Mixed Study and so Here

¶ … mixed study and so here I was able to evaluate their first approach -- phase one -- a quantitative cross-sectional approach -- with their second phase -- a qualitative approach consisting of open-ended focus group discussion.

The researches, themselves, correctly noted that they chose a triangulated (mixed-methods approach) due to their desire in wanting to mine the study and, from approaching it from different directions, 'drill out' different information and make a comparison and contrast.

Phase one consisted of a cross-sectional survey. What jumped out at me here was the fact that all of the participants (people who received the survey) were female.

Researchers managed to reach a large amount of people; their survey size (n=276) was acceptable. Nonetheless, the skewed population, in an area that need not have been skewed, would likely present a biased result. Their objective was to examine responses to palliative and end-of-life care. Specifically their intent was: to examine the role and experiences of home care workers in this areas; to explore the perceptions of community nurses in this area: and to identify training, support, and supervision needs. In this case, it would have been interesting to have assessed differential gender response to the subject: whether there was and if so variables of differentiation. Interesting, too, would have been to have included a mix of cultural and ethnic diversities in this study. The authors do not mention whether or not they attempted to include diversity. I am assuming they did not based on the demographics of the area (Ireland), and based on their failing to report this point. It is likely that their inclusion of diversity in gender and race would have complicated their statistics. Nonetheless, results would have been interesting, would have prevented confounding elements from intruding and would have provided more reliable and accurate results to the study.

The main contrasts that struck me between phase 1 and phase 2 was that whereas in Phase 1, individuals were expected to respond to open and closed-ended question with pen and paper and rate them according to a certain scale, respondents in Phase 2 had a greater chance to open up and clarify or retract their original response. Both projects -- and aspects of the study (qualitative and quantitative) had their advantages and disadvantages. In the first, researchers could hit for objective method and, via use of Likert scale, guidelines in creating the survey, guidelines in facilitators and in how the facilitators should approach the respondents, and other details that included statistical tools, could structure the survey in as objective a manner possible. On the other hand, we are dealing with a human population that may have misunderstood various questions, may retract some of their responses later, and may, amongst many other variables that creep into surveys, have found a one-line question, however open-ended it may be, insufficient in dealing with their particular situation. The qualitative aspect, therefore, provides the opportunity for both scenarios -- a scientific treatment and a more empathetic, flexible approach (that provides a 'richer' analysis) (Creswell, 2003). It was for this reason that the researchers used both.

A mixed-methods approach follows various styles. The researchers chose a triangulated format. Here, both qualitative and quantitative components are used side by side in the same study to compare and contrast different facets of the theme in order to arrive at a reinforced conclusion, and, if results disagree, to evaluate where results may diverge. The qualitative component, too, may describe why results diverge. If results converge, the study -- particularly since it has used polar methods -- indicates greater validity (Tashakkori, & Teddlie, 1998).