Two primary types of mixed methods designs in criminal justice research

Generally, research may be quantitative or qualitative. Nonetheless, the usage of the two methods at the same time is common -- the mixed methods approach. Indeed, using both qualitative and quantitative approaches overcomes the limitations inherent in each approach, resulting in a better understanding of the research problem (Creswell & Clark, 2011). This paper identifies the major components of mixed methods research design and the strengths and weaknesses of the design. The paper also examines the relevance of the design to criminal justice agencies.

The mixed methods design has a number of components. The first step is to define the design (Creswell, 2014). This is particularly important as the design is quite new in research revolving around social and human disciplines. Defining the design gives the reader a comprehensive understanding of the core attributes associated with the design. This entails describing the collection, analysis, and interpretation of qualitative and quantitative data. It also involves describing the timing of data collection as well as the theory and philosophical worldview underlying the above procedures.

The next step involves educating the reader about other terms that may be used in place of mixed methods. These include mixed methodology, multi-method, and quantitative and qualitative methods (Creswell, 2014). It is also important to familiarise the reader with the history of the mixed methods design. According to Creswell (2014), the mixed methods design gained popularity towards the end of the 1980s, with researchers attempting to overcome the weaknesses presented by single-method designs. Since then, the design has undergone significant development, evaluation, and philosophical analysis, and has been used in diverse fields such as education, social sciences, and health sciences.

Following a brief description of the design and its historical background, the next step involves providing a justification for the choice of the design (Creswell, 2014). Why use both quantitative and qualitative methods in the same study? Generally, the use of the mixed methods design is informed by the need to capitalise on the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative methods and address the weaknesses of each method (Bryman, 2008). The approach can also be ideal when both qualitative and quantitative data are available.

The researcher must also describe and justify the type of mixed method design to be used. There are three mixed methods designs: convergent parallel mixed methods, explanatory sequential mixed methods, and exploratory sequential mixed methods (Creswell, 2014). The convergent mixed methods design is the most common and basically involves using both qualitative and quantitative data. The researcher collects and analyses each type of data separately, and contrasts the findings. The explanatory sequential mixed methods design entails a two-step process. In the first step, the researcher collects and analyses quantitative data. In the second stage, the researcher uses the findings of the first step to collect qualitative data with the aim of gaining a more in-depth understanding of the initial quantitative findings (Trahan & Stewart, 2013). The exploratory sequential mixed methods design also involves a two-step process. Nonetheless, dissimilar to explanatory sequential mixed methods, the exploratory sequential mixed methods design starts with qualitative data (Creswell, 2014). The qualitative findings are then used to collect quantitative data with the aim of examining the extent to which the qualitative data can be used to infer to a larger sample or population. Finally, the researcher must describe the challenges presented by utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methods (Creswell, 2014).

Using the mixed methods design gives the researcher the advantages of both qualitative and quantitative methods, thereby avoiding or minimizing the shortcomings of each method. While quantitative research generates findings that may be readily generalizable to the larger population, it does not provide a deeper understanding of the research problem (Bryman, 2008). This is because the role of the researcher in quantitative research is mainly to describe relationships between variables. On the other hand, qualitative research seeks to investigate the research problem in more depth. This explains why the researcher cultivates a much closer relationship with the subjects through face-to-face interviews, observations, and focus groups (Bryman, 2008). Qualitative findings, however, may not be generalized beyond the sample selected due to their contextual or situational nature.

Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, therefore, provides some sort of a neutralising or off-setting effect. In other words, the researcher takes advantage of the strengths of each method, thereby addressing their inherent limitations (Creswell & Clark, 2011). The researcher benefits from the generalizability offered by quantitative research and the in-depth understanding offered by qualitative research. More importantly, the researcher uses all the tools, techniques, and approaches at their disposal to investigate the research problem -- interviews and surveys, inductive and deductive reasoning, qualitative and statistical analyses, and so on. This leads to more comprehensive findings (Bryman, 2008).

Nonetheless, a number of challenges cannot go unmentioned. First, the use of qualitative methods makes the research process more time consuming and costly (Bryman, 2008). As the researcher has to include in-depth interviews and other qualitative techniques, the data collection and analysis process becomes more complex due to aspects such as planning field trips, arranging interviews, recording and transcribing data, and so forth. Furthermore, as most researchers and readers tend to be knowledgeable and competent in either of the two methods, combining them can be a challenge. Also, mixed methods research requires clear presentation so that readers get an accurate comprehension of the findings and the procedures used to obtain the findings. Other challenges include difficulties in relying on findings of one method to plan and execute the other method as well as the likelihood of discrepancies in data interpretation (Bryman, 2008).

One of the fields in which the mixed methods approach has significant relevance is criminal justice. Indeed, the inherent distinction between quantitative and qualitative methods tends to limit researchers' ability to understand criminal justice problems in an increasingly changing world. Utilizing the mixed methods design can overcome this problem (Trahan & Stewart, 2013). Indeed, as argued by Maruna (2009), all criminal justice research is in the real sense mixed methods research. In other words, criminal justice problems may not be effectively addressed without combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Yet, the mixed methods design remains largely underutilized in today's criminological research.

The relevance of mixed methods in criminal justice research is particularly informed by the need to be more pragmatic. With factors such as globalization, advancements in communication, changing social behaviour, and the increased threat of global terrorism, researchers cannot afford to be reliant on single-method designs (Trahan & Stewart, 2013). Researchers must select the methods that offer the highest practical efficacy. For instance, as shown by quantitative research, crime can be explained by individual, group, and structural-level factors. Applied research has, however, shown that processes and outcomes in criminal justice can generate different impacts on individual perceptions. This means that in reality, "different levels of stimuli do not exert an independent influence on patterns of crime" (Trahan & Stewart, 2013, p. 60-61). With mixed methods, therefore, criminal justice researchers can gain a better understanding of crime.

On the whole, as research problems become more complex, single-method designs may not be fully effective in understanding the problems. This warrants THE mixed methods design, which combines both qualitative and quantitative methods. By using mixed methods, researchers reach more generalizable and comprehensive findings.

References

Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. 3rd ed. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th ed. London: SAGE.

Creswell, J., & Clark, V. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 2nd ed. London: SAGE.

Maruna, S. (2009). Mixed methods research in criminology: why not go both ways? In A. Piquero and D. Weisburd (eds), Handbook of Quantitative Criminology, New York: Springer, pp. 123-140.

Trahan, A., & Stewart, D. (2013). Toward a pragmatic framework for mixed methods research in criminal justice and criminology. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 9(1), 59-74.