Mixed Methods and Analysis

¶ … learning for you in considering these materials. What variations in research approach to your dissertation topic might be suggested by them? What encouragement, related reading, or other ideas can you suggest?

"Experience" is a term increasingly bandied about in academic circles, partially in relation to the present interest in phenomenology among social scientists. Many attempts have been made to define the term over time, from a cultural studies and social anthropology standpoint. But, scholars usually bring up this subject without any description of what is really meant by it. Even those scholars who have, earlier, discussed this issue could not come to any consensus with regard to defining 'experience'. A focus on experience of a sensory nature raises the methodological question of how to comprehend others' experiences considering experience's complexity. It is not possible to peek into their mind or underneath their skin for thinking or feeling the way others do. Likewise, one cannot become another individual's eyes if one wishes to see things from their point-of-view. It is also not possible to follow others' mental processes from vague emotional or physical sensations to the reflection they may engage in. At best, one can feel the way others do via one's limited personal ability of empathizing with their experiences. In view of the above unavoidable limitations, one task would be to delineate a few tactics one can employ in order to move closer to others' embodied sensory experiences (Pink, 2008). Scholars have mentioned diverse kinds of experiences which may be studied using a variety of techniques. Some techniques such as questionnaires and interviewing display increased likelihood to disclose the clear reflective processes capable of granting a clear form and coherence to experience. Meanwhile, other techniques such as carefully observing day-to-day interactions and videotaping are capable of capturing the usually pre-reflective, actual progressing of social conduct. On a broad level, I am in agreement with the above distinction, but drawing from participatory and joint visual anthropological research tradition, I would divide the techniques and adopt a somewhat divergent approach. The first subdivision comprises of techniques which urge individuals to ponder over, and subsequently define, what they experienced to researchers. The other subdivision is composed of techniques which offer research scholars a chance to have a similar experience and apply the sensory-embodied information they possess as the base from which assumptions are made about others' experiences. As a large part of human communication utilizes images, use of visuals by cultural researchers for learning about and representing the experiences of other individuals is an appropriate approach (Pink, 2008).

The mixed methods study design developed into a novel research model, and is widely believed to be one of the consequences of the qualitative/quantitative model wars. From the fifties to mid-seventies, the quantitative positivist model was prevalent. During the mid-seventies, the qualitative constructivist/interpretivist research model got a foothold, and became entrenched as a feasible alternative until the nineties. The last decade of the previous century saw the emergence of the mixed methods model, which established itself beside the older models, giving rise to the existing 3-research model or methodological world, wherein mixed, quantitative, and qualitative study designs all coexist and thrive. The mixed methods design's instinctive nature and its underlying practices and assumptions have been delineated in Cresswell (2003) as well as in Teddlie and Tashakkori (2003) among other works. The mixed methods technique has been contrasted with research models that support the application of either qualitative or quantitative procedures (Robson, 2013).

One may integrate research techniques and approaches in numerous ways. A classification of multiple-strategy research designs concentrating on data collection technique status and sequencing has been proposed. Sequential explanatory study design entails quantitative information gathering and analysis, and subsequent gathering and examination of qualitative information. The former methodology is given precedence, but both methodologies are combined in the research's interpretation stage. On the other hand, sequential exploratory study design involves qualitative information gathering and analysis at first, and subsequent quantitative information gathering and analysis, with the former methodology being granted precedence. Once again, findings from both methodologies are combined during the stage of interpretation. Phenomenon investigation is the chief emphasis of the latter (i.e., sequential exploratory) study design (Robson, 2013).

At this point, one needs to undertake the added task of ascertaining and explaining the reason for adopting a particular study design. Therefore, the study design framework entails the components of research purpose, research questions, theoretical framework, methodologies and sampling. In case of multi-strategy studies, deliberation of study purpose must extend from broad issues. Similarly, the other components mentioned above, especially the theoretical framework, must take into account the specific issues presented by applying qualitative as well as quantitative data acquisition techniques. Flexible and fixed design components are effectively combined into a single general project (Robson, 2013).