The heart of the quantitative-qualitative debate is whether the mixed-methods research approach should be used due to the differences inherent to the quantitative and qualitative approaches. As Plano-Clark and Creswell (2015) state, “[There are] important differences between quantitative and qualitative research [that] range from they types of research problems to the types of purposes, to the forms of gathered data, and even to the role of the researcher” (p. 385). The argument against using the mixed-methods approach is: “How can the result be similar if the two paradigms are supposedly looking at different phenomena? Achieving similar results may be merely a matter of perception” (Sale, Lohfeld, and Brazil, 2002, p. 47). Conversely, Plano-Clark & Creswell (2015) provides several rationals for using mixed methods: 1) to combine quantitative and qualitative data strengths, 2) to build from one type of data to the other, and 3) to answer two questions (pp. 385-386).
Agreeing with the reasoning for mixed methods, Stentz, Clark, and Matkin (2012) state, “Researches can maximize the strengths of each approach while making up for the weaknesses of the approaches, develop more complete and complementary understanding, increase validity of results, use one form to build on the results of the other, and/or examine contextualized understanding, multi-level perspectives, and cultural influences” (p. 1174) in studying leadership. Quantitative studies have limitations such as limited understanding of the participants’ context and being researcher driven, while qualitative studies are limited by the small sample and being highly interpretive (Creswell, 2013, What is Mixed Methods Research), but applying both methods into leadership research can “promote the development of new understanding about existing theories while advancing our theoretical thinking in ways that both deeper and broader” (Stentz et al., 2012, p. 1173).
Considering the pros and cons of the mixed-methods approach, I agree mixed methods is a powerful way to collect and analyze data. Plano-Clark & Creswell (2015) offer a list of design intents (p. 391) and I believe if used correctly, mixed methods can provide valid and insightful information that connects the personal stories and numbers together to provide a well-rounded research. I take most interest in how mixed methods can enhance a qualitative or quantitative study and also how it can “examine multiple levels” (Plano-Clark & Creswell, 2015, p. 391). While I enjoy seeing the connections between different levels a study asks for, my concern returns to the concern raised above: “Achieving similar results may be merely a matter of perception” (Sale et al., 2002, p. 47).
Question: How do you identify and evaluate the validity of a study’s use of multiple levels knowing the threat of forced perception in analyzing the different levels? Do you think there is a definite boundary in between a valid use of multiple levels and a forced compilation of different levels to create a single finding?
References
Creswell, J. (2017, June 1). What is mixed methods research? [Video file]. Available from http://johnwcreswell.com/videos/
Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Sale, J.E.M., Lohfeld, L.H., Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality & Quantity, 36(1), 43-53.
Stentz, J. E., Plano Clark, V. L., & Matkin, G. S. (2016). Applying mixed methods to leadership research: A review of current practices: Corrigendum. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 711. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.006