reflection of a journal article
Introduction
‘The origin of mixed methods lies in two major research paradigms’ (Terrell, 2012, 257), namely qualitative and quantitative paradigms. The former exhibits many features of natural science approach such as dependency on numerical forms of data, whereas the latter focuses on exploration of social in-depth interpretations in the form of narrative words (Bryman, 1988). However, there has been a debate on the compatibility within qualitative approach and quantitative approach adopted in one enquiry. Advocators for the “incompatibility thesis” (Robson, 2011:162) maintain that ‘the two paradigms cannot be combined since they do not study the same phenomena’ (Sale, Lohfeld & Brazil, 2002, p. 43). I am not in favor of the ‘incompatibility thesis’ in that the relationship between qualitative approach and quantitative approach in mixed method research should be supplementary rather than contradictory since ‘the strengths of quantitative approach may offset the weakness of qualitative one and vise versa’ (Creswell & Clark, 2007: 9).
Newby (2010) notes that two time-honored approaches, namely, qualitative and quantitative approaches, are still the best to employ in eliciting the characteristics of social research. The former exhibits many features of natural science approach such as dependency on numerical forms of data, whereas the latter focuses on exploration of social in-depth interpretations in the form of narrative words (Bryman, 1988). Mixed approaches, which combine both of them, have increasingly gained popularity in carrying out social research (Creswell, 2003). However, there has been a debate on the compatibility within qualitative approach and quantitative approach adopted in one research enquiry. Guba (1987) even employs a metaphor that ‘the one precludes the other just as surely as belief in a round world precludes belief in a flat one’ (p.31), to support the ‘incompatibility thesis’ (Robson, 2011, p. 162). I am not in favor of the
‘The origin of mixed methods lies in two major research paradigms’ (Terrell, 2012, 257), namely qualitative and quantitative paradigms. The former exhibits many features of natural science approach such as dependency on numerical forms of data, whereas the latter focuses on exploration of social in-depth interpretations in the form of narrative words (Bryman, 1988). However, there has been a debate on the compatibility within qualitative approach and quantitative approach adopted in one enquiry. Advocators for the “incompatibility thesis” (Robson, 2011:162) maintain that ‘the two paradigms cannot be combined since they do not study the same phenomena’ (Sale, Lohfeld & Brazil, 2002, p. 43). I am not in favor of the ‘incompatibility thesis’ in that the relationship between qualitative approach and quantitative approach in mixed method research should be supplementary rather than contradictory since ‘the strengths of quantitative approach may offset the weakness of qualitative one and vise versa’ (Creswell & Clark, 2007: 9).
Newby (2010) notes that two time-honored approaches, namely, qualitative and quantitative approaches, are still the best to employ in eliciting the characteristics of social research. The former exhibits many features of natural science approach such as dependency on numerical forms of data, whereas the latter focuses on exploration of social in-depth interpretations in the form of narrative words (Bryman, 1988). Mixed approaches, which combine both of them, have increasingly gained popularity in carrying out social research (Creswell, 2003). However, there has been a debate on the compatibility within qualitative approach and quantitative approach adopted in one research enquiry. Guba (1987) even employs a metaphor that ‘the one precludes the other just as surely as belief in a round world precludes belief in a flat one’ (p.31), to support the ‘incompatibility thesis’ (Robson, 2011, p. 162). I am not in favor of the
References: Bouma, G. D., & Ling, R. (2004). The research process. Melbourne, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bryman, A. (1992). Quantity and quality in social research. London: Routledge. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles, Calif., London: sage. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles, Calif., London: Sage. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, Calif., London: Sage. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Los Angeles, Calif., SAGE Publications. Greener, I. (2011). Designing social research: a guide for the bewildered. Los Angeles, London: Sage. Newby, P. (2010). Research methods for education. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited. Patton, M., & Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif., London: Sage. Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: a resource for users of social research methods. Chichester: Wiley. Rowntree, D. (2000). Statistics without tears: a primer for non-mathematicians. London: Penguin. Shon, P. C. (2012). How to read journal articles in the social sciences: a very practical guide for students. London: Sage.