Qualitative inquiry growth

‘Section-reservoirs’ of a research article

Professor Santy Daya taught his students at Rhodes University that a journal article consists of a number of section reservoirs (Cassim, 2010):

• Introduction
• Materials and methods
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion
• Abstract — yes, this is written last, but either appears stand alone or precedes the article in the journal.

Each section above has specific moves of thought, for example the introduction should comprise:

1. Description of the field
2. State what research has been done and by whom
3. Indicate the knowledge gap addressed by the current research
4. Introduce the reader to the study undertaken

Cassim, L. 2010. Last of a three-part series on the secrets of postgrad success. Getting Ahead, Mail & Guardian, 24-30 September 2010: 7. [Download Dr Layla Cassim No 3]

When paradigms are incommensurate

Combined, integrated or mixed research methods (qualitative and quantitative) — to what extend is it simply about use, asks Morgan (2007) at the beginning of an elaborate complex article.

"Paradigms as a way to summarize researchers' beliefs" (Morgan 2007:50) gained popularity as result of Thomas Kuhn, however, a critic found more than 20 ways Khun used the term paradigms. Moore summarises four versions, namely:

1. The worldview or all-encompassing way of thinking about the world, this includes beliefs concerning morals, values and aesthetics. It is a shared understanding of reality with which qualitative researchers approach their enquiry, a set of guiding assumptions.
2. As epistemological stance serving as distinctive belief system, which influences how research questions are asked. Compatibility of methods is important.
3. Shared beliefs among members of a specialist area (a community of practice) of researchers that share consensus about, for example, which methodological procedures are most appropriate and are absorbed in a particular body of technical knowledge.
4. Model examples of research that serve as exemplars for new entrants.

Morgan (2007) focuses attention on another concept gained from Khun, namely incommensurability. [Commensurable means to have the same measure or divisor, for example the numbers 6 and 9 are divisible by 3. Incommensurable therefore implies having no common basis, measure, or standard of comparison.] Different research paradigms may produce findings that are incommensurable with other findings. However, there are often overlaps between different paradigms, resulting in permeable boundaries.

As alternative (to paradigms lost) Morgan advocates the pragmatic approach. He places methodology in the centre and asserts that equal attention should be devoted to "the connection between methodology and epistemology and the connection between methodology and methods" (p. 68). Considerations of methodology should connect epistemology with research design.

Morgan, D.L. 2007. Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained — methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Method Research, 1(1), pp 48-76, January 2007.

Pragmatic approach in mixed methodology

David Morgan (2007:71) concisely captures the pragmatic alternative to the key issues in social science research methodology a table that summarises a framework:

Research approach:	Qualitative	Quantitative	Pragmatic
Connection of theory and data	Induction	Deduction	Abduction
Relationship to research process	Subjectivity	Objectivity	Intersubjectivity
Inference from data	Context	Generality	Transferability

Morgan acknowledges Michael Patton's 1975 divisions.

In the top row Morgan differentiates induction and deduction and points out that most research methodology text books asserts the connection of theory and data as key distinguishing factor between qualitative and quantitative research. Although such a sharp distinction is useful for teaching beginners research, in reality researchers tend only to be purely inductive or deductive when documenting for publication. The pragmatic version of abductive reasoning "moves back and forth between induction and deduction" (p. 71).

Pure or complete subjectivity and objectivity are theoretical concepts. In reality the researcher often works interchangeably. Therefore the pragmatic approach of intersubjectivity.

The pragmatic approach seeks to transcend the distinction between knowledge that is context-dependent, and knowledge that is universal and generalisable. Morgan argues that researchers must investigate the factors that determines if the knowledge gained is transferable to other settings.

Morgan (2007:73) finds it helpful to think:

• Qualitative research emphasises "an inductive-objective-contextual approach"
• Quantitative research emphasises "a deductive-objective-generalising approach"

When problems are encountered with any of the two absolute extremes, fortunately an alternative is available, namely the:

• Pragmatic approach, which emphasises "the abductive-intersubjective-transferable" possibilities.

Morgan, D.L. 2007. Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained — methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Method Research, 1(1), pp 48-76, January 2007.

Mixing research methods—a conversation towards a negotiated account

Alan Bryman (2007: 22) did a content analysis of 232 articles, published between 1994 and 2003, with 'mixed' research methods. He found that only 18% of the articles succeeded to mix (integrate) qualitative and quantitative methods. He remarks (p. 8):

As result of the efforts of methodologists and researchers, there is nowadays considerable understanding of a variety of issues, such a various ways in which quantitative and qualitative research can be mixed … However, at the same time, the fundamental issue of the degree to which mixed methods researchers genuinely integrate their findings has not been addressed to a significant extent. In other words, how far do mixed methods researchers analyze, interpret, and write up their research in such a way that the qualitative and quantitative components are mutually illuminating? … "genuinely integrate[d]".

Bryman (2007: 9) conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 UK social scientists about "the researcher's views on and practices in relation to the integration of quantitative and qualitative research" and asked during the interviews (p. 10) "whether they found it straightforward to combine their quantitative and qualitative findings". Nine barriers to effective integration emerged:

1. The two sets of findings often documented for different audiences
2. Because of methodological preferences, researchers tend to emphasise what they comfortable with.
3. The structure of research projects sometimes complicates integration.
4. The timelines of either the qualitative or quantitative may be such that the one ends sooner than the other, if not taking place prior to.
5. In addition to No 2, skills specialisation or incapacities may impede integration.
6. The difference in the nature of data results in different ways of writing the results up.
7. Bridging ontological divides are sometimes challenging, for example, objectivist versus constructivist or discursive accounts.
8. Preference of some journals present publication challenges, if a particular methodological bias prevails it is often difficult to get an article accepted that does not fit.
9. "[R]elative absence of well-known exemplars makes it difficult for researchers to draw upon 'best practice' when it comes to combining findings" (p. 19).

Bryman (2007: 19) grouped the first eigth barriers into three types, namely:

Barriers related to intrinsic research aspects	Wider institutional context of mixed method research	Skills and preference of researchers
Structure of research projects (3) Bridging ontological divides (7) Role of timelines (4)	Different audiences (1) Publication issues (8)	Methodological preferences (2) Skills specialisms (5) Nature of the data (6)

The absence of good exemplars, relate to all three types of barriers.

Bryman argues for genuine integration, where qualitative and quantitative findings are mutually informative and talk to each other—a conversation—to construct an negotiated account. The triangulation metaphor has been a hindering factor; it should not be just a matter of testing data against each other, but "about forging an overall or negotiated account of the findings that brings together both components of the conversation or debate" (p. 21).

Bryman, A. 2007. Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Method Research, 1(1), pp 8-22, January 2007.