Great Zimbabwe University

Faculty of Commerce

Name: Primrose chirongoma

Course code: ms101

Course: research methods & statistics

Reg number: M178889

Lecturer: mr mawonike

Year: 2017

Part: 1.1

Question: THE MIXED METHOD IS THE SOLUTION TO THE QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE

RESEARCH debate..discuss?
It has always been a point of debate on which is the best method to use between quantitative and
qualitative research. The paper will begin by defining qualitative and quantitative research methods.
Quantitative research can be defined as the use of sampling techniques (such as consumer surveys)
whose findings may be expressed numerically, and are amenable to mathematical manipulation
enabling the researcher to estimate future events or quantities (Denzin et al, 2005). Qualitative
research can be defined as data that approximates or characterizes but does not measure the
attributes, characteristics, properties, etc., of a thing or phenomenon (Cresswell,2008). Qualitative
data describes whereas quantitative data define. Mixed method includes the use of more than one
method of data collection or research in a research study or set of related studies (Cresswell,2008).
Mixed methods research is more specific in that it includes the mixing of qualitative and quantitative
data, methods, methodologies, and/or paradigms in a research study or set of related studies. A
mixed method which involves the integration of qualitative and quantitative research methods is the
best way to solve the debate on which method is best to use between quantitative and qualitative
research.

In the field of social research and evaluation, quantitative research has been considered as the more
traditional approach to addressing a research question (Bogdan et al,1987). As qualitative
researchers came onto the scene, discussions began about the merits of using qualitative research
over quantitative research. A mixed method is indeed a solution to the on-going debate over
quantitative and qualitative research. One may ask why the mixed method is the answer to the
debate. By mixing both quantitative and qualitative research and data, the researcher gains breadth
and depth of understanding and corroboration, while offsetting the weaknesses inherent to use each
approach by itself. One of the most advantageous characteristics of conducting mixed methods
research is the possibility of triangulation that is the use of several means (methods, data resources
and researchers) to examine the same phenomenon (Stake.R,1995). Triangulation allows one to
identify aspect of phenomenon more accurately by approaching it from different vantage points
using different methods and techniques.

In addition to that, mixed methods are best suited when one wants to validate the results obtained
from other methods. It can also be applied when one needs to use one method to inform another
method (Yin.R, 1989). For instance, when little is known about a topic and it is necessary to first
learn about what variables to study through qualitative research, and then study those variables with
a large sample of individuals using quantitative research.
Besides that, a mixed method is advantageous to use over the individual qualitative and quantitative
research methods and is best to use when one wants to continuously look at a research question from
different angles, and clarify unexpected findings and potential contradictions. For instance, if a
causal relationship has been established through experimental research but one wants to understand
and explain the casual processes involved through qualitative research. A single-approach design
might only include experiments to determine cause and effect regarding a specific issue (Taylor et al,
1984). Conversely, it might only use observation to tell the story of why a problem has arisen. A
mixed-approach design uses the strengths of both methodologies to provide a broader perspective on
the overall issue (Cresswell, 2008). An experiment may reveal an anomaly that wasnt evident in
observation, while observations provide nuances that cant be captured in multiple-choice surveys.

In addition to that, there seem to be philosophical views that contribute to this quantitative and
qualitative debate. Some people have a natural general presumptive preference for quantitative
research over qualitative on the grounds that quantitative research is more rigorous, scientific, or
objective. Some industry bodies tend to reject reports on qualitative research, as they claim the
results are not replicable, but rather, anecdotal. Well-designed qualitative research should indeed be
able to be replicated and therefore, be reliable. On the other hand, some claim that quantitative cases
must be tested against qualitative cases, and the qualitative and relations between individuals. Given
the view expressed above it can be suggested that mixed method is the solution to the debate
between qualitative and quantitative research. This is so because use of mixed method provides a
number of advantages for instance; it provides strengths that offset the weaknesses of both
quantitative and qualitative research (Morgan.D, 1988). For instance, quantitative research is weak in
understanding the concepts in which people behave, something that qualitative research makes up
for. On the other hand, qualitative research is seen as deficient because of the potential for bias
interpretations made by the researcher and the difficulty in generalizing findings to a large group.

According to Andrew (2007), qualitative research is a method of inquiry appropriated in many

different academic disciplines, traditionally in the social sciences, but also in market research and
further contexts. It emphasizes the importance of looking at variables in the natural setting in which
they are found. This differs from quantitative research which attempts to gather data by objective
methods to provide information about relations, comparisons, and predictions and attempts to
remove the investigator from the investigation (Smith, 1983). The key difference between
quantitative and qualitative methods is their flexibility. Generally, quantitative methods are fairly
inflexible which the weakness of this method is. With quantitative methods such as surveys and
questionnaires, for example, researchers ask all participants identical questions in the same order
(Cresswell, 2008). Qualitative methods are typically more flexible - that is, they allow greater
spontaneity and adaptation of the interaction between the researcher and the study participant. For
example, qualitative methods ask mostly "open-ended" questions that are not necessarily worded in
exactly the same way with each participant. Hence, the inflexibility of quantitative methods is
adjusted for in qualitative methods. In this light shed above, for the best results both methods need to
be integrated as the weakness of one is the strength of the other. This outlines that the mixed method
is the solution to the qualitative quantitative debate.

Besides that, the nature of information obtained from the two methods are different as quantitative
research is mainly in numeric form gathered in a formal and systematic way whilst on the other hand
qualitative research information is generally found in the form of words or text. Photographs, videos,
sound recordings and the like, can also be considered qualitative data. It can be noted that qualitative
methods produce information on the particular cases studied; any more general conclusions are
hypotheses. Whilst this might be true for qualitative methods quantitative methods can be used to
verify which of such hypotheses are true. Hence, it is best to integrate the two methods as the
shortfall of one is corrected by the other which gives rise to the mixed method which incorporates
both methods.

However although the mixed method seems to be advantageous it has its shortcomings or simply
demerits that accrue from using it. An example of such demerits is personal bias. Because people are
different, some are more adept at performing one research methodology over the other. A pragmatic
person leans more to the definitive answers provided in quantitative research. Those who think in a
less linear manner might have a better ability to perform qualitative analysis (Yin.R, 1989). If
someone leans toward a particular research methodology, the research could suffer from bias unless
adjustments are made to account for a methodology isn't strength for the researcher.

In addition to that, more data can proves difficult to handle as it will take time to process this
becomes a weakness of the mixed method. This entails that, mixed-method design expands the
research in a way that a single approach cant (Stake.R,1995). The process of offering a statistical
analysis, along with observation, makes the research more comprehensive. Academics glean
information from other academics and mixed methodologies offer a broader landscape. There is
simply more information from which to develop more hypotheses. Mixed methodology research may
advance the timeline of a debate by offering more data for future discussions and research.

Besides that, different answers that arise from quantitative and qualitative research are likely to pose
difficulties in data analysis which is a weakness of the mixed method further prompting more
qualitative quantitative debate (Taylor et al, 1984). It follows that; quantitative analysis inherently
looks for one answer. When conducting experiments, the goal is to find the one consistent truth
throughout the experiment. Qualitative research, however, is inherently focused on multiple answers
as interviews reveal a variety of information that may be different, yet true at the same time (Denzin
et al,2005). Good researchers are aware that this phenomenon could lead to the analysis of different
problems at the quantitative and qualitative phases of the research and account for that possibility.

Resolving of discrepancies between the integrated methods can prove to be a difficult job which
undermines the mixed method as the solution to the quantitative qualitative debate. It follows that it
needs more analysis and rendition to be done. This however increases the workload of the researcher
which results to more time being spent which furthermore wastes resources.

In conclusion, although the mixed method has its drawbacks it is a solution to the qualitative
quantitative debate as it is highlighted that each methods weakness is strength of the other which
results in chaos over which method is preferred.
REFERENCES

Denzin et al (2005). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
sage.

Bogdan, R, Taylor, S. (1987). Looking at the bright side: A positive approach to quantitative policy
and evaluation research

Stake, R (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yin, R (1989). Case Study Research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Taylor et al (1984). Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: The search for Meanings (2nd
ed.). Singapore: John Wiley.

Marshall et al (1998). Designing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morgan, D. (1988). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Quantitative Research Methods Series.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cresswell, John (2008). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches.
Sage.