Qualitative inquiry growth

Mixing research methods—a conversation towards a negotiated account

Alan Bryman (2007: 22) did a content analysis of 232 articles, published between 1994 and 2003, with 'mixed' research methods. He found that only 18% of the articles succeeded to mix (integrate) qualitative and quantitative methods. He remarks (p. 8):

As result of the efforts of methodologists and researchers, there is nowadays considerable understanding of a variety of issues, such a various ways in which quantitative and qualitative research can be mixed … However, at the same time, the fundamental issue of the degree to which mixed methods researchers genuinely integrate their findings has not been addressed to a significant extent. In other words, how far do mixed methods researchers analyze, interpret, and write up their research in such a way that the qualitative and quantitative components are mutually illuminating? … "genuinely integrate[d]".

Bryman (2007: 9) conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 UK social scientists about "the researcher's views on and practices in relation to the integration of quantitative and qualitative research" and asked during the interviews (p. 10) "whether they found it straightforward to combine their quantitative and qualitative findings". Nine barriers to effective integration emerged:

1. The two sets of findings often documented for different audiences
2. Because of methodological preferences, researchers tend to emphasise what they comfortable with.
3. The structure of research projects sometimes complicates integration.
4. The timelines of either the qualitative or quantitative may be such that the one ends sooner than the other, if not taking place prior to.
5. In addition to No 2, skills specialisation or incapacities may impede integration.
6. The difference in the nature of data results in different ways of writing the results up.
7. Bridging ontological divides are sometimes challenging, for example, objectivist versus constructivist or discursive accounts.
8. Preference of some journals present publication challenges, if a particular methodological bias prevails it is often difficult to get an article accepted that does not fit.
9. "[R]elative absence of well-known exemplars makes it difficult for researchers to draw upon 'best practice' when it comes to combining findings" (p. 19).

Bryman (2007: 19) grouped the first eigth barriers into three types, namely:

Barriers related to intrinsic research aspects	Wider institutional context of mixed method research	Skills and preference of researchers
Structure of research projects (3) Bridging ontological divides (7) Role of timelines (4)	Different audiences (1) Publication issues (8)	Methodological preferences (2) Skills specialisms (5) Nature of the data (6)

The absence of good exemplars, relate to all three types of barriers.

Bryman argues for genuine integration, where qualitative and quantitative findings are mutually informative and talk to each other—a conversation—to construct an negotiated account. The triangulation metaphor has been a hindering factor; it should not be just a matter of testing data against each other, but "about forging an overall or negotiated account of the findings that brings together both components of the conversation or debate" (p. 21).

Bryman, A. 2007. Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Method Research, 1(1), pp 8-22, January 2007.

The butterfly research design

A research design forms a whole—that is all the elements or parts are logically belonging. I like to think of a butterfly as metaphor. Imagine the anatomy of a butterfly (or moth) sitting on a flower or against a surface:

Source: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/butterflies/allabout/

• The issue to be researched or problem to solve through research, forms the body (head, thorax and abdomen)
• The legs represent the research objectives, stemming from the central research problem (the hypothesis in quantitative research).
• The forewing brings to the research a synthesis of the existing body of knowledge regarding the specific problem or issue at hand.
• The hind-wing represents the chosen research methodology in order to operationalise the planned research.
• The antenna serves as introduction (written last) to enable the reader to 'feel' what the research design is about.

Research proposals are used by higher education institutions to ascertain if the researcher (student) has conceived an executable research plan that will enable the student to carry out her research. It is a requirement in the interest of both the student and the institution.

Now imagine the butterfly opening its wings and fly:

 

The research report, thesis or article again forms a whole. The big difference is a second set of wings now completes the metaphor:

• The second forewing represents the presentation of the data in an understandable way and analysis of the data.
• The second hind-wing represents findings of the research carried out and a discussion thereof.
• The wings and six legs of a butterfly are attached to the thorax (the middle section its body), emphasising the logical interconnectedness.
• The veins on the wings suggest the essential logical flow of arguments. Note further that swallow-tail butterflies are stronger flyers, suggesting presentation that is well summarised at the end of various sections reflect stronger logical argument.
• The antenna, composite eye and proboscis represent the title, abstract and key terms (written last)—giving the reader a glance about the thesis or article. The proboscis is used to extend the reach of the butterfly, for example to drink nectar, which serves as metaphor for increasing the search ability for a research article by means of key terms.

Novice researchers often follow research proposal guidelines as a step-by-step guide and end up with a dissected butterfly—unable to fly and show off its beauty.

Life course research

The art and craft of life course studies captivated my attention during January 2010, from a learning-by-experience perspective. Looking back, I recognise the qualitative research growth I derived:

• Lifespan research should take into consideration both past experiences and future expectations. Concepts such as events, timing, impact and distinctive cohort experiences must be kept in mind when organising data. Appropriate research design; historic data collection; four key elements and a number of general principles of life course enquiry are captured.
• The life course inquiry into the sequence of socially defined events or transactions and roles enacted over time should be mindful of the sociology of aging and generations cohorts.
• Matilda Riley's escalator metaphor—people moving diagonally upwards and across—conveys different life experiences of cohorts.
• Robert K Merton's five decades (1948 to 1987) of life course research is captured in a checklist
• Raymond Lee cautions that simply asking may be influenced by extraneous factors, which may affect the truthfulness of the data. He encourages the observation of 'foot prints'. I elaborate on this by short notes on triangulation and crystallisation of data to enhance validity/truthfulness.

Laddering down

"Laddering is a qualitative marketing research technique, which seeks to understand why people buy and use products and services", states Focus Group Tips. According to The Internet Encyclopaedia of Personal Construct Psychology, Dennis "Hinkle [1965] described a method for which Bannister and Mair (1968) coined the term laddering".

The laddering process initially involved "asking why a person would prefer to be described by one pole of a personal construct rather than the other. The construct "ladder" usually ends up with a statement of the values that underlie a person's construing of their personal world". Bannister and Mair (1968) referred to "laddering down" to yield more subordinate or concrete constructs. This method was later described in greater detail by Landfield (1971) who called it pyramiding.

"Thomas J. Reynolds and Jonathan Gutman developed and introduced laddering in 1988, based on Gutman’s Means-End Theory of 1982. They describe product attributes, consequences, and values. Product attributes produce consequences that produce personal meaning (values) for product users."

"There are four levels to the features-benefits-emotions chain. They are,

1. Features
2. Functional benefits
3. Higher Order benefits
4. Emotional Benefits

Each level links to the next level. Each level influences buying behavior."