend the stance and
choices made at the interface between
philosophy and methods.
· Be familiar with key literature and debates in
mixed methods, and with exemplars of a variety of
mixed methods approaches to research;
· Learn to take risks, but also to justify choices
made.
Praxis
P3
Criticism:
Problems related to methodological
and data integration.
Challenge:
Informed choices, utilisation and
· Be able to determine the appropriateness of a
selected method or methods, based on the
question(s) being asked (be question-driven in their
choice of methods), and be able to determine
whether mixing methods provides a cost-effective
advantage over use of a single method;
Roslyn Cameron
www.ejbrm.com 98 ISSN 1477-7029
application of MMR designs, methods
and data analysis.
· Have knowledge of the variety, rules and
implications of different sampling methods, and of
alternative approaches to dealing with ‘error’ or
deviance from the norm;
· Be prepared to recognise and admit what is not
known, and seek advice
· Develop skills in working collaboratively with
researchers using different approaches or
methods.
Five Ps
Issues & Challenges
Bazeley’s (2003) Learning Objectives
Proficiency
P4
Criticism:
Superficial claims of utilising MM and
the need to be proficient in both QUAL
and QUANT methods.
Challenge:
Become skilled and competent in both
chosen QUAL and QUANT methods
and data analysis, as well as skilled
and competent in mixed methods and
integrated data analysis.
· Have well developed skills in carrying out
research using at least one major methodological
approach, but also a comprehensive understanding
of a range of approaches and methods (if
they didn’t already), particularly to understand the
principles underlying those methods;
· Have an ability to interpret data meaningfully, and
to ask questions of the data, rather than to simply
follow a formula;
· Know and understand how software can be used
to assist analysis tasks.
Publishing
P5
Issues & challenges:
Political nature of reporting and
publishing MMR in academic and
discipline based literature such as:
disciplinary traditions; levels of
acceptance of MMR within disciplines
and; reporting MMR in its entirety
given word length limitations.
· Develop new ways of thinking about the
presentation of research results, especially where
the methods used and information gained does not
neatly fit a conventional format.
In describing the structure of the second edition of the seminal work on MMR, the Handbook of Mixed
Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010a) describe the
contemporary MMR landscape through components of an emerging map of MMR. This map is made
up of three overlapping areas: conceptual orientations; issues regarding methods and methodology;
and contemporary applications of MMR. Key issues and developments in the MMR field can be
grouped under one of these three areas. The Five Ps have been mapped against these three main
areas and are depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Aligning the five Ps with the map of MMR (Source: Adapted from Teddlie and Tashakkori
(2010: 3))
P1: Paradigms
P2: Pragmatism
P5: Politics
P3: Praxis
P4: Proficiency
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Volume 9 Issue 2 2011
www.ejbrm.com 99 ©Academic Publishing International Ltd
In addition to this emerging map of MMR, Creswell (2010) has also developed a framework for
analysing the key developments, issues and priorities of the MMR movement. The framework is a
series of five MMR domains which include: the essence of MMR; the philosophical domain; the
procedural domain; adoption and use of MMR domain; and the political domain. Again the Five Ps
have been aligned and mapped across these domains as presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Aligning the 5 Ps with the domains of MMR
Domain
Domain Description
Five Ps Framework
Essence of MMR
Nature of MM:
Definitions
Bilingual language
Incorporating MM into existing designs
P3: Praxis
Philosophical
Philosophical and theoretical issues:
Combining philosophical positions, worldviews &
paradigms
Philosophical foundations of MM
Use of qualitative theoretical lens in MM
False distinction between QUAL and QUANT
Thinking in a MM way- mental models
P1: Paradigms
P2: Pragmatism
Procedures
Techniques of MM:
Unusual method blends
Joint QUAL & QUANT displays
Transforming QUAL data into counts
Notation for designs
Visual diagrams for designs
Software applications
Integration & mixing issues
Rationale for MMR
Validity
Ethics
P4: Proficiency
Adoption and use
Adoption and use of MM:
Fields & disciplines using it
Team approaches
Linking mixed methods to discipline techniques
Teaching MM to students
Writing up & reporting
P3: Praxis
Political
Politicization of MM:
Funding of MMR
Deconstructing MM
Justifying MM
P5: Politics (of publishing
MMR)
Source: Adapted from Creswell (2010: 47-9).
Novice MM researchers and those more experienced researchers wishing to utilise MM in their
respective research studies will not be expected to be fully versed in all aspects of the MMR
landscape as depicted in Figure 1 and Table 2, however the Five Ps will provide a very sound
“starting block”.
The following discussion provides an overview of each of the Five Ps and the key criticisms and
challenges each presents to those wishing to engage in fully informed MMR.
1.1 Paradigms
Methodological choice does not exist within a philosophical void and Brannen (2005: 7) views the
choice of method/s as being driven by philosophical (ontological and epistemological) assumptions.
One of the first tasks a researcher needs to undertake is to position themselves paradigmatically. This
in itself presents the mixed method researcher with some challenges. This section of the paper will
examine the sets of assumptions that make up a paradigm followed by an overview of the paradigm
wars and the history of mixed methods. This provides the philosophical background and a historical
context to the Five P framework for mixed methods research being presented.
Roslyn Cameron
www.ejbrm.com 100 ISSN 1477-7029
There are many definitions of a paradigm and three are offered here. ‘A paradigm is a way of looking
at the world. It is composed of certain philosophical assumptions that guide and direct thinking and
action’ (Mertens 2005: 7). Neuman (2006:81) refers to paradigm as ‘A general organizing framework
for theory and research that includes basic assumptions, key issues, models of quality research, and
methods for seeking answers’. Denzin and Lincoln (2008: 22) describe paradigm as follows, The net
that contains the researcher’s epistemological, ontological, and methodological premises may be
termed a paradigm...All research is interpretive; it is guided by the researcher’s set of beliefs and
feelings about the world and how it should be understood and studied”.
Inconsistency is evident across the literature on how paradigms are dichotomised, polarised, labelled,
and at what level of abstraction they are discussed. Nonetheless, there are sufficient levels of
common ground to enable the drawing of parallels and connections between these, and the labels
assigned to them. It is very important that the paradigm(s) upon which a research proposal and
design is based are fully understood and made explicit in the research itself (Maxwell 2005: 36;
Mertens 2005: 7; Neuman 2006: 81). This is not necessarily a matter of free choice and may require
the researcher to examine some previously unexamined assumptions or personal theories (Maxwell
2005: 37; Mertens 2005: 7).
The debates surrounding research paradigms have a long history and were particularly active in the
1980s. Some commentaries on the debate contend that the struggle for primacy of one paradigm over
others is irrelevant as each paradigm is an alternate offering with its own merits (Guba 1990: 27).
Creswell (1994: 176) identifies several schools of thought in the paradigm debate or so-called
‘paradigm wars’. At one end of the debate are the ‘purists’ who assert paradigms and methods should
not be mixed. Another school of thought is identified as the ‘situationalists’ who contend that certain
methods can be used in specific situations. In direct opposition to the ‘purists’ are the pragmatists who
argued against a false dichotomy between the qualitative and quantitative research paradigms and
advocate for the efficient use of both approaches.
It is interesting to note the language that has been expressed around this evolution of mixed methods.
For example Buchanan & Bryman (2007: 486) in reference to organisational research, conclude that:
The paradigm wars of the 1980s have thus turned to paradigm soup, and organisational
research today reflects the paradigm diversity of the social sciences in general. It is not
surprising that this epistemological eclecticism has involved the development of novel
terminology; innovative research methods; non traditional forms of evidence; and fresh
approaches to conceptualization, analysis, and theory building.
Tashakkori and Teddlie call mixed methods the ‘third methodological movement’ (2003: ix) whilst
Mingers (2003) refers to the ceasefire of the paradigm wars being announced. Johnson and
Onwuegbuzie (2004: 14) state that mixed methods research is a ‘research paradigm whose time has
come’, while Cameron and Miller (2007) use the metaphor of the phoenix to illustrate the emergence
of mixed methods as the third methodological movement, arising from the ashes of the paradigm
wars. Cameron (2008) takes this analogy further by asking whether the phoenix has landed in terms
of research conducted within management research.
Teddlie and Tashakkori (2010) have produced an expansive list of paradigmatic stances taken within
MMR. These include the; a-paradigmatic stance; substantive theory stance; complementary strengths
stance; multiple paradigms; dialectic stance; and single paradigm stance. A brief description of each
of these stances in listed in Table 3.
Another perspective on paradigmatic choice in MMR has been devised by Greene and Caracelli
(2003) who refer to the interface between philosophy and methodology and attempt to advance the
conceptual mixed methods paradigm debate. The authors have delineated between several different
stances on the mixing of paradigms in mixed methods research. The four stances exist along two
dimensions, the first dimension takes the position that: paradigms do matter significantly when making
inquiry decisions. There are two stances related to this dimension: dialectic and the new paradigm.
The second dimension takes the position that: paradigms are not critically important in the making of
inquiry decisions. The two stances related to this are: pragmatic or context driven and concept driven
(Greene and Caracelli 2003: 96).
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Volume 9 Issue 2 2011
www.ejbrm.com 101 ©Academic Publishing International Ltd
Table 3: Paradigmatic stances in MMR
Paradigmatic Stances
Position taken
a-paradigmatic stance
For many applied studies in real world settings, paradigms are
unimportant
Substantive theory
stance
Theoretical orientations relevant to the research being undertaken (eg
critical race theory, attribution theory) are more important than
philosophical paradigms
Complementary
strengths stance
MMR is possible only if the different methods are kept as separate as
feasibly possible so that the strength of each paradigm is maintained
Multiple paradigms
Multiple paradigms may serve as the foundation for MMR. In some MMR
designs a single paradigm does not apply
Dialectic stance
Assumes all paradigms offer something and that multiple paradigms in a
single study contributes to a better understanding of the phenomenon
being studied
Single paradigm stance
Initially formulated to provide the philosophical foundation for MMR-
sometimes referred to as the “alternate paradigm stance’ (Greene 2007).
Examples include: pragmatism; critical realism and; transformative
paradigm
Source: Adapted from Teddlie and Tashakkori (2010: 14-16).
The Greene and Caracelli (2003) and Teddlie and Tashakkori (2010) frameworks for paradigm
stances in mixed methods research provide an excellent starting point and launch pad for those
choosing to engage in mixed methods research and needing to position their research approach
paradigmatically. Whatever the approach taken, mixed methods researchers need to acknowledge
the paradigm debate and rigorously defend their paradigmatic choices/stance.
A common stance taken in MMR is that of pragmatism or what Teddlie and Tashakkori (2010) have
referred to as an example of a single paradigm stance. The second P in the Five Ps framework is
pragmatism however the framework does not advocate an either-or approach to paradigmatic
positioning. Pragmatism here in the Five Ps framework refers to becoming informed about the key
debates in the MMR literature in the chosen field and rigorously defending the stance and choices
made at the interface between philosophy and methods. Pragmatism here refers to the
interface/bridge between philosophy and methods.
1.2 Pragmatism
The second of the Five Ps of mixed methods research is pragmatism. Pragmatism in its simplest
sense is a practical approach to a problem and has strong associations with mixed methods research.
Pragmatism can be considered a bridge between paradigm and methodology or what Greene and
Caracelli (2003) refer to as a particular stance at the interface between philosophy and methodology.
Historically, pragmatism can be traced to an early period from 1860-1930 and the neopragmatic era
from 1960 to present (Maxcy 2003). Many mixed methods researchers and theorists draw strong
associations with mixed methodology and pragmatism (Bazeley 2003; Greene & Caracelli 1997 &
2003; Maxcy 2003; Tashakkori & Teddlie 2003; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004). Johnson and
Onwuegbuzie (2004: 17) summarise the philosophical position of mixed method researchers when
they make the following statement:
We agree with others in the mixed methods research movement that consideration and
discussion of pragmatism by research methodologists and empirical researchers will be
productive because it offers an immediate and useful middle position philosophically and
methodologically; it offers a practical and outcome-orientated method of inquiry that is
based on action and leads, iteratively, to further action and the elimination of doubt; and
it offers a method for selecting methodological mixes that can help researchers better
answer many of their research questions.
Patton (2002) identifies as a pragmatist, stating the aims of doing so as a means to sensitising
researchers and evaluators to methodological biases that accumulate from their own socialisation
experiences within their respective discipline areas. He offers a pragmatic approach as a means of
promoting methodological appropriateness to enable researchers to increase their methodological
flexibility and adaptability. This position is epitomised in the following:
Roslyn Cameron
www.ejbrm.com 102 ISSN 1477-7029
My pragmatic stance aims to supersede one-sided paradigm allegiance by increasing the
concrete and practical methodological options available to researchers and evaluators.
Such pragmatism means judging the quality of a study by its intended purposes,
available resources, procedures followed, and results obtained, all within a particular
context and for a specific audience (Patton 2002: 71-2).
Pragmatism has a strong philosophical foothold in the mixed methods or methodological pluralism
camps. This can present challenges for the mixed methods researcher in terms of claims that
pragmatism is eclectic. It is very important for the mixed methods researcher to acknowledge these
criticisms and rigourously defend pragmatic approaches and choices. The work of Rossman and
Wilson (1994) and Morgan (1996) may be useful in this respect. Work by Greene and Caracelli (2003)
referred to in the previous section of this paper makes a good starting point as well. They state that
there are two very important implications for mixed methods researchers. The first refers to a concern
by Greene and Caracelli (2003: 107) that by attending too little to philosophical ideas and traditions
will mean that mixed methods researchers will be ‘insufficiently reflective and their practice is
insufficiently unproblematized’. These authors acknowledge and clearly state that ‘paradigms, mental
models, or some other representations of philosophical beliefs and values should matter in mixed
methods inquiry’ (Greene and Caracelli 2003: 107). The second implication is framed as a suggestion
by the authors that it is time to reframe the key issues from the role of paradigms in mixed methods
research to issues about the legitimacy of practical inquiry decisions. They conclude by advocating
for:
The importance of context, substantive theory, practical resource constraints and
opportunities, and political dimensions of social research as equally important bases for
practice decisions…It is time to balance the philosophical, conceptual, practical, and
political considerations so relevant to our inquiry (Greene & Caracelli 2003: 108).
The second edition of the Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research (Tashakkori
and Teddlie 2010a) has several chapters dedicated to philosophical issues of MMR and in particular
pragmatism (Biesta 2010; Greene and Hall 2010; Johnson and Gray 2010). Biesta (2010: 114) argues
after a careful analysis of pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of MMR that “although
pragmatism is unable to provide the philosophical foundation for mixed methods research, it has
some important things to offer particularly in helping mixed methods researchers to ask better and
more precise questions about the philosophical implications and justifications of their designs”. Biesta
concludes that Deweyan pragmatism has made a major contribution through eradicating the
epistemological dualism of objectivity/subjectivity (2010: 113). Johnson and Gray (2010: 87) in their
exploration of the history of philosophical and theoretical issues in MMR make the following
statement, “During the emergence of MM as a third methodological paradigm (along with QUAN and
QUAL), MM has struggled somewhat with to develop a corresponding philosophical paradigm. Many
or perhaps most leaders in the field are advocating some form of philosophical pragmatism”. For
Greene and Hall (2010) pragmatism results in a problem solving, action- oriented inquiry process
based on commitment to democratic values and progress.
Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010b: 16) pose a question “What are the methodological principles that bind
practitioners of MMR together regardless of differences on other issues?” In answering this question
they believe there are 2 methodological principles to MMR that distinguish it from other research
approaches:
Rejection of the either-or at all levels of the research process
Subscription to the iterative, cyclical approach to research
This embodies the discussion of pragmatism as the bridge between philosophy and methodology and
also brings us to the third of the Five Ps, praxis.
1.3 Praxis
Once a researcher has positioned themselves paradigmatically and entered the interface between
philosophy and methodology then process issues come into play. Praxis is the practical application of
theory and represents the third P of the Five Ps framework of mixed methods research. The mixed
methods researcher needs to be knowledgeable, informed and familiar with the growing body of
literature that forms mixed methods as a third methodological movement. They must also become
familiar with discipline based mixed methods research and literature. The most important issues in
this respect is the praxis related to methodological and data integration in mixed methods research.
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Volume 9 Issue 2 2011
www.ejbrm.com 103 ©Academic Publishing International Ltd
Kelle and Erzberger (2004:172) advocate for the frontier between qualitative and quantitative
research as not needing to be so impenetrable, asserting that models that integrate quantitative and
qualitative methods are developed mostly at an abstract methodological level. These authors see this
as a fundamental shortcoming of these models, in that ‘...they frequently attempt to formulate
methodological rules for methodological integration without formulating a relation to any theoretical
ideas about the nature of the subject area under investigation.’ (Kelle & Erzberger 2004: 176). Flick
(2002: 261) supports this argument, claiming problems that arise due to combining quantitative and
qualitative methods are yet to be satisfactorily resolved. He views this attempt at integration as
problematic, as it is restricted to the level of research design, or what Kelle and Erzberger (2004:176)
refer to as methodological rules for integration.
Natasi, Hitchcock and Brown (2010: 318) refer to integration in reference to MMR research designs
and research design typologies. They identify themes which reflect an integrated perspective in
relation to “precursors and basic design criteria: types of methods/data mixed, timing of mixing,
breadth of mixing, rationale for mixing, and researcher orientation”. Greene (2007: 125) describes
integrated MMR designs as those in which “methods intentionally interact with one another during the
course of the study [and as a result] offer more varied and differentiated design possibilities”.
Bazeley (2010: 432) focuses upon the challenge of integration in MMR and argues for the assumption
that the integration of data and data analysis is acceptable and necessary. Nonetheless, she goes on
to assert that the level of this integration in many MM studies still remains underdeveloped. Bazeley
(2010: 432) defines integration in MMR:
Integration can be said to occur to the extent that different data elements and various
strategies for analysis of those elements are combined throughout a study in such a way
as to become interdependent in reaching a common theoretical or research goal, thereby
producing findings that are greater than the sum of the parts.
In terms of Praxis the challenges for MM researchers is the tackling of the issue of integration in terms
of research designs, methods and data analysis. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003: 672) have identified
six continuing points of controversy in mixed methods research. One of these is design issues in
mixed methods research. The methodological and analytical issues related to the praxis of mixed
methods involves choices the mixed methods researcher needs to make in reference to:
Research design and typology
Sampling
Data collection strategies
Data analysis
Inferences and inference quality.
One of the main concerns Bryman (2008) has of mixed methods research is that it is often
insufficiently justified. This remains one of the key challenges for mixed methods researchers. These
methodological choices are important and need to be justified and demonstrate methodological
congruence. To aid this process Morse (2010: 351) advocates 5 checks when presenting a MMR
design or the writing up of a MMR study along with what she refers to as an “armchair walkthrough” to
ensure that the MM researcher has considered all optional designs and methodological choices. The
five checks include stating the following in terms of the chosen MMR design:
Theoretical drive: Inductive or deductive
Core component: QUAL or QUAN
Supplemental component(s); qual or quan
Pacing: Simultaneous or sequential
Point of interface: Analytic or results narrative
For the researcher who is embarking on mixed methods research the key issues here are in relation
to the praxis of mixed methods approaches and research designs. This involves: consideration about
how to apply a mixed method research design; choosing the right mixed method research design or
typology; formulating the integration of methodologies; designing the integration of data and data
analysis and; attention to inferences and inference quality. Once these very important praxis issues
have been made then it is the proficiency or competence of the researcher that comes to the fore.
Roslyn Cameron
www.ejbrm.com 104 ISSN 1477-7029
1.4 Proficiency
Research competency and proficiency also becomes a challenge for those utilising mixed methods as
mixed methods researchers not only need to be competent in both qualitative and quantitative
methods but must be informed and practiced in mixed methodologies. This represents the fourth P in
the Five P mixed methods framework. Bazeley (2003) refers to the skills required of the mixed
methods practitioner:
Assuming a goal of developing proficiency in carrying out a mixed methods study,
students should have background knowledge of, and ideally experience in, gathering
both text and numeric data, and in working analytically with both text and numeric data
(i.e. both statistical methods and interpretive analysis of unstructured data). While it is
necessary for those coming into mixed methods to have a background in both qualitative
and quantitative approaches, it is important that they gain that background in a non-
prejudicial way, i.e. that they do not see each of these approaches as exclusive and
opposed.
Teddlie & Tashakkori (2003: 45) referred to the need for mixed methods researchers to be
‘methodologically bilingual’: skilled in both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Cameron
(2011: 263-4) calls for the need to teach for “methodological trilingualism” in future MM researchers:
Not only do they need strong grounding in their chosen quantitative and qualitative
methodologies and associated paradigms but they also need to be cognisant,
knowledgeable and fluent in the theoretical foundations of mixed methods, the specific
mixed method methodological issues (research designs and typologies, mixed methods
sampling, data priority, implementation and integration,) and the quality frameworks that
have been developed for mixed methods.
In a discussion on the practical issues related to current MMR, Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010b: 29)
refer to the notion of a “connoisseur of methods” which they determine is usually developed through
“the process of applying research tools, which individuals had acquired from a patchwork of graduate
and undergraduate coursework and prior experiences, to answer complex questions or problems that
could not be addressed properly within the QUAN or QUAL traditions alone”.
McMillan and Schumacher (2006: 401) draw attention to both the advantages and disadvantages of
using mixed methods, listing three disadvantages. The first of these disadvantages is the researcher’s
need to be proficient and competent in both qualitative and quantitative methods (note the discussion
above in reference to “methodologically bilingual”; “methodological trilingualism”; and “connoisseur of
methods”). The second disadvantage is the extensive data collection and resources needed to
undertake a mixed method study. The last refers to a tendency to use mixed methods labels liberally
to studies that only mix methods superficially.
The study by Bryman (2008) of published social science journal articles from 1994-2003 that utilised
mixed methods found that just under half of those that used mixed methods did so by presenting the
qualitative and quantitative data in parallel and only 18% of the articles genuinely integrated the two
sets of findings. The studies by Hurmerinta-Peltomaki and Nummela (2006) and Cameron (2008)
found similar findings. Hurmerinta-Peltomaki and Nummela (2006) analysed mixed methods in
International Business journal articles from 2000-2003 and found that the majority of these (60%)
used both qualitative and quantitative data collection but analysed these within their own tradition (i.e.
quantitative data analysed using quantitative methods and qualitative data analysed using qualitative
methods). Cameron (2008) reviewed conference papers from the 2007 conference of the Australian
and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) (n=281). The majority of mixed method type
papers were in the classification (n=22 or 78%) that analysed qualitative data qualitatively and
analysed quantitative data quantitatively. The results of these studies points to an over reliance of
mixed methods research types which maintain the quantitative qualitative divide and the non use of
more integrated mixed method designs.
A major challenge for mixed methods researchers relates to the levels of integration between
qualitative and quantitative methods that such research achieves or claims to achieve. Integration at
the level of data analysis is an important aspect of becoming proficient in MMR. Tashakkori and
Teddlie (2010b: 25-26) identified three trends in relation to analysis issues in MMR: MMR data
analysis as a separate and distinct issue; a dramatic increase in data analysis processes unique to
MMR; and new MMR analyses that borrow/adapt existing procedures in the QUANT and QUAL
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Volume 9 Issue 2 2011
www.ejbrm.com 105 ©Academic Publishing International Ltd
traditions. In terms of the second trend Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010b: 820) have identified distinct
new analytical techniques
1.5 Publishing
The publishing of mixed methods research is also an issue that needs attention. Despite a small but
growing section of academic publishing that is focused on mixed methods the publishing of mixed
methods represents the last P of the Five Ps of mixed methods and includes its own set of challenges
and issues.
Brannen (2005: 10-11) refers to politics in her three Ps that describes the political researcher and
identifies feminist, social justice, disability and new childhood studies as areas of research that she
considers political. Brannen (2005: 26) does however refer to issues in mixed methods and in
reference to publishing makes the salient point that:
academic journals tend to be organized around disciplines and may favour particular
types of research….Some researchers using mixed methods may for such reasons
report their qualitative and quantitative data separately. Researchers presenting
evidence based on both qualitative and quantitative methods but drawing upon one set of
evidence and under reporting the other may risk criticism for not fully exploiting the
possibilities for the analysis of both sets of data.
Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010b: 820) noted the link between the MMR and qualitative research
communities in terms of their respective positions outside the mainstream in certain disciplines:
Undoubtedly, the MMR and QUAL communities are both outside the mainstream in
certain fields still dominated by postpositivism, such as psychology in the United
States…in these highly QUAN-oriented journals, the only way that QUAL research was
introduced has been through mixed methods research. Politically, there is an assumed
kinship between the QUAL and MMR communities in trying to introduce methodological
diversity into highly traditional QUAN disciplines.
This paper argues that the last of the Five Ps is related to politics but not as Brannen has described it.
Here the last of the Five Ps refers to the politics of publishing mixed methods and represents the last
challenge to those engaged in mixed methods research.
Studies that utilise mixed methods approaches may face problems in being published due to
dominant paradigmatic views expressed within discipline fields (Welch & Welch 2004; Hurmerinta-
Peltomaki and Nummela 2006). Some journals explicitly exclude certain methodological approaches,
whereas others imply methodological preferences. In a lot of respects decisions about where to
submit mixed methods research for publication is determined by the level of acceptance within
disciplines and specific publications themselves.
Stange, Crabtree and Miller (2006: 29) note the progress being made in the field of family medicine
towards the acceptance, use and benefits of using mixed methods research. Even so they conclude
that:
the dramatic advances in the scope and sophistication of conducting mixed methods
research have not been met with parallel progress in ways of disseminating the results of
mixed methods studies. From our point of view, a major dilemma is that the results of
multimethod studies often are segregated in different publications that reach limited and
often nonclinical audiences… Thus, different fields only come to know part of the
researchreminiscent of the story of the 4 blind men each feeling a different part of the
elephant and thus unable to develop a coherent idea of the whole.
They go on to offer a set of five solutions to this problem:
1. Publish quantitative and qualitative papers in separate journals, but with clear references and links
to the other article(s).
2. Publish concurrent or sequential quantitative and qualitative papers in the same journal.
3. Publish an integrated single article that describes both methods and findings and draws
overarching lessons, with or without appendices that provide study details.
Roslyn Cameron
www.ejbrm.com 106 ISSN 1477-7029
4. Copublish separate qualitative and quantitative papers accompanied by a third paper that draws
overarching lessons from analyses across the 2 methods.
5. Develop an online discussion of readers and invited commentators to foster cross-disciplinary
communities of knowledge (Stange, Crabtree and Miller 2006).
Dahlberg, Wittnik and Gallo (2010) also provide a very practical and detailed account of how MM
researchers can write for funding and publication and provide structural advice on the distinct task of
writing up MMR and MM research proposals.
2. Conclusion
Mixed methods researchers need to be versatile and innovative with a repertoire of research skills
that exceeds those needed for single mode research. They need to explicitly state their philosophical
foundations and paradigmatic stance before rigorously defending their methodological choices and
demonstrate a sound knowledge base of mixed methods research designs and methodological
considerations. They need to demonstrate proficiency and competence in both the quantitative and
qualitative methods chosen as well as proficiency and competency in applying the rules of integration
to methods and data analysis. They are also required to become cognisant of the politics of publishing
in a new and emerging methodological movement without debasing or underreporting the essence of
their mixed methods studies. The Five Ps framework can provide those wishing to embark into mixed
methods research with the essential components of a mixed methods starter kit, inclusive of a
contemporary checklist of contentious issues, risks and traps that require consideration. Tashakkori
and Teddlie (2010b: 29) refer to the need for MM researchers to become “methodological
connoisseur[s]” whilst Cameron (2011: 263) calls for the need for “methodological trilingualism” in
those wishing to engage in MMR. Both these capacities require advanced research skill levels and
competencies. As a consequence the framework also offers higher degree supervisors and educators
with a guiding framework for building mixed methods research capacity. It is hoped the Five Ps
framework for mixed methods research will provide a pedagogic tool for guiding the teaching of mixed
methods research and will continue to be developed. It is envisaged this development may lead to a
more comprehensive framework and supplementary curriculum development for higher degree
research students.
References
Bazeley,P. (2003) Teaching mixed methods, Qualitative Research Journal, Vol. 3, pp 117-126.
Bazeley, P. (2010) “Computer-assisted integration of mixed methods data sources and analyses” in Sage
Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds) 2010,
Sage, California, pp 431-467.
Biesta, G. (2010) “Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research”, in in Sage
Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds) 2010,
Sage, California, pp 95-117.
Brannen, J. (2005) Mixed Methods research: A discussion paper, ESRC National Centre for Research Methods
NCRM Methods Review papers, NCRM/005 [online]
http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/cap/documents/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-005.pdf
Bryman, A. (2008) Why do researchers Integrate/Combine/Mesh/Blend/Mix/Merge/Fuse Quantitative and
Qualitative research?, in Bergman M (Ed.) Advances in Mixed Methods Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Buchanan, D. and Bryman, A. (2007) Contextualizing methods choice in organizational research,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp 483-501.
Cameron, R. (2008)Mixed Methods in Management Research: Has the phoenix landed?, 22ndt Annual
Australian & New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Conference, Auckland, December 2008.
Cameron, R, (2011) Mixed methods in business and management: A call to the ‘first generation”, Journal of
Management and Organisation. Vol. 17, No. 2. March, pp 245-267
Cameron, R, and Molina-Azorin, J, (2011), “The acceptance of mixed methods in business and management”,
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol.19, No.3, pp 256-271.
Cameron, R. and Miller, P. (2007) Mixed Methods Research: Phoenix of the paradigm wars, 21st Annual
Australian & New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Conference, Sydney, December 2007.
Creswell, J.W. (1994) Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
California.
Creswell, J.W. and Plano Clark, V.L. (2007) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, California.
Creswell, J. (2010) “Mapping the developing landscape of mixed methods research”, in in Sage Handbook of
Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds) 2010, Sage,
California, pp 45-68.
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Volume 9 Issue 2 2011
www.ejbrm.com 107 ©Academic Publishing International Ltd
Dahlberg, B., M. Wittink, et al. (2010)” Funding and publishing integrated studies: writing effective mixed methods
manuscripts and grant proposals”, in in Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral
Research, Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds) 2010, Sage, California, pp 775-802.
Flick, U. (2002) An Introduction to Qualitative Research, SAGE Publications, London.
Greene, J. and Caracelli, V. (Eds.) (1997) Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits
of Integrating Diverse Paradigms, Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco.
Greene, J. and Caracelli, V. (2003) Making Paradigmatic Sense of Mixed Methos Inquiry”, in Handbook of
Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A & Teddlie, C. (Eds) 2003, Sage, California.
Greene, J. and J. Hall (2010) “Dialectics and pragmatism: being of consequence”, in in Sage Handbook of
Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds) 2010, Sage,
California, pp 119-143.
Guba, E. (ed) (1990) The Paradigm Dialog, Sage, Newbury Park, California.
Hurmerinta-Peltomaki, L. and Nummela, N. (2006) Mixed methods in International Business Research: A Value-
added Perspective, Management International Review, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp 439-459.
Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004) Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has
come, Educational Researchers, Vol. 33, No. 7, pp 14-26.
Johnson, R., Onwuegbuzie, A. and Turner, L. (2007) “Toward a definition of mixed methods research”, Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, Vol.1, Issue 2, pp 112-133.
Johnson, R. and Gray, R. (2010) “A history of philosophical and theoretical issues for mixed methods research”,
in Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C.
(Eds) 2010, Sage, California, pp 69-94.
Kelle, U. & Erzberger, C. (2004) Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Not in Opposition, in A Companion to
Qualitative Research, eds. U. Flick, E. Kardorff & I. Steinke, Sage, London.
Maxcy, S. (2003) “Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple
modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism”, in Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social &
Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A & Teddlie, C. (Eds) 2003, Sage, California.
Maxwell, J. (2005) Qualitative Research Design An Interactive Approach, 2nd edn, Sage, Thousand Oakes,
California.
McMillan, J. and Schumacher, S. (2006) Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry, 6th edn, Pearson,
Boston.
Mertens, D. (2005) Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed methods, (2nd edn.). Sage, Boston.
Mingers, J. (2001) Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology, Information Systems
Research, Vol. 12, pp 240-259.
Mingers, J. (2003) The paucity of multimethod research: a review of the information systems literature,
Information Systems Journal, Vol. 13, pp 233-249.
Morgan, D.L. (1996) The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: Paradigm loyalty versus
methodological eclecticism. In J.T.E. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Research in Psychology and the Social
Sciences, BPS Books, Leicester UK.
Morgan, D. L. (2007) “Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained”, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol.1,
Issue 1, pp 48-76.
Morse, J. (2010) “Procedures and practice of mixed method design: maintaining control, rigor, and complexity”, in
Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds)
2010, Sage, California, pp 339-352.
Natasi, B., J. Hitchcock, et al. (2010) “An inclusive framework for conceptualizing mixed methods design
typologies: moving toward fully integrated synergistic research models”, in in Sage Handbook of Mixed
Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds) 2010, Sage, California, pp
305-338.
Neuman, W. (2006) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, (6th edn.). Pearson,
Boston.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Collins, K. (2007) A typology of Mixed Methods Sampling Designs in Social Science
Research, The Qualitative Report Vol. 12, No. 2 June, pp 281-316, [online],
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR12-2/onwuegbuzie2.pdf
Patton, M. (2002) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, Sage, Thousand Oakes, California.
Rossman, G.B. and Wilson, B.L. (1994) Numbers and words revisited: Being ‘shamelessly eclectic’. Quality and
Quantity, Vol. 28, pp 315-327.
Stange, K. Crabtree, B. & Miller, W. (2006) Multimethod Research, Annals of Family Medicine, Vol. 4, pp 292-
294
Tashakkori, A, and Teddlie, C. (Eds.) (2003) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research,
Sage, California.
Tashakkori, A. and C. Teddlie (2010a) Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research.
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2010b) “Epilogue: current developments and emerging trends in integrated
research methodology”, in in Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research,
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds) 2010, Sage, California, pp 803-826.
Roslyn Cameron
www.ejbrm.com 108 ISSN 1477-7029
Teddlie, C. and A. Tashakkori (2010) “Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research”, in Sage
Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds) 2010,
Sage, California, pp 1-41.
Welch, D.E. & Welch, L.S. (2004) Getting Published: The last Great Hurdle?, in Marschan-Piekkari, R and
Welch C (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham, pp 551-569.
... Mobility and wayfinding comes on the fourth level of importance. Factor-5 consists of questions (10,5,21,6,11). Every question has some loading from every factor, but it is requested for loadings less than |.50| to be excluded from the output, so there are blanks where Second, for teachers. ...
... 21. Comparison between quantitative and qualitative methods according to students (By author). ...
Thesis
Biophilic architecture is the designing tool that enhance human and nature relationship. Biophilic design with its patterns and attributes revealed many positive impacts on users, it increases wellbeing, increases productivity, reduce stress, and enhance environment through design of buildings. But, in Erbil city there is a lack of a comprehensive vision on how to assess and measure parameters related to biophilic architectural design. Also, there is a gap in assessing spatial configuration in school buildings and determining the quantity of naturalness of view from permeable openings. This research tries to find the presence of parameters of biophilic design and the percentage of visibile nature from openings in schools in Erbil city. Also, the research attempts to find the relation and coordination between parameters of biophilic design with parameters of Space Syntax. On the other hand, the research seeks to find the relation between biophilic design, Space Syntax and Nature Syntax through Space/Nature methodology. In addition, the research compares between the comprehension of students and teachers toward availability of parameters of this design approach. There are nine case studies selected for this study. The research adopted Cross-disciplinary methodology and mixed method methodology, that encompasses quantitative method which include (questionnaire, Space Syntax, Nature Syntax and Space/Nature Syntax), qualitative method that contains (checklist and photograph). The results showed there is presence of biophilic design parameters but with different percentages in schools. In the comparison between quantitative and qualitative methods results, the research showed a significant difference because of the difference in comparable parameters. The study also validated the Space/Nature Syntax methodology. Moreover, it presented that there is a parallel relationship between parameters of biophilic design and Space Syntax. Also, it showed that there is visibility of nature from corridors and classrooms in schools with different percentages. Furthermore, the results also showed negative relationship between the perception of students and teachers. In the conclusion found that there is presence of features of this trend of designing in schools but their presence is not sufficient. Also, it was concluded that Space Syntax can be adopted as an objective tool for measuring biophilic design parameters. This study contributed to open vistas for the new generation of architects, to be more aware about this trend of designing and they can consider the International School of Choueifat-Erbil and International School of Fakhir Mergasori as a base for this approach of designing. The study provided an objective tool of designing to biophilic design as Space Syntax and Nature Syntax.
... Al respecto, define que "en el marco de esta posición es posible articular y compatibilizar objetivos específicos que se responden con métodos asociados a las metodologías cuantitativa o cualitativa. Es decir, que la triangulación o combinación de metodologías es posible en el nivel de la construcción de los objetivos, la cual repetimos, es una construcción teórica y se implementa en la selección de los métodos"(Sautu, 2003, p. 53).Actualmente la combinación metodológica o la investigación mixta(Bryman, 2006;Cameron, 2011;Migro y Mangani, 2011; Creswell et al., 2007;Rocco et al., 2003) se entiende básicamente como la posibilidad de integrar abordajes de diferentes modos de hacer ciencia de lo social en diseños de investigación para mejorar la comprensión de los fenómenos a estudiar, a saber, modo verificativo, modo de generación conceptual y modo de praxis participativa. Como puede advertirse, habría consenso en pensar la triangulación como aquella que permite obtener distintas imágenes de la realidad estudiada, o sea, ampliar la construcción de la evidencia empírica del estudio. ...
Article
Full-text available
Este trabajo presenta experiencias docentes de enseñanza de la investigación social y educativa en el ámbito universitario en el marco de políticas científicas contradictorias que, con la pretensión de incentivar la formación de investigadores y su producción científica, reproduce condiciones objetivas que niegan el crecimiento genuino de la ciencia y los científicos y en este sentido de la investigación en educación. Resaltamos dos aportes innovadores y desafíos para la investigación social y educativa sobre la base de un proyecto finalizado en la Universidad de XXX. El primero es la consideración de los modos de hacer ciencia de lo social, como diferentes maneras de pensar y concebir la práctica de la investigación social, superando la mera dicotomía cuantitativa vs cualitativa. Socializamos nuestro enfoque combinado y de triangulación, focalizando en la convergencia de los modos de hacer ciencia de lo social en educación: el modo verificativo (convencionalmente asociado con los métodos de medición), el modo de generación conceptual (convencionalmente asociado con los métodos cualitativos) y el modo de praxis participativa (convencionalmente asociado con la investigación participativa). El segundo, es la definición de nuestro proceso como una triangulación integrada, una meta de un nuevo objeto epistémico resultante de nexos entre sub proyectos. Estos aportes se visualizan especialmente en el estudio de la red de condiciones que facilitan u obstaculizan la construcción de demandas educativas de los individuos y grupos sociales por “Educación Permanente”, a lo largo de la vida.
... All preconditions of the 5Ps framework (Bazeley, 2003;Cameron, 2011) that need to be met in order to conduct successful mixed-methods research were fulfilled in this study. 5P ...
Thesis
Full-text available
With the emergence of fake news in the era of Internet 4.0, communication and management researchers have studied how fake news impacts different areas of everyday life. Notwithstanding the detailed depiction of fake news in the context of political communication, the implications and dissemination mechanisms of business-related fake news in particular in the digital space have not been fully investigated. Furthermore, there are no studies that offer a comprehensive approach for companies, organisations and brands to counter fake news in the digital environment. The purpose of this research is to offer new, applicable and innovative solutions to handle business-related crisis challenges caused by fake news in the digital space, through the development and examination of countering concepts based on the application of situational crisis communication theory (SCCT). A research gap was identified after a comprehensive review of 326 journal and conference articles relating to the term 'fake news'. Two novel concepts, the pentagram graph and the dynamic crisis communication model (DCCM) algorithm, are proposed and examined. The pentagram graph matches possible solutions and actions to combat and counter fake news with various actors involved in the generation and dissemination of fake news online. The DCCM algorithm, grounded in SCCT, offers an algorithmic view of possible organisational actions to counter fake-news-related crisis challenges at different stages of their evolution. Moreover, the effectiveness and impact of different response strategies to counter business-related fake news online were evaluated through the analysis of stock price changes during a crisis challenge. The novelty and complexity of the topic required a sequential mixed-methods exploratory design, using both qualitative and quantitative data. Through sequential multi-level sampling, an initial sample of 510 global companies was reduced to the final sample of 108 suitable fake-news-related cases. Interviews with senior managers from the companies included in the final quantitative sample were utilised to examine the practical applicability of SCCT and the theoretical concepts designed within this study to counter fake news in the digital space. I VII VI This research offers a historical overview of the channels used to spread fake news, enabling a full understanding of how fake news has evolved with the development of new channels. A comprehensive typology of fake news was developed, taking into consideration the nature of the news item, level of facticity, intention to deceive and motivational factors. From a business perspective, the findings from the research confirm
... cs from various disciplines and persuasions continue to use a mixed-method approach which partly explains the rapid sprout of this approach in recent years. Nevertheless, there is a certain level of obfuscation about the nature of mixed methods. There are concerns about what must be mixed, at what stage of the research process and for what purpose.Cameron (2011) notes that there are practical, philosophical, psychological, cultural and psychological barriers to mixed-method research. However, the mixed methods approach is still a relevant and robust research methodology that is highly recommended for social science enquiries(Almalki, 2016). ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Both public and private organisations are under pressure to identify, promptly assess, and adequately manage all risks. This study sought to investigate the contribution of internal audit to risk management in public institutions. It specifically examined the risk management practices of three selected public health institutions in Accra and Tema, ascertained the effectiveness of risk management practices in the selected institutions, and investigated the challenges to risk management and internal audit in the selected institutions. A mixed-method approach was used, it involved the use of questionnaires and interviews to gather data from administrative staff and management of the selected health institutions. The study revealed that selected health institutions (Achimota Hospital, Ridge Hospital, and Manhean Polyclinic) have in place various risk management practices, but they use a traditional approach and focused primarily on financial and operational risks. Internal auditing in health institutions helps to avoid financial loss and provides independent assurance that the risk management and governance structures function effectively in these organisations. The findings also revealed that risk management practices have so far not proven to be effective in driving organisational growth and sustainability. The main challenges are the weak implementation of audit recommendations, political interference, resource constraints, and poor reporting standards. This study concludes that the challenges to risk management and internal audit are systematic, hence, the Ministry of Health must institute reforms that would promote enterprise risk management as part of the organisational culture in health facilities.
... According to Cameron (2011), mixed methods research, which has witnessed an unprecedented increase in prevalence and popularity during the last decade, is frequently referred to as the third methodological movement. Studies have increasingly become dependent on the use of both qualitative and quantitative data that are simultaneously gathered, analysed and then discussed. ...
Thesis
Universities face numerous challenges each year, including the process of making decisions concerning the admission or otherwise of applicants (Tesfa, 2013). This could be compounded by an increase in student numbers and a decrease in university resources, predicting future academic success (Alghamdi, 2007). Educators and admission officers together try to decide what leads to the success of learners at certain colleges or on particular majors within universities. Administrators responsible for the admission policy need to be accurate and objective when making such decisions, using suitable admission standards which help in reaching a decision characterised by equity, accuracy, and objectivity (Alsaif, 2005). The purpose of the present study is to investigate the predictive validity of the current admission standards applied at the College of Education at KFU in Saudi Arabia and explore which score among the current criteria used offers the strongest contribution to students’ academic success. Furthermore, since this study attempts to include students from both gender groups, and very few studies have included both genders at the general level, and, to the best of my knowledge, none has been done in the Saudi context, this study aims to explore any possible variation between the criteria items in terms of gender grouping. Additionally, since none of the previous studies have addressed the issue of students changing their major after initially being admitted to certain majors at the university, this study attempts to explore the academic performance of students who changed their major after starting their university study. The participants in this mixed methods research largely drew on two resources: the first resource refers to the data that was collected from the Admission and Registration Office in the Education College. The database includes all fulltime students (males and females) who have attended the Education College at King Faisal University from the academic year 2010 up until their graduation in 2014. The sample did not include students who had left the Education College at KFU before the end of the academic year 2014 and any students who had not graduated by the end of the academic year 2014. The total number of participating students was 693. In addition, the researcher conducted face-to-face interviews with 8 academics who work at the Education College in KFU and who teach a number of education courses. These lecturers and professors were interviewed about a range of experiences and practices. Results indicated that a statistically significant relationship exists between the student accumulative rate in High School (SGPA) and the accumulative rate in the College of Education (CGPA) at King Faisal University at Alahsa (r = 0.562, p<0.01), between the General Aptitude Test (GAT) and Education College GPA (r = 0.324, p<0.01), and between the Achievement Test (ACT) and Education College GPA (r = 0.268, p<0.01). High School GPA is the most important factor in predicting the performance of students in the Education College, followed by the Aptitude Test, then the Achievement Test. Beta coefficients were 0.512, 0.163 and 0.006 respectively. Regarding the result, it was clear that females exhibited better performance compared to males in both the General Aptitude Test and the High School percentage. In addition, the students who changed major had a higher High School percentage mean compared to those that did not change major, and the mean difference was statistically significant. On the other hand, for the General Aptitude Test, those that did not change major had higher mean scores compared to those that changed major, and the mean difference was statistically significant.
... This is because realism considers the intricacies of the social phenomenon while also considering elucidation as the appropriate aim of social research (Hall 2012). Table 3.1 by Cameron (2011) summarizes the MM research stances: approaches. For instance, qualitative approach answers process related questions while the quantitative approach answers outcome related questions (Yin, 2006). ...
Thesis
Previous research has highlighted that behavior is the result of both individual and situational factors. Therefore, consideration of both these factors is importantto better understand and predict human behavior. Despite this, extant literature is replete with studies which have mostly focused on studying the influence of either individual or situational factors on behavior. Given the (i) increased complexity faced by marketers due to greater number of product and channel options at different stages of customer decision journey (ii) premise involving the importance of studying both individual and situational factors to understand behaviour (iii) paucity of research involving customer decision journey and channels from the regulatory focus theory perspective, this thesis aims to provide a nuanced understanding of customer behavior from a multi-channel and customer decision journey perspective grounded in regulatory focus theory. It provides a rich customer behaviour understanding during different stages of customer decision journey based on chronic and situational regulatory orientation interaction. It provides answers to the “why” (regulatory focus theory), of “what” (means and emotions) and “where” (CDJ and channel context) questions(Ratneshwar, Mick & Huffman 2003). Specifically, this research aims to determine the influence of chronic and situational regulatory focus interaction on the choice of means and emotions faced at each stage of cutomer decision journey. For instance, what means (e.g. channels) will be chosen and what emotions will be experienced in case of chronic promotion person facing promotion situation?A mixed method approach is adopted for this thesis. The first qualitative phase involved in-depth interviews with 30 multi-channel customers. The results of this phase indicated differences in channel choice, actions taken at channels and emotions experienced at each stage of the customer decision journey among the chronic and situational regulatory orientationsinteractiongroups. The results of the first phase helped in the design of second experimental phase. This experiment was conducted in lab settingwith the aim of identifying chronic and situational regulatory focus interaction on the online customer decision journey. The first two stages provide complementarity. The results of the lab session indicate a significantinfluence of incongruent chronic-situation regulatory condition on the basket amount, significant promotion chronicsituation congruent condition on session duration and significant prevention chronic-situation congruent condition on the overall extensiveness of search and comparison. The third phase involved 14 interviews with experts from different industries. These experts highlighted the channel choices and actions of their customers. The experts also explained their implemented marketing strategies for each customer decision journey stage. The results indicate greater focus on push online marketing and separate rather than an integrated focus on each channel. This thesis contributes towards consumer behavior, regulatory focus theory and mixed method literature. It helps obtain a rich understanding of the role of both chronic and situational regulatory orientation on the channel choices and actions taken at these channels during different stages of customer decision journey. This may help marketers in targeting, channel and messagedesign. The results emphasize that marketers must use a combination approach in online channel design, involving usage of visuals and information. Product category may provide further guidance regarding the extent of trade-off between one type of design overanother. The strengths and limitations related to each stage are also provided.
Article
Full-text available
This experimental study investigated the learning achievement of grade IX Bhutanese students using simulated role play technique in teaching and learning history. From a total of 180 grade IX students, 60 students were selected using cluster random sampling technique. Data were collected using multiple methods including questionnaire, students’ reflective journal and achievement test (pre-test and post-test). The key findings revealed that there were significant differences in the mean scores of the students after the integration of simulated role play technique in teaching history. Other finding of the study revealed that the students had positive opinion towards simulated role play technique as it brought positive difference in their learning achievement. Therefore, it is recommended for all teachers to incorporate simulated role play technique in the classroom to see immediate and gradual improvement in students’ learning achievement.
Thesis
Full-text available
In dieser publikationsbasierten Dissertation wird die zentrale Rolle von Lehrkräften im Prozess der Kulturtradierung aufgegriffen, indem in einzelnen Aufsätzen eine Perspektive auf die Erforschung des kulturellen (Erfahrungs-) Horizontes angehender Lehrkräfte gegeben wird. Leitend sind hierbei die Fragen danach, was einen professionellen Zugang zum Themenfeld ‚Kultur‘ im Kontext des Lehrens auszeichnet und welchen kulturellen Aktivitäten angehenden Lehrkräften nachgehen bzw. welche spezifischen Aktivitätsmuster sich auf Basis einer Reanalyse der Daten des Nationalen Bildungspanels (NEPS) beschreiben lassen. Kulturelle Aktivitäten konturieren aus theoretischer Perspektive dabei einerseits den kulturellen Habitus von angehenden Lehrkräften, können allerdings gleichzeitig auch darüber hinausweisen, indem sie als kulturelle Lern- und Erfahrungsräume gerahmt werden.
Article
Full-text available
This study investigated the e ect of simulation games as an intervention strategy in the teaching-learning process to enhance performance of grade XII students in economics. The study adopted a mixed method research approach. A total of 27 (14 girls and 13 boys) grade XII students from one of the higher secondary schools participated in the study. The students were selected through non-probability convenient sampling techniques. The data sources include students class test score, narratives from the classroom observations and survey data. The ndings revealed that the students were very positive about the use of simulation games as a classroom pedagogy. Simulation games help students comprehend concepts, ideas, and hypotheses easily besides making teaching-learning interesting, enjoyable, and fun as evident from the increase in mean marks in the class test 2 and high mean average score of 4.5 in the survey rating. However, the study also cautions that the simulation games are time-consuming and teachers need more time and e ort to prepare and implement in the class.
Article
Full-text available
All research strategies suffer from some weaknesses. Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches might offset some flaws. Recently a growing methodological trend arose from the acknowledgement that mixed methods may increase the value of several research projects. With this background, the paper analyses trends of mixed methods in the business, management and accounting area during the last twenty years. The analysis highlights domains where mixed methods are not frequently used, such as entrepreneurship, and presents ongoing research based on mixed methods on the Italian community enterprises, a set of collective entrepreneurial initiatives working for sustainable regeneration in their territories. These enterprises are elusive since they are neither easily identifiable nor extractable from databases. A fixed and sequential mixed method approach turns out to be effective for investigating these evolving enterprises. The work is relevant for novices to mixed methods research and provides meaningful insights to analyze a type of organisation that is very important in depleted contexts.