Mixed Methods

Mixed methods is a research approach where searchers collect and analyse both quantitative and qualitative data within the same study (Shorten & Smith, 2017). Mixed methods research draws on potential strengths of both qualitative and quantitative methods. That approach allows researchers to explore diverse perspectives and uncover relationships that exist between research questions (Creswell, 2009).

In a mixed methods approach, researchers have the possibility to use exploratory research to uncover new areas of research and inter-disciplines (Dominguez & Hollstein, 2014). Mixed methods design allows a pragmatic perspective in the research (Morgan, 2014) that can be applied to action research involving participants in the research process (Ivankova, 2015). A mixed methods approach supports the articulation of different techniques to deepen the study of some dimensions while making triangulation of data possible. Using mixed methods allows the study of a given phenomenon in a broader and deeper perspective, in order to obtain richer and more varied data which might draw from several approaches or paradigms. (See also the discussion on p.15 of this handbook.)

Mixed Methods: GO-GN Insights

Aras Bozkurt used mixed-method and explanatory sequential design with a combination of methods for collection and analysis, including social network analysis, interview, observation and document analysis to identify interaction patterns and teacher-learner roles in connectivist MOOCs.

“The purpose of my doctoral dissertation is to identify interaction patterns and teacher-learner roles in connectivist massive open online courses (MOOCs). To accomplish this purpose, mixed method and explanatory sequential design was used. For data collection and analysis, social network analysis, interview, observation and document analysis was used. Research findings were interpreted with the perspectives of connectivism, rhizomatic learning and social network theory.”

Jenni Hayman applied mixed-methods action research to determine the usefulness of an awareness and support strategy designed to increase the use of OER among post-secondary educators in Ontario.

“The method for my research was mixed method action research (MMAR) and it was defined by my institution as a requirement. My program was a Doctor of Education (Ed.D) at Arizona State University and it was considered a professional program rather than a PhD. Students in the program were expected to have a full-time, related professional career in addition to studying at a doctoral level. The timeline from program beginning to end, including defence of the dissertation was three years. I had some choice in the order of the mixed methods and selected a qualitative to quantitative data collection and analysis pathway that provide opportunities for me to learn more about educator needs and the quality of my instruments and method from colleagues and experts before launching the action of the study, professional development sessions for Ontario post-secondary educators, and collecting quantitative and qualitative data. I engaged in three cycles of research (a common practice for action research), each leading to more refined practices and greater participation. Based on some fantastic and creative qualitative analysis recommendations in Saldaña (2016) I used structural coding to analyse face-to-face participant data.

“Although my personal tendency is toward qualitative methods, I found the requirement of a mixed method approach for my research extremely beneficial as a novice. I was required to learn and practice skills of both approaches and to learn how different types of data interact and combine to magnify insight. When qualitative and quantitative data agreed, this generated confidence for me that I was on the right path. When these data disagreed, I returned to the literature, and method descriptions to develop explanations and further refine my contexts and the contexts of my participants.”

Virginia Power is investigating the social, cultural and technical factors that mediate the relationship between social media affordances and the use of repositories for OER (ROER) using ‘cultural probes’ to collect data from 45 participants.

“I wanted to find a method that would provide evidence of the psychology involved in using social media affordances (likes, ratings, reviews) and felt that a largely qualitative method would be useful. I had wanted to undertake some socio-technical system design but this is likely to happen once the
thesis is finished to test out findings.

“A largely qualitative approach was used, with cultural probes selected as the method for data collection. Cultural probes (Gaver et al., 1999) utilise tools and tasks enabling the participant to reflect on their working environment (either physical or virtual) facilitating a deeper insight into motivation and use of the environment with limited researcher influence. Consequently, two elements were chosen as potentially suitable for data collection – a research journal for self-reflection and screencasts that would elicit both audio and video recordings from each participant.”

“Cultural probes if properly designed will often give users the opportunities to record their thoughts and feelings in their own particular context. They
also provide users with independence and minimal interference from the researcher. Often cultural probes can be used to triangulate against other independent data, such as focus groups or usability studies with the aim to improve reliability. Users need to be clearly briefed on the purpose of the research and exactly what they need to do and the amount of time needed to transcribe the data should not be underestimated.”

Paula Cardoso included interviews and surveys in her research conducted to understand the perceptions and practices of faculty in public higher education institutions in Portugal towards OERs.

“We understood it was advantageous to articulate qualitative and quantitative techniques, as it may reveal or deepen the study of some dimensions of the same reality. In this research, the mixed methods approach, with sequential character, was useful in a double perspective: on the one hand, it allowed us to articulate different techniques to deepen the study of some dimensions in analysis, and on the other hand, it also mpresented advantages in terms of data triangulation. Finally, using mixed methods allows the study of a given phenomenon in a broader and deeper perspective, in order to obtain richer and more varied data, which can be better explored, giving greater strength and rigor to research.”

Useful references for Mixed Methods: Creswell (2009); Dominguez & Hollstein (2014); Edwards (2010); Ivankova (2015); Morgan (2014); Shorten & Smith (2017); Tashakkori & Teddlie (2010)