Abstract
Current thinking in social science research prioritises designing research to solve specific social problems. Besides, robust research findings that proffer practical solutions to specific social problems stand a better chance of appealing to policymakers and actors. Communication research in Nigeria has a history of policy relevance that has aligned with this trend. However, at present the field is characterised by the twin problem of a mono-method approach to research and scholar–policy disengagement. While mono-method research is often weak in providing comprehensive solutions to social problems, scholar–policy disengagement disconnects the research focus from urgent, real-life policy issues. These problems question the social relevance of communication research in today’s Nigeria. This chapter, therefore, contributes to the scholarly conversation in this regard by exploring methodological orientation and policy engagement of current communication research in Nigeria. To reaffirm the place of communication research in Nigeria, scholars need to reinvent the practice of identifying policy gaps and of designing their research to fill the gaps. A mixed-method research approach offers multiple and more reliable sources of evidence, which leverage the strengths of quantitative and qualitative research paradigms in finding answers to social problems. It has been found to produce broad-based empirical evidence that is more appealing to policymakers. Communication researchers in Nigeria should maximise this core potential of the design, as its increased adoption will enable them to produce research evidence that is not only appealing to policymakers but is also comprehensive enough to address the country’s myriad policy problems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aluwihare-Samaranayake, D. (2012). Ethics in qualitative research: A view of the participants’ and researchers’ world from a critical standpoint. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(2), 64–81.
Baron, N. (2010). Escape from the Ivory Tower. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Brannen, J. (1992). Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: An overview. Aldershot: Avebury.
Brunsdon, C. (2016). Quantitative methods I: Reproducible research and quantitative geography. Progress in Human Geography, 40(5), 687–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132515599625
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–131.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Doyle, L., Brady, A., & Byrne, G. (2016). An overview of mixed methods research—Revisited. Journal of Research in Nursing, 21(8), 623–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987116674257
Feilzer, M. Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809349691
Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6), 2134–2156.
Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report. University of Toronto, Ontario.
Guest, G. (2012). Describing mixed methods research: An alternative to typologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812461179
Guo, S. (2015). Shaping social work science: What should quantitative researchers do? Research on Social Work Practice, 25(3), 370–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731514527517
Hesse-Biber, S. (2015). Mixed methods research: The “thing-ness” problem. Qualitative Health Research, 25(6), 775–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315580558
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26.
Kaplan, B., & Duchon, D. (1988). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in information system research: A case study. MIS Quarterly, 12(4), 571–586.
Kingdon, J. W. (1994). Agendas, “The policy window and joining the streams” alternatives and public policy (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Kisely, S., & Kendall, E. (2011). Critically appraising qualitative research: A guide for clinicians more familiar with quantitative techniques. Australasian Psychiatry, 19(4), 364–367.
Kristine, L., & Florczak, R. N. (2014). Purists need not apply: The case for pragmatism in mixed methods research. Nursing Science Quarterly, 27(4), 278–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318414546419
Maxwell, D. (1998, January). Can qualitative and quantitative methods serve complementary purposes for policy research? Evidence from Accra. A Food Consumption and Nutrition Division (FCND) Discussion Paper, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
May, T. (Ed.). (2002). Qualitative research in action. London: Sage.
Mukhopadhyay, S., & Gupta, R. K. (2014). Survey of qualitative research methodology in strategy research and implication for Indian researchers. Vision, 18(2), 109–123.
ODI. (2009). Helping researchers become policy entrepreneurs: How to develop engagement strategies for evidence-based policy-making. ODI Briefing Paper 53.
Ojebode, A., & Akingbulu, A. (2009). Community radio advocacy in democratic Nigeria: Lessons for theory and practice. Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies, 30(2), 204–218.
Ojebuyi, B. R., & Ojebode, A. (2011). Moving beyond numerals: A meta-analysis of research methods and theoretical application in media gatekeeping studies. Journal of Arts and Education, 5(1), 165–181.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). Taking the “Q” out of research: Teaching research methodology courses without the divide between quantitative and qualitative paradigms. Quality & Quantity, 39, 267–296.
Pielke, A. R. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Say for Development. (2016). Engaging communities during development research: A conversation with Dr. Ayobami Ojebode. Retrieved from http://www.sayfordevelopment.net/engaging-communities-during-development-research-a-conversation-with-dr-ayobami-ojebode/
Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Smith, M. L., & Kleine, P. L. (1986). Qualitative research and evaluation: Triangulation and multi-methods reconsidered. In D. D. Williams (Ed.), Naturalistic evaluation (New directions for program evaluation). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). The past and future of mixed methods research: From Data triangulation to mixed model designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 671–701). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thurmond, A. V. (2001). The point of triangulation. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(3), 253–258.
UNDP. (2016). National Human Development Report. Retrieved from http://www.ng.undp.org/content/nigeria/en/home/library/poverty/national-human-development-report-2016.html
Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2011). Mass media research: An introduction (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Young, R. (2005). Research, policy and practice: Why developing countries are different. Journal of International Development, 17, 727–734.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ojebode, A., Ojebuyi, B.R., Oladapo, O.A., Oyedele, O.J. (2018). Mono-Method Research Approach and Scholar–Policy Disengagement in Nigerian Communication Research. In: Mutsvairo, B. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Media and Communication Research in Africa. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70443-2_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70443-2_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-70442-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-70443-2
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)