Advantages of mixed methods research
What is Mixed Methods?
Commonly Mixed Methods is viewed as a philosophy coordinating both subjective and quantitative methodologies inside one research venture.
The development is around since the 1980s when sociologists attempted to determine the contradiction between the subjective and quantitative worldview by joining both into a third way (Kuckartz 2014b, 27-28).
Obviously, there are differences on in subtleties, for instance Johnson et al. (2007) list 19 distinct definitions. Still the general picture is sufficiently clear to be helpful.
Subjective techniques are regularly constructivist and direct exploratory research.
Quantitative techniques, despite what might be expected, are fairly (post)positivist and spotlight more on speculation testing.
Here, Mixed Methods stands firm in the middle. Right now regularly unequivocally even minded. Whatever is generally valuable for addressing the exploration question ought to be finished.
“Judge available data by its relevance rather than its form!”
said Pat Bazeley, a strong advocate of this “pragmatic perspective” in the keynote of the MQIC2019.
“Mixed methods means the combination of different qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection and data analysis in one empirical research project”. (Udo Kelle quoted in: Kuckartz 2014b, 31)
Be that as it may, I would contend that a quantitative informational collection isn’t really expected in any case. Rather – the same number of scientists do – a quantitative informational collection can be made from subjective information over the span of investigation also. What’s more, all things considered, it is called Mixed Methods and not Mixed Data.
Approval and Triangulation
Another methodology that is firmly identified with Mixed Methods is called (strategy) triangulation.
The term originates from trigonometry and portrays the procedure when the area of a point is dictated by shaping a triangle.
The fundamental thought here is, that consolidating various strategies (or additionally joining two hypotheses, two informational collections or two individual scientists) is valuable in approving the outcomes.
Here, the techniques consolidated don’t really need to cross the qual-quant isolate.
Such multi strategy explore plans can, for instance, incorporate the mix of story interviews, anecdotal examination of journals and center gathering conversation in one investigation.
Obviously, joining various strategies bodes well in a field with many formalized techniques.
In any case, when not many unequivocal techniques exist in your field, the thought has little intrigue.
In the humanities look into strategies are frequently secluded, eclecticistic or independent.
One could contend that they contain an in-manufactured strategy triangulation since they regularly use information from a wide range of sorts of sources.
Anyway this eclecticistic methodlogy is over and over again constrained to either picking subjective or quantitative methodologies.
Advantages and Drawbacks
Subjective and quantitative techniques have their particular qualities and shortcomings. Consolidating them will make an advantage that is more than the aggregate of its parts, this is the center presumption behind Mixed Methods look into.
With a blended technique we may pick up bits of knowledge into an unprecedented case inside a quantitative report, or think about the aftereffects of our particular case to an increasingly broad picture.
Dissimilar to in triangulation, Mixed Methods look into plans to show up at a more full, increasingly complex picture, rather than chiefly approving outcomes.
All things considered, there are confinements to Mixed Method draws near. Generally testing – particularly as an antiquarian – is the information side of it.
On the off chance that we don’t have quantitative and subjective information on similar cases, our choices will be firmly constrained.
Besides, scarcely any analysts are raised in a really Mixed Methods field. Rather, they are all the more regularly “Quants” that stray into “Qual” waters or the other way around.
The risk here is, that scientists coordinate techniques that they ineffectively comprehend and make results that are not methodologically stable.
Study plans and information incorporation
There are numerous potential research plans inside the Mixed Methods strategy that are too various to even think about covering here (see for instance Kuckartz 2014b, 57-97).
Regardless, the objective isn’t a juxtaposition of two strategies, yet rather a really blended philosophy that coordinates quantitative and subjective reasoning.
The two strands ought to impact each other all through the procedure, rather than making free outcomes.
The additional worth is ordinarily made at the point level. Notes (updates) and furthermore inquire about sections ought not be separated into “subjective” and “quantitative” parts, however rather the perpetual endeavor to respond to the exploration question and the developing information around one subject, normally coordinates the outcomes from various methodologies.
In a perfect world, at last the aftereffects of an unequivocally blended approach can never again be followed back independently to either a subjective or quantitative strand of the examination led.
For the humanities specifically, a few Mixed Methods situations are conceivable: For instance, one could utilize iterative patterns of close and far off perusing on the equivalent (subjective) corpus.
Another exploration configuration may consolidate segment and financial information with story.
A third may investigate a tremendous amount of artistic creations with the assistance of a calculation and join them with subjective investigations into the most run of the mill cases in each bunch.
Generally, the “sober minded” look of MMR consolidates very well with the techniques that numerous humanists (computerized or not) pick.
I thought that it was lighting up to consider less strategies, instruments and information, however even-mindedly about the exploration question.
At last, the examination question should drive our system, not the reverse way around. Or on the other hand as Pat Bazeley put it: “Questions are not subjective or quantitative, they are simply questions!” I think from this sober minded look, we can figure out how to make progress toward more receptiveness in consolidating distinctive research systems to increase a more full picture on the inquiries we wish to reply.