Ravalier PhD Theis.pdf - Anglia Ruskin Research Online

112
interpretivist approaches as already discussed. Tashakkori and Creswell (2007, pp. 4) define mixed methods
research as:
“Research in which the investigator collects and analyzes data, integrates the findings, and draws inferences
using both qualitative and quantitative approaches or methods in a single study or a program of inquiry”.
Therefore a mixed methods study is one in which both a qualitative and quantitative research approach is
present (Doyle et al., 2009), and the findings of both are amalgamated in order to draw conclusions. Mixed
methods researchers argue that the integrative use of qualitative and quantitative approaches help to minimise
the weaknesses inherent in both approaches whilst also enhancing the advantages (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie,
2004). Doyle et al. (2009) have identified a number of reasons why mixed methods approaches may be better
than using solely positivist or solely interpretivist research:
1. Triangulation: increases validity of results by looking for similarities in qualitative and quantitative data
outcomes.
2. Completeness: similarly to triangulation, combining results allows a rounded and fuller understanding of the
situation being studied.
3. Offsetting Weakness: as previously mentioned, the use of mixed methods can offset the weaknesses of each
approach while also building upon the strengths.
4. Answering Different Research Questions: monomethod approaches can be limited in the research questions
which are approached, whereas mixed methods can be used to help answer a wider range of questions.
In traditional research there has been a view that either the positivist approach, inherent with a scientific
model and the use quantitative methods, or the interpretivist approach, which has a larger degree of subjectivity