Abstract
In this chapter I engage with some of the discourses in the multiple and mixed methods research (MMMR) literature. I consider five paradigmatic positions (postpositivist, constructivist, transformative, pragmatic, Indigenous) in relation to the practice of MMMR, while appreciating that paradigmatic positions are not unitary and also can evolve. In keeping with, and stretching somewhat, the transformative research paradigm—while also looking at options for stretching “other” paradigms—I propose a focus in all social research on how those involved in the research endeavor (the initiating researchers and others involved) can take some responsibility and co-responsibility for the potentially impactful character of the research. This means that their “cognition” becomes recognized as being tied to considerations of the shaping effects of the research in/on the quality of our social and ecological existence. It is this recognition which can inspire an intent to advance more “just” social outcomes—and hopefully ecological outcomes too—as discussed in the research context.
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
Notes
- 1.
Popper criticizes certain aspects of positivism (as featured in, for example, August Comte’s views and in the views of the so-called Vienna Circle of positivist thought), but draws on other aspects to develop what he calls a critical rationalist position (cf. Romm, 2001, p. 20). Popper considers that his critical rationalist position (as he names it) differs fundamentally from the foundationalist premises of the positivist view of science (1959, pp. 15–19). This is because even basic observation statements (as he calls them) about particular occurrences, are recognized by him as requiring a decision as to whether they should be accepted (1959, p. 105). Furthermore, other statements (at higher levels of generality) also can never be verified with certainty, but only tentatively corroborated—1978, p. 86. Adam points out that what are called postpositivist perspectives draw, inter alia, on “the ideas of falsificationism” as advanced by Popper (Adam, 2014, p. 5).
- 2.
Mazman argues that “although both sociologists try to apply the positivistic method in their sociological studies, they differ in terms of how they understand positivism to be a scientific method” (2008, p. 81). Munch (1988, p. 3) notes how Weber tried to combine “idealistic and positivist elements” in his scientific approach to forwarding interpretations of meaning while proffering causal explanations.
- 3.
Hammersley argues that the problem of what is called “reactivity”, defined as the problem that what is being researched may be affected by the very process of the research, does not constitute an irresolvable dilemma—as there are various ways of trying to address the reactivity effect. He suggests that “researchers have long been aware of reactivity as a problem, and have sought to deal with it in practical ways: by varying their role in the field over time, and/or by using multiple methods of data collection (for example, combining observation with data from informants)” (2003, p. 344).
- 4.
See Chap. 1, Sect. 1.1.2, where I pointed to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as applied to the physical sciences.
- 5.
It could be argued that because Hunter and Brewer take more seriously the postmodern turn, which they interpret as implying that “facts” can be considered as constructed through a degree of “collective consensus” in the scientific community, this would then provide more leeway than in a Hammersley’s position for (professional) researchers to take some responsibility for the way in which “truths” become constructed and presented.
- 6.
The issue of whether in any instance the mixed method research works with so-called dominantly QUAN (quantitative) methods or dominantly QUAL (qualitative) or equal status ones (where QUAN and QUAL moments are given equal weight) as referred to in much of the literature on mixed methods designs and as summarized by Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, and Turner (2007, p. 124), would then give way to considering whether the inquiry is being undertaken in the service of those most marginalized in society. (See also Romm & Ngulube, 2015, p. 171.)
- 7.
Mertens and McLaughlin make the point that when they speak of qualitative data collection, their focus is not on their possible use within a positivist framework, but on “the use of qualitative methods within the interpretive/constructivist and transformative/emancipatory traditions because of the unique criteria for judging quality associated with such research” (2004, p. 94). Like Hesse-Biber (2010, p. 456), they emphasize that methodological considerations exceed considerations around methods to be used.
- 8.
This would imply mixing quantitatively-oriented research questions which gear the research to investigating hypothesized directional relationships between variables, with qualitatively-oriented questions which gear the research to exploring and understanding people’s meaning-making and social processes. (See also Creswell, 2014, p. 50.)
- 9.
They qualify that when they speak of “integration” they refer to a research stage whereby both quantitative and qualitative data are integrated into either a coherent whole or two separate sets (i.e., qualitative and quantitative) of coherent wholes (2006, p. 491). That is, quantitative analyses (based on comparing groups and relating variables) can become integrated with theme development and theory generation based on analyzing texts (words) and images.
- 10.
Creswell concurs with this point by stating that as a philosophical position “pragmatists agree that research always occurs in social, historical, political, and other contexts. In this way, mixed methods studies may include … a theoretical lens that is reflective of social justice and political aims” (2014, p. 11).
- 11.
I use the word “emic” here in the sense used by Darling (2016), where she advocates “methodological adaptations that encourage emic perspectives throughout all phases of a study: design, data collection, and analysis” (abstract to the article). This would also mean developing in the process what Onwuegbuzie (2012, p. 205) calls an emtic research relationship, where “etic” and “emic” perspectives are maximally interactive.
- 12.
In my book on New racism I offered examples of research exploring this oft-unnoticed form of racism, which many authors argue is still experienced by people across the globe (Romm, 2010, pp. 282–290).
- 13.
See also Romm (2017a, pp. 32–39).
- 14.
This could well have been the case for the researchers involved in (co)constructing the mathematics, science, and educational management directed items in the questionnaire.
- 15.
McIntyre-Mills reminded me (pers. comm. via email, March 2017) that this research came about after the launch of co-designed software to enhance wellbeing for Aboriginal service uses and health providers. That project was funded by the Australian Research Council, Neporendi Council and then then South Australian Department of Health and it drew on Indigenous philosophy that many interrelated factors shape wellbeing (including how we relate to others and to the environment). The software designed to map different pathways to wellbeing was launched with co-researchers Douglas Morgan, Bevin Wilson, and (informatics designer) Denise de Vries as well as several other mentors (such as Kim O’Donnel). Douglas Morgan was at the time the chair of Neporendi, an organization advocating for Aboriginal people living in the Southern region and Bevin Wilson (from Flinders University) had been his senior mentor. The group wished now to extend the research to local government and Janet went on to work with other researchers too, but with Bevin remaining a mentor. The scenarios presented as a basis for the local government research flowed, inter alia, from what she had learned from these various mentors. (See Chap. 6, Sect. 6.1.)
- 16.
- 17.
Upon reading this chapter (March 2017) McIntyre-Mills indicated that she wished me to emphasize this point and the need to hold “the rich” to account by giving credits to “those who consume less” and providing offsets to subsidize those with low footprints. In her book entitled Planetary passport: Representation, accountability and re-generation (2017) she discusses the importance of holding people to account and expands upon her ideas developed in her book Systemic ethics (2014a) that “selfish living affects others and our shared habitat” (pers. comm. via email).
References
Adam, F. (2014). Measuring national innovation performance. Berlin: Springer.
Adams, T. E. (2017). Autoethnographic responsibilities. International Review of Qualitative Research, 10(1), 62–66.
Belmont Report: The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). Ethical principles and guidelines for research involving human subjects. Washington DC: Office of the Secretary, US Department of Health and Human Services.
Bishop, R. (1994). Initiating empowering research? New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 29(1), 175–188.
Bless, C., Higson-Smith, C., & Sithole, S. L. (2013). Fundamentals of social research methods: An African perspective. Cape Town: Juta.
Chilisa, B. (2007). Decolonizing ethics in social research: Toward a framework for research ethics in African contexts. In A. Rwomire & F. B. Nyamnjoh (Eds.), Challenges and responsibilities of social research in Africa: Ethical issues (pp. 199–208). Addis Ababa: Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA).
Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. London: Sage.
Chilisa, B., Major, T. E., & Khudu-Petersen, K. (2017). Community engagement with a postcolonial, African-based relational paradigm. Qualitative Research, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794117696176.
Cram, F. (2009). Maintaining indigenous voices. In D. M. Mertens & P. Ginsberg (Eds.), The handbook of social research ethics (pp. 308–322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cram, F. (2015). Harnessing global social justice and social change with multimethod and mixed methods research. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 677–687). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cram, F., Chilisa, B., & Mertens, D. M. (2013). The journey begins. In D. M. Mertens, F. Cram, & B. Chilisa (Eds.), Indigenous pathways into social research (pp. 11–40). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Cram, F., & Mertens, D. M. (2015). Transformative and indigenous frameworks for multimethod and mixed methods research. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 91–109). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cram, F., & Mertens, D. M. (2016). Negotiating solidarity between indigenous and transformative paradigms in evaluation. Evaluation Matters—He Take Tõ Te Aromatawai, 2, 161–189.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Garrett, A. L. (2008). The “movement” of mixed methods research and the role of educators. South African Journal of Education, 28(3), 321–333.
Darling, F. (2016). Outsider Indigenous research: Dancing the tightrope between etic and emic perspectives. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 17(3), Art. 6.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 1–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dick, B., Sankaran, S., Shaw, K., Kelly, J., Soar, J., Davies, A., et al. (2015). Value co-creation with stakeholders: Using action research as a metamethodology in a funded research project. Project Management Journal, 46(2), 36–46.
Gergen, K. J. (2015). From mirroring to worldmaking: Research as future forming. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 45(3), 287–310.
Gregory, W. J. (1996). Discordant pluralism: A new strategy for critical systems thinking. Systems Practice, 9(6), 605–625.
Habermas, J. (1976). A positivistically bisected rationalism. In T. W. Adorno, H. Albert, R. Dahrendorf, J. Habermas, H. Pilot & K. R. Popper (Eds.), The positivist dispute in German Sociology (G. Adey & D. Frisby Trans., pp. 199–225). London: Heinemann.
Hammersley, M. (2003). “Analytics” are no substitute for methodology: A response to Speer and Hutchby. Sociology, 37(2), 339–351.
Hammersley, M., & Traianou, A. (2014). An alternative ethics? Justice and care as guiding principles for qualitative research. Sociological Research Online, 19(3), Art. 24.
Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2007). Putting it together. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. L. Leavy (Eds.), Feminist research practice: A primer (pp. 329–348). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2010). Qualitative approaches to mixed methods practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 455–468.
Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2015). Mixed methods research: The “thing-ness” problem. Qualitative Health Research, 25(6), 775–788.
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Griffin, A. J. (2015). Feminist approaches to multimethod and mixed method research: Theory and praxis. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 72–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hunter, A., & Brewer, J. (2015a). Designing multimethod research. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 616–623). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hunter, A., & Brewer, J. (2015b). Conundrums of multimethod research. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 185–205). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, R. B. (2015a). Toward an inclusive and defensible multimethod and mixed method science. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 688–706). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, R. B. (2015b). Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm whose time has come. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 156–173.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.
Johnson, R. B., & Schoonenboom, J. (2016). Adding qualitative and mixed methods research to health intervention studies: Interacting with differences. Qualitative Health Research, 26(5), 587–602.
Johnson, R. B., & Stefurak, J. (2014). Dialectical pluralism: A metaparadigm and process philosophy for “dynamically combining” important differences. QMiP Bulletin, 17, 63–69.
Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275–289.
Lincoln, Y. S. (2001). Engaging sympathies: Relationships between action research and social constructivism. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 124–132). London: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2003). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (2nd ed., pp. 253–291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2013). The constructivist credo. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Maathai, W. (2006). Unbowed: A memoir. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Mark, M. M. (2015). Mixed and multimethods in predominantly quantitative studies, especially experiments and quasi-experiments. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 21–41). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mazman, I. (2008). Max Weber and Emile Durkheim: A comparative analysis on the theory of social order and the methodological approach to understanding society. Retrieved August 31, 2016, at: http://www.acarindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423867208.pdf.
McIntyre-Mills, J. J. (2017). Planetary passport: Representation, accountability and re-generation. New York, NY: Springer.
McKay, V. I., Mohapi, S. J., & Romm, N. R. A. (2017). Rethinking school discipline. In M. Magano, S. Mohapi, & D. Robertson (Eds.), Realigning teacher training in the 21st Century (pp. 250–270). Hampshire: Cengage.
Mertens, D. M. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212–225.
Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Mertens, D. M. (2010a). Transformative mixed methods research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 469–474.
Mertens, D. M. (2010b). Philosophy in mixed methods teaching: The transformative paradigm as illustration. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 4(1), 9–18.
Mertens, D. M. (2012a). Transformative mixed methods: Addressing inequities. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 802–813.
Mertens, D. M. (2012b). Ethics in qualitative research in education and the social sciences. In S. D. Lapan, M. T. Quartaroli, & F. J. Riemer (Eds.), Qualitative research: An introduction to methods and designs (pp. 19–39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mertens, D. M. (2014). Research and evaluation in education and psychology (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mertens, D. M., Bazeley, P., Bowleg, L., Fielding, N., Maxwell, J., Molina-Azorin, J. F., et al. (2016). Thinking through a kaleidoscopic look into the future. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(3), 221–227.
Mertens, D. M., & McLaughlin, J. A. (2004). Research and evaluation methods in special education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Midgley, G., Nicholson, J. D., & Brennan, R. (2017). Dealing with challenges to methodological pluralism: The paradigm problem, psychological resistance and cultural barriers. Industrial Marketing Management, 62, 150–159.
Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76.
Morgan, D. L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8), 1045–1053002E.
Münch, R. (1988). Understanding modernity: Toward a new perspective going beyond Durkheim and Weber. New York, NY: Routledge.
Niculescu, G. (2014). New considerations about action research. Annals of the Constantin Brâncuși, University of Târgu Jiu, Letter and Social Science Series, (4), 28–33.
Oczak, M., & Niedźwieńska, A. (2007). Debriefing in deceptive research: A proposed new procedure. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(3), 49–59.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2012). Introduction: Putting the mixed back into quantitative and qualitative research in educational research and beyond: Moving toward the radical middle. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 6, 192–219.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2006). Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures. The Qualitative Report, 11(3), 474–498.
Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). Collected papers (8 vols., Eds., C. Hartshorne. P. Weiss, & A. Burks). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Popper, K. R. (1969). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge.
Popper, K. R. (1994). The myth of the framework: In defence of science and rationality. London: Routledge.
Roman-Alcalá, A. (2015). Broadening the land question in food sovereignty to northern settings: A case study of occupy the farm. Globalizations, 12(4), 545–558.
Romm, N. R. A. (1996). Systems methodologies and intervention: The issue of researcher responsibility. In R. L. Flood & N. R. A. Romm (Eds.), Critical systems thinking: Current research and practice (pp. 179–193). New York, NY: Plenu006D.
Romm, N. R. A. (2001). Accountability in social research: Issues and debates. New York, NY: Springer.
Romm, N. R. A. (2010). New racism: Revisiting researcher accountabilities. New York, NY: Springer.
Romm, N. R. A. (2015). Conducting focus groups in terms of an appreciation of Indigenous ways of knowing: Some examples from South Africa. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(1), Art. 2.
Romm, N. R. A. (2017a). Researching indigenous ways of knowing-and-being: Revitalizing relational quality of living. In P. Ngulube (Ed.), Handbook of research on theoretical perspectives on indigenous knowledge systems in developing countries (pp. 22–48). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Romm, N. R. A. (2017b). Conducting focus groups in terms of an appreciation of Indigenous ways of knowing: Invoking an Indigenous-oriented paradigm. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Doing cross-cultural research in health social sciences. New York, NY: Springer (in press).
Romm, N. R. A. (2017c). Reflections on a multi-layered intervention in the South African public education system: Some ethical implications for community operational research. European Journal of Operational Research, 1–13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.02.022.
Romm, N. R. A., Nel, N. M., & Tlale, L. D. N. (2013). Active facilitation of focus groups: Exploring the implementation of inclusive education with research participants. South African Journal of Education, 33(4), 1–14, Art. 811.
Romm, N. R. A., & Ngulube, P. (2015). Mixed methods research. In M. Gumbo & E. Mathipa (Eds.), Addressing research challenges (pp. 158–176). Johannesburg: Mosala-Masedi.
Romm, N. R. A., & Tlale, L. D. N. (2016). Nurturing research relationships: Showing care and catalysing action in a South African school research-and-intervention project. South African Review of Sociology, 47(1), 18–36.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. New York, NY: Zed Books.
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Zed Books.
Ssali, S. N., & Theobald, S. (2016). Using life histories to explore gendered experiences of conflict in Gulu District, Northern Uganda: Implications for post-conflict health reconstruction. South African Review of Sociology, 47(1), 81–98.
St. Pierre, E. A. (2017). Post qualitative inquiry: The next generation. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in neoliberal times (pp. 37–47). New York, NY: Routledge.
Stephens, A., Jacobson, C., & King, C. (2010). Describing a feminist systems theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27(5), 553–566.
Stephens O. A. (2012). Investigating effects of Six Thinking Hats and emotional intelligence training on creativity thinking and emotional intelligence of recidivists in Lagos State, Nigeria. Doctoral dissertation, Lagos State University, Lagos, Nigeria.
Sykes, B. E. (2014). Transformative autoethnography: An examination of cultural identity and its implications for learners. Adult Learning, 25(1), 3–10.
Tadajewski, M. (2008). Incommensurable paradigms, cognitive bias and the politics of marketing theory. Marketing Theory, 8(3), 273–297.
Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of the social sciences (E. A. Shils & H. A. Finch, Ed. and Trans.). New York: The Free Press.
Woldegies, B. D. (2014). Economic empowerment through income generating activities and social mobilization: The case of married Amhara women of Wadla Woreda, North Wollo Zone, Ethiopia. Doctoral thesis, Antioch University, Yellow Springs, Ohio.
Woldegies, B. D. (2016). Research highlighting options for gender empowerment in Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. South African Review of Sociology, 47(1), 58–80.
Zhu, Z. (2011). After paradigm: Why mixing-methodology theorizing fails and how to make it work again. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(4), 784–798.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Romm, N.R.A. (2018). Practicing Multiple and Mixed Methods Research Responsibly: Some Paradigmatic Considerations. In: Responsible Research Practice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74386-8_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74386-8_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74384-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74386-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)