The classification of research designs into only qualitative and quantitative does not imply that research can be classified as only either one of such classification. On the contrary, the benefit of employing techniques from both approaches in a single study is a recognized aspect, which resulted in a new style called multi-method research.1 In that regard, the present paper will attempt to provide an overview of the advantages of conducting a study using a multi-method research design.
Multi-method research design (mixed, integrated and combined method research, as well as methodical triangulation, can be used as well), as the title implies, is a design in which qualitative and quantitative methods are combined. Additionally, it should be mentioned that such definition is rather general, where multi-method research might refer to any combination of quantitative and qualitative elements in a single study, e.g. “use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques”.2 The main benefits of such approach, in general, can be seen in providing opportunities for reciprocal advantages at each stage of the research process as well as allowing each method to enhance the unique qualities of the other.3 The latter can be specifically emphasized in terms of the advantages of multi-method research design. Both quantitative and qualitative methods have their own strengths and weaknesses. In that regard, the weaknesses of each method can be eliminated using the multi-method approach. At the same time, combining the strengths of each method might enhance theory building, “hypothesis testing, and generalizing”. 4 Other benefits might be dependent on the types of the quantitative and qualitative data combined, e.g. enhancing the results or achieving greater validity.
The use and the advantages of multi-method design can be explained through an example in which such design was utilized. In Igo, Kiewra and Burning (2008), a mixed study was conducted in which the type of the design was identified as a two-phase multi-method design. In such type, the quantitative and qualitative methods were introduced each in a separate phase, in this case, first the qualitative, then the quantitative.5 The usage of the mixed-method approach not only was helpful for the study, but it also could not have been done without it. The study tested different levels of copy and paste restrictions that affect learning. In order to test the independent variables in the study, i.e. different levels of restrictions, they should be identified. The qualitative part of the study was responsible for performing such part. Those variables could be identified through a literature review of similar studies, in which such levels were already identified, but such aspect eliminates the rationale for conducting the study in the first place. Thus, it can be stated that one of the benefits of a multi-method research design can be seen through a scenario in which the qualitative part provides an exploration, in which variables are identified. These variables are later tested through the quantitative part of the study. Such a scenario is only one of many others that can indicate the advantages of using a multi-method research design.
It can be concluded the multi-method research design is a useful method that can combine the strengths and the weaknesses of the quantitative and the qualitative elements of studies. The present study provided an overview of the multi-method research design, outlining its benefits through a study of a scholarly article using such types of researches.
References
Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2010.
Igo, L. Brent, Kenneth A. Kiewra, and Roger Bruning. “Individual Differences and Intervention Flaws.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2, no. 2 (2008): 149-168.
McMurray, Adela. Research: A Commonsense Approach: Cengage Learning Australia, 2004.
Footnotes
- Adela McMurray, “Research: A Commonsense Approach,” (Cengage Learning Australia, 2004). Web.
- John W. Creswell and Vicki L. Plano Clark, Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2010), 4.
- McMurray.
- Ibid., 262.
- L. Brent Igo, Kenneth A. Kiewra, and Roger Bruning, “Individual Differences and Intervention Flaws,” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2, no. 2 (2008).