|Part of a series on|
Multimethodology or multimethod research includes the use of more than one method of data collection or research in a research study or set of related studies. 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. One could argue that mixed methods research is a special case of multimethod research. Another applicable, but less often used label, for multi or mixed research is methodological pluralism. All of these approaches to professional and academic research emphasize that monomethod research can be improved through the use of multiple data sources, methods, research methodologies, perspectives, standpoints, and paradigms.
The term multimethodology was used starting in the 1980s and in the 1989 book Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles by John Brewer and Albert Hunter. During the 1990s and currently, the term mixed methods research has become more popular for this research movement in the behavioral, social, business, and health sciences. This pluralistic research approach has been gaining in popularity since the 1980s.
Pragmatism allows for the integration of qualitative and quantitative methods as loosely coupled systems to support mixed methods research (Florczak, 2014). On the one hand, quantitative research is characterized by randomized controlled trials, research questions inspired by literature review gap, generalizability, validity, and reliability. On the other, qualitative research is characterized by socially constructed realities and lived experiences. Pragmatism reconciles these differences an integrates quantitative and qualitative research as loosely coupled systems, where "open systems interact with each other at the point of their boundaries" (Florczak, 2014, p. 281).
The following are popular known pragmatic philosophical stands that may be used to justify pragmatism as a paradigm when conducting mixed methods research (MMR). A research paradigm provides a framework based on what constitutes and how knowledge is formed. Pragmatism as a philosophy may aid researchers in positioning themselves somewhere in the spectrum between qualitatively driven and quantitatively driven methods. The following philosophical stands can help address the debate between the use of qualitative and quantitative methods, and to ground quantitatively, qualitatively, or equal-status driven MMR. The goal is to highlight where each philosophical stand fits, and how it can be used to justify the selection of methods used when conducting MMR.
Main article: Charles Sanders Peirce
Developed as a philosophical method to solve problems towards the end of the nineteenth century, pragmatism is attributed to the work of philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce. For Peirce, research is conducted and interpreted from the eye of the beholder, as a practical approach to investigating social affairs. He sees science as a communal affair leading to single truths that are arrived at from multiple perspectives. For Peirce, the research conclusions are not as important as how these conclusions are reached. Focus is on answering the research question while allowing the methods to emerge in the process. (Johnson, de Waal, Stefurak, & Hildebrand, 2007). This is key when conducting MMR, Peirce pragmatism and its approach to research support well qualitatively driven mixed methods studies.
Main article: William James
Along with Peirce, James was a member of The Metaphysical Club where pragmatism as a philosophy was born. James introduces radical empiricism, reality as a function of our ongoing experiences, constantly changing at the individual level. James emphasizes that reality is not predetermined, and individual free will and chance matter. These ideas fit well with qualitative research emphasizing lived experiences. James also finds the truth in empirical and objectives facts, merging the divide between qualitative and quantitative research. However, James points out that no truth is independent of the thinker (Johnson, de Waal, Stefurak, & Hildebrand, 2007). James' brand of pragmatism may be used by researchers conducting qualitatively and equal-status driven MMR.
Main article: John Dewey
Dewey extends both, "Peirce pragmatic method and James' radical empiricism (and approach to experience) by application to social and political problems" (Johnson, de Waal, Stefurak, & Hildebrand, 2007, p. 70). His philosophical pragmatism takes an interdisciplinary approach, where the divide between quantitative and qualitative research represents an obstacle to solving a problem. In Dewey's pragmatism, success is measured by the outcome, where the outcome is the reason to engage in research. Live experiences constitute reality, were individual lived experiences form a continuum by the interaction of subjective (internal) and objective (external) conditions. In Dewey's continuum of experiences, no experience lives on its own, it is influenced by the experiences that preceded it, and influences those that will follow it. His approach to knowledge is open-minded, and inquire is central to his epistemology.
Main article: Richard Rorty
Following Dewey, quantitatively driven research methods dominate until 1979, when Rorty revives pragmatism. Rorty introduces his own ideas into pragmatism which includes the importance of culture, beliefs, and context. He shifts from understanding how things are to how they could be, and introduces the idea that "justification is audience dependent, and pretty much any justification finds a receptive audience" (Johnson, de Waal, Stefurak, & Hildebrand, 2007, p. 76). As Rorty explains, research success is peer dependent, not peer group neutral. From his perspective, MMR is not simply the merging of quantitative and qualitative research, but a third camp with its own peers and supporters.
There are three broad classes of research studies that are currently being labeled "mixed methods research" (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007):
One major similarity between mixed methodologies and qualitative and quantitative taken separately is that researchers need to maintain focus on the original purpose behind their methodological choices. A major difference between the two however, is the way some authors differentiate the two, proposing that there is logic inherent in one that is different from the other. Creswell (2009) points out that in a quantitative study the researcher starts with a problem statement, moving on to the hypothesis and null hypothesis, through the instrumentation into a discussion of data collection, population, and data analysis. Creswell proposes that for a qualitative study the flow of logic begins with the purpose for the study, moves through the research questions discussed as data collected from a smaller group and then voices how they will be analysed.
A research strategy is a procedure for achieving a particular intermediary research objective — such as sampling, data collection, or data analysis. We may therefore speak of sampling strategies or data analysis strategies. The use of multiple strategies to enhance construct validity (a form of methodological triangulation) is now routinely advocated by methodologists. In short, mixing or integrating research strategies (qualitative and/or quantitative) in any and all research undertaking is now considered a common feature of good research.
A research approach refers to an integrated set of research principles and general procedural guidelines. Approaches are broad, holistic (but general) methodological guides or roadmaps that are associated with particular research motives or analytic interests. Two examples of analytic interests are population frequency distributions and prediction. Examples of research approaches include experiments, surveys, correlational studies, ethnographic research, and phenomenological inquiry. Each approach is ideally suited to addressing a particular analytic interest. For instance, experiments are ideally suited to addressing nomothetic explanations or probable cause; surveys — population frequency descriptions, correlations studies — predictions; ethnography — descriptions and interpretations of cultural processes; and phenomenology — descriptions of the essence of phenomena or lived experiences.
In a single approach design (SAD)(also called a "monomethod design") only one analytic interest is pursued. In a mixed or multiple approach design (MAD) two or more analytic interests are pursued. Note: a multiple approach design may include entirely "quantitative" approaches such as combining a survey and an experiment; or entirely "qualitative" approaches such as combining an ethnographic and a phenomenological inquiry, and a mixed approach design includes a mixture of the above (e.g., a mixture of quantitative and qualitative data, methods, methodologies, and/or paradigms).
A word of caution about the term "multimethodology". It has become quite common place to use the terms "method" and "methodology" as synonyms (as is the case with the above entry). However, there are convincing philosophical reasons for distinguishing the two. "Method" connotes a way of doing something — a procedure (such as a method of data collection). "Methodology" connotes a discourse about methods — i.e., a discourse about the adequacy and appropriateness of particular combination of research principles and procedures. The terms methodology and biology share a common suffix "logy." Just as bio-logy is a discourse about life — all kinds of life; so too, methodo-logy is a discourse about methods — all kinds of methods. It seems unproductive, therefore, to speak of multi-biologies or of multi-methodologies. It is very productive, however, to speak of multiple biological perspectives or of multiple methodological perspectives.
The case for multimethodology or mixed methods research as a strategy for intervention and/or research is based on four observations:
There are also some hazards to multimethodological or mixed methods research approaches. Some of these problems include: