thesis mixed methods

Dissertation Research—Planning, Researching, Publishing

• Getting Started
• Find Dissertations
• Dissertation Process
• Library Database Searching
• Staying Current
• Qualitative
• Quantitive Research
• Mixed Methods Research
• Dissertation & Fellowship Funding

Mixed methods research is an approach that combines both quantitative and qualitative forms. It involves philosophical assumptions, and the mixing of qualitative and quantitative approaches in tandem so that the overall strength of a study is greater than either qualitative or quantitative methods ( Creswell, 2007 ) .

Video: Mixed Methods Research

Below is a sampling of books on the subject of "mixed methods research" owned by GW and consortium libraries. Click the book image and it will take you to the item in the library catalog, where you can request it.

• << Previous: Quantitive Research
• Next: Analysis >>
• Last Updated: Jan 30, 2024 1:05 PM
• URL: https://libguides.gwu.edu/dissertation

Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Ten steps to producing a successful mixed methods dissertation in Evidence-Based Health Care

9 June 2017

Tips for students

This blog is part of a series for Evidence-Based Health Care MSc students undertaking their dissertations, by Research Assistant Alice Tompson.

I thought Margaret Głogowska would be a great person to chat to about the opportunities and challenges of writing a mixed-methods thesis. Margaret has loads of research experience and co-coordinates the  Mixed Methods  Evidence-Based Health Care module.

Here are her top tips for writing a successful mixed methods dissertation:

1) Start writing as soon as you can

Beginning to write your dissertation can be daunting – a blank screen can be very intimidating! Margaret suggests the methods section can be a good place to start. Writing what you are doing, and how to you are doing it is, often more straightforward than writing why you’re doing it or describing or discussing your results. Plus it’ll help you identify any holes in your research plans.

2) Mixed methods isn’t a game of two halves

Margaret explains that a common mistake is to think of mixed methods studies as having to have two components. In fact, they have three: in addition to the quantitative and qualitative strands, successful dissertations will pull these together to provide insight greater than the sum of the parts. This doesn’t only relate to the results: be sure to include your plans for integration in your methods section too. This article by  Jenny Burt  gives some further advice on “ following the mixed methods trail ”.

3) Think about the structure

When writing up her own work, Margaret reflects on,  “What’s a good way to bring this together to answer my research question? ” You could follow a typical quantitative approach where each component is reported sequentially (i.e. quantitative, qualitative, integration). However, you could adopt a more qualitative approach organising your results by themes, each illustrated with qualitative and quantitative data. Think about which structure will enable you to present the fullest picture of the issue you are investigating.  In this article,  Alicia O’Cathain  and colleagues describe three approaches to integrating mixed methods data.

4) It’s not about the “right answer”

Don’t be disheartened if the results from the different components of your study are not in agreement. Instead of attempting to establish which is more valid, use dissonant findings as an opportunity to return to your datasets to explore the reasons for these differences. This will enrich your understanding and enable a full account to be presented.

5) Embrace the flexibility

Mixed methods studies are a relatively recent development that can take many forms. As a result, there are not currently any reporting standards that students can use to structure their work. Although this can be daunting, Margaret encourages students to use this freedom to work to their advantage. Be creative and flexible to enable you to present a rich, complete account of your work.

6) Be systematic and rigorous

Although mixed methods offer flexibility, this must not be at the expense of rigor or transparency.  When writing up provide enough detail for your examiners/ readers to be able to replicate your methods and analyses. Justify the approaches you took and the decisions you made.  Enable them to follow the story.

7) Read the literature

The field of mixed methods is advancing all the time. Refer to the literature for methodological developments, for example how to display data, and also to see how published studies reported their mixed method projects.

To get you started, here are three helpful papers Margaret uses as teaching examples:

• Van den Bruel et al  (2016) C-reactive protein point-of-care testing in acutely ill children: a mixed methods study in primary care. Archives of Disease in Childhood 10.1136/archdischild-2015-309228
• Moffat et al  (2006) Using quantitative and qualitative data in health services research – what happens when mixed method findings conflict? BMC Health Services Research, 6:28 doi:10.1186/1472-6963-6-28
• Casey et al  (2014) A mixed methods study exploring the factors and behaviours that affect glycemic control following a structured education program: the Irish DAFNE study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 10(2):182-203

She also recommends the work of  Alan Bryman , a pioneer in combining qualitative and quantitative research.

8) Fortune favours the prepared!

Keep your research notebook with you: it will allow you to keep track of ideas, useful references, and helpful conversations. Fortune favours the prepared so always keep your notebook close to hand!

9) Be concise

Word limits are a perennial issue in mixed methods research. Two methods plus integration means there is a lot of information to convey. No word can be superfluous and it may take several drafts to cut out the clutter. Use tables and appendices to  “make the most of your precious word count”.

10) Final steps – publishing your thesis

The value of mixed methods, particularly in applied health research, is increasingly being recognised.  Based on her own experience, Margaret suggests contacting journal editors for advice on how to tailor your manuscript for their particular audience to increase your chances of it being accepted.

  If you are interested in learning more about the Evidence-Based Health Care module: “Mixed- Methods in Health Research” take a look  here .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: A methodological review

Ulrika Östlund.

a Division of Nursing, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

b Institute for Applied Health Research/School of Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, United Kingdom

Yvonne Wengström

c Division of Nursing, Department or Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Neneh Rowa-Dewar

d Public Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

It has been argued that mixed methods research can be useful in nursing and health science because of the complexity of the phenomena studied. However, the integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches continues to be one of much debate and there is a need for a rigorous framework for designing and interpreting mixed methods research. This paper explores the analytical approaches (i.e. parallel, concurrent or sequential) used in mixed methods studies within healthcare and exemplifies the use of triangulation as a methodological metaphor for drawing inferences from qualitative and quantitative findings originating from such analyses.

This review of the literature used systematic principles in searching CINAHL, Medline and PsycINFO for healthcare research studies which employed a mixed methods approach and were published in the English language between January 1999 and September 2009.

In total, 168 studies were included in the results. Most studies originated in the United States of America (USA), the United Kingdom (UK) and Canada. The analytic approach most widely used was parallel data analysis. A number of studies used sequential data analysis; far fewer studies employed concurrent data analysis. Very few of these studies clearly articulated the purpose for using a mixed methods design. The use of the methodological metaphor of triangulation on convergent, complementary, and divergent results from mixed methods studies is exemplified and an example of developing theory from such data is provided.

A trend for conducting parallel data analysis on quantitative and qualitative data in mixed methods healthcare research has been identified in the studies included in this review. Using triangulation as a methodological metaphor can facilitate the integration of qualitative and quantitative findings, help researchers to clarify their theoretical propositions and the basis of their results. This can offer a better understanding of the links between theory and empirical findings, challenge theoretical assumptions and develop new theory.

What is already known about the topic?

• • Mixed methods research, where quantitative and qualitative methods are combined, is increasingly recognized as valuable, because it can potentially capitalize on the respective strengths of quantitative and qualitative approaches.
• • There is a lack of pragmatic guidance in the research literature as how to combine qualitative and quantitative approaches and how to integrate qualitative and quantitative findings.
• • Analytical approaches used in mixed-methods studies differ on the basis of the sequence in which the components occur and the emphasis given to each, e.g. parallel, sequential or concurrent.

What this paper adds

• • A trend for conducting parallel analysis on quantitative and qualitative data in healthcare research is apparent within the literature.
• • Using triangulation as a methodological metaphor can facilitate the integration of qualitative and quantitative findings and help researchers to clearly present both their theoretical propositions and the basis of their results.
• • Using triangulation as a methodological metaphor may also support a better understanding of the links between theory and empirical findings, challenge theoretical assumptions and aid the development of new theory.

1. Introduction

Mixed methods research has been widely used within healthcare research for a variety of reasons. The integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches is an interesting issue and continues to be one of much debate ( Bryman, 2004 , Morgan, 2007 , Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005 ). In particular, the different epistemological and ontological assumptions and paradigms associated with qualitative and quantitative research have had a major influence on discussions on whether the integration of the two is feasible, let alone desirable ( Morgan, 2007 , Sale et al., 2002 ). Proponents of mixed methods research suggest that the purist view, that quantitative and qualitative approaches cannot be merged, poses a threat to the advancement of science ( Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005 ) and that while epistemological and ontological commitments may be associated with certain research methods, the connections are not necessary deterministic ( Bryman, 2004 ). Mixed methods research can be viewed as an approach which draws upon the strengths and perspectives of each method, recognising the existence and importance of the physical, natural world as well as the importance of reality and influence of human experience ( Johnson and Onquegbuzie, 2004 ). Rather than continue these debates in this paper, we aim to explore the approaches used to integrate qualitative and quantitative data within healthcare research to date. Accordingly, this paper focuses on the practical issues of conducting mixed methods studies and the need to develop a rigorous framework for designing and interpreting mixed methods studies to advance the field. In this paper, we will attempt to offer some guidance for those interested in mixed methods research on ways to combine qualitative and quantitative methods.

The concept of mixing methods was first introduced by Jick (1979) , as a means for seeking convergence across qualitative and quantitative methods within social science research ( Creswell, 2003 ). It has been argued that mixed methods research can be particularly useful in healthcare research as only a broader range of perspectives can do justice to the complexity of the phenomena studied ( Clarke and Yaros, 1988 , Foss and Ellefsen, 2002 , Steckler et al., 1992 ). By combining qualitative and quantitative findings, an overall or negotiated account of the findings can be forged, not possible by using a singular approach ( Bryman, 2007 ). Mixed methods can also help to highlight the similarities and differences between particular aspects of a phenomenon ( Bernardi et al., 2007 ). Interest in, and expansion of, the use of mixed methods designs have most recently been fuelled by pragmatic issues: the increasing demand for cost effective research and the move away from theoretically driven research to research which meets policymakers’ and practitioners’ needs and the growing competition for research funding ( Brannen, 2009 , O’Cathain et al., 2007 ).

Tashakkori and Creswell (2007) broadly define mixed methods research as “research in which the investigator collects and analyses data, integrates the findings and draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches” (2007:3). In any mixed methods study, the purpose of mixing qualitative and quantitative methods should be clear in order to determine how the analytic techniques relate to one another and how, if at all, the findings should be integrated ( O’Cathain et al., 2008 , Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie, 2003 ). It has been argued that a characteristic of truly mixed methods studies are those which involve integration of the qualitative and quantitative findings at some stage of the research process, be that during data collection, analysis or at the interpretative stage of the research ( Kroll and Neri, 2009 ). An example of this is found in mixed methods studies which use a concurrent data analysis approach, in which each data set is integrated during the analytic stage to provide a complete picture developed from both data sets after data has been qualitised or quantitised (i.e. where both forms of data have been converted into either qualitative or quantitative data so that it can be easily merged) ( Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie, 2003 ). Other analytic approaches have been identified including; parallel data analysis, in which collection and analysis of both data sets is carried out separately and the findings are not compared or consolidated until the interpretation stage, and finally sequential data analysis, in which data are analysed in a particular sequence with the purpose of informing, rather than being integrated with, the use of, or findings from, the other method ( Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie, 2003 ). An example of sequential data analysis might be where quantitative findings are intended to lead to theoretical sampling in an in depth qualitative investigation or where qualitative data is used to generate items for the development of quantitative measures.

When qualitative and quantitative methods are mixed in a single study, one method is usually given priority over the other. In such cases, the aim of the study, the rationale for employing mixed methods, and the weighting of each method determine whether, and how, the empirical findings will be integrated. This is less challenging in sequential mixed methods studies where one approach clearly informs the other, however, guidance on combining qualitative and quantitative data of equal weight, for example, in concurrent mixed methods studies, is rather less clear ( Foss and Ellefsen, 2002 ). This is made all the more challenging by a common flaw which is to insufficiently and inexplicitly identify the relationships between the epistemological and methodological concepts in a particular study and the theoretical propositions about the nature of the phenomena under investigation ( Kelle, 2001 ).

One approach to combining different data of equal weight and which facilitate clear identification of the links between the different levels of theory, epistemology, and methodology could be to frame triangulation as a ‘methodological metaphor’, as argued by Erzberger and Kelle (2003) . This can help to; describe the logical relations between the qualitative and quantitative findings and the theoretical concepts in a study; demonstrate the way in which both qualitative and quantitative data can be combined to facilitate an improved understanding of particular phenomena; and, can also be used to help generate new theory ( Erzberger and Kelle, 2003 ) (see Fig. 1 ). The points of the triangle represent theoretical propositions and empirical findings from qualitative and quantitative data while the sides of the triangle represent the logical relationships between these propositions and findings. The nature and use of the triangle depends upon the outcome from the analysis, whether that be convergent , where qualitative and quantitative findings lead to the same conclusion; complementary, where qualitative and quantitative results can be used to supplement each other or; divergent , where the combination of qualitative and quantitative results provides different (and at times contradictory) findings. Each of these outcomes requires a different way of using the triangulation metaphor to link theoretical propositions to empirical findings ( Erzberger and Kelle, 2003 ).

Illustrating the triangulation triangle ( Erzberger and Kelle, 2003 )

1.1. Purpose of this paper

In the following paper, we identify the analytical approaches used in mixed methods healthcare research and exemplify the use of triangulation ( Erzberger and Kelle, 2003 ) as a methodological metaphor for drawing inferences from qualitative and quantitative findings. Papers reporting on mixed methods studies within healthcare research were reviewed to (i) determine the type of analysis approach used, i.e. parallel, concurrent, or sequential data analysis and, (ii) identify studies which could be used to illustrate the use of the methodological metaphor of triangulation suggested by Erzberger and Kelle (2003) . Four papers were selected to illustrate the application of the triangulation metaphor on complementary, convergent and divergent outcomes and to develop theory.

This literature review has used systematic principles ( Cochrane, 2009 , Khan, 2001 ) to search for mixed methods studies within healthcare research. The first search was conducted in September 2009 in the data bases CINAHL, Medline and PsycINFO on papers published in English language between 1999 and 2009. To identify mixed methods studies, the search terms (used as keywords and where possible as MeSH terms) were: “mixed methods”, “mixed research methods”, “mixed research”, “triangulation”, “complementary methods”, “concurrent mixed analysis” and “multi-strategy research.” These terms were searched individually and then combined (with OR). This resulted in 1896 hits in CINAHL, 1177 in Medline and 1943 in PsycINFO.

To focus on studies within, or relevant to, a healthcare context the following search terms were used (as keywords or as MeSH terms and combined with OR): “health care research”; “health services research”; and “health”. These limits applied to the initial search (terms combined with AND) resulted in 205 hits in Medline and 100 hits in PsycINFO. Since this combination in CINAHL only limited the search results to 1017; a similar search was conducted but without using the search term triangulation to capture mixed methods papers; resulting in 237 hits. In CINAHL the search result on 1017 papers was further limited by using “interventions” as a keyword resulting in 160 papers also selected to be reviewed. Moreover; in Medline the mixed methods data set was limited by the MeSH term “research” resulting in 218 hits and in PsycINFO with “intervention” as keyword or MeSH term resulting in 178 hits.

When duplicates were removed the total numbers of papers identified were 843. The abstracts were then reviewed by each author and those identified as relevant to the review were selected to be retrieved and reviewed in full text. Papers were selected based on the following inclusion criteria: empirical studies; published in peer review journals; healthcare research (for the purpose of this paper defined as any study focussing on participants in receipt, or involved in the delivery, of healthcare or a study conducted within a healthcare setting, e.g. different kinds of care, health economics, decision making, and professionals’ role development); and using mixed methods (defined as a study in which both qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analysed ( Halcomb et al., 2009b ). To maintain rigour, a random sample (10%) of the full text papers was reviewed jointly by two authors. Any disagreements or uncertainties that arose between the reviewers regarding their inclusion or in determining the type of analytic approach used were resolved through discussion between the authors.

In addition to the criteria outlined above, papers were excluded if the qualitative element constituted a few open-ended questions in a questionnaire, as we would agree with previous authors who have argued such studies do not strictly constitute a mixed methods design ( Kroll and Neri, 2009 ). Papers were also excluded if they could not be retrieved in full text via the library services at the University of Edinburgh, Glasgow Caledonian University or the Karolinska Institutet, or did not adequately or clearly describe their analytic strategy, for example, failing to report how the qualitative and quantitative data sets were analysed individually and, where relevant, how these were integrated. See Table 1 for reasons for the exclusion of subsequent papers.

Reasons for exclusion.

A second search was conducted within the databases of Medline, PsychInfo and Cinahl to identify studies which have specifically used Erzberger and Kelle's (2003) triangulation metaphor to frame the description and interpretation of their findings. The term ‘triangulation metaphor’ (as keywords) and author searches on ‘Christian Erzberger’ and ‘Udo Kelle’ were conducted. Three papers, published by Christian Erzberger and Udo Kelle, were identified in the PsychInfo databases but none of these were relevant to the purpose of this review. There were no other relevant papers identified in the other two databases.

168 Papers were included in the final review and reviewed to determine the type of mixed analysis approach used, i.e. parallel, concurrent, or sequential mixed analysis. Four of these papers (identified from the first search on mixed methods studies and healthcare research) were also used to exemplify the use of the methodological metaphor of triangulation ( Erzberger and Kelle, 2003 ). Data was extracted from included papers accordingly in relation to these purposes.

In total, 168 papers were included in our review. The majority of these studies originated in the USA ( n  = 63), the UK ( n  = 39) and Canada ( n  = 19), perhaps reflecting the considerable interest and expertise in mixed methods research within these countries. The focus of the studies included in the review varied significantly and the populations studied included both patients and healthcare professionals.

3.1. Analytic approaches

Table 2 illustrates the types of analytic approaches adopted in each of the studies included in the review. The most widely used analytic approach ( n  = 98) was parallel analysis ( Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007 ). However, very few of the studies employing parallel analysis clearly articulate their purpose for mixing qualitative and quantitative data, the weighting (or priority) given to the qualitative and quantitative data or the expected outcomes from doing so, mirroring previous research findings ( O’Cathain et al., 2008 ). The weighting, or priority, of the qualitative and quantitative data in a mixed methods study is dependent upon various factors including; the aims of the study and whether the purpose is, for example, to contextualise quantitative data using qualitative data or to use qualitative data to inform a larger quantitative approach such as a survey. Nonetheless, the omission of this statement makes it difficult to determine which data set the conclusions have been drawn from and the role of, or emphasis on, each approach. Therefore, is of importance for authors to clearly state this in their papers ( Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007 ). A number of studies had also used sequential data analysis ( n  = 46), where qualitative approaches were visibly used to inform the development of both clinical tools (e.g. Canales and Rakowski, 2006 ) and research measures and surveys (e.g. Beatty et al., 2004 ) or where quantitative surveys were supplemented by and issues further explored using qualitative approaches (e.g. Abadia and Oviedo, 2009 , Cheng, 2004 , Halcomb et al., 2008 ).

Included papers illustrating their analytical approach and country of origin.

Most notably, with only 20 included studies using a concurrent approach to data analysis, this was the least common design employed. Compared to the studies using a parallel or sequential approach, the authors of concurrent studies more commonly provided an explanation for their purpose of using a mixed methods design in their study, e.g. how it addressed a gap or would facilitate and advance the state of knowledge (e.g. Bussing et al., 2005 , Kartalova-O’Doherty and Tedstone Doherty, 2009 ). Despite this, there remained a lack of clarity within these studies about the weighting given to, and priority of, each method. Consequently, the importance and relevance of the findings produced by each approach and how these have informed their conclusions and interpretation is lacking. In four of the included papers a combination of approaches to data analysis (i.e. sequential and concurrent, parallel and concurrent, or sequential and parallel) were used. In the next section, we have selected papers to illustrate the methodological metaphor of triangulation ( Erzberger and Kelle, 2003 ).

3.2. Using the methodological metaphor of triangulation

We have selected four papers from our review ( Lukkarinen, 2005 , Midtgaard et al., 2006 , Shipman et al., 2008 , Skilbeck et al., 2005 ) to illustrate how the methodological metaphor of triangulation ( Erzberger and Kelle, 2003 ) can be applied to mixed methods studies. Each of these studies has been used to illustrate how the metaphor of triangulation can be applied to studies producing: (i) complementary findings, (ii) convergent findings, and (iii) divergent findings. In the following section, we demonstrate how the application of the metaphor can be used as a framework both to develop theory and to facilitate the interpretation of the findings from mixed methods studies and their conclusions in each of these scenarios, and how using the metaphor can help to promote greater clarity of the study's purpose, its theoretical propositions, and the links between data sets.

3.2.1. Triangulating complementary results

To exemplify the use of the methodological metaphor of triangulation ( Erzberger and Kelle, 2003 ) for drawing inferences from complementary results, we have drawn on the results of a UK based study by Shipman et al. (2008) ( Fig. 2 ). In the UK, members of district nursing teams (DNs) provide most nursing care to people at home in the last year of life. Following concerns that inadequate education might limit the confidence of some DNs to support patients and their carers’ at home, and that low home death rates may in part be related to this, the Department of Health (DH) identified good examples of palliative care educational initiatives for DNs and invested in a 3-year national education and support programme in the principles and practice of palliative care. Shipman et al.’s study evaluates whether the programme had measurable effects on DN knowledge and confidence in competency in the principles and practice of palliative care. The study had two parts, a summative (concerned with outcomes) quantitative component which included ‘before and after’ postal questionnaires which measured effects on DNs’ ( n  = 1280) knowledge, confidence and perceived competence in the principles and practice of palliative care and a formative (concerned with process) qualitative component which included semi-structured focus groups and interviews with a sub-sample of DNs ( n  = 39).

Illustrating the use of triangulation ( Erzberger and Kelle, 2003 ) on complementary results in the study by Shipman et al. (2008) .

While their theoretical proposition may not be explicitly stated by the authors, there is clearly an implicit theoretical proposition that the educational intervention would improve DNs knowledge and confidence (theoretical proposition 1, Fig. 2 ). This was supported by the quantitative findings which showed significant improvement in the district nurses confidence in their professional competence post intervention. Qualitative results supported and complemented the quantitative findings as the district nurses described several benefits from the program including greater confidence in tackling complex problems and better communication with patient and carers’ because of greater understanding of the reasons for symptoms. Thus, a complementary theoretical proposition (theoretical proposition 2, Fig. 2 ) can be deduced from the qualitative findings: the DN's better understanding of factors contributing to complex problems and underlying reasons for symptoms led to improved confidence in competence raised from district nurses increased understanding.

Fig. 2 illustrates the theoretical propositions, the empirical findings from qualitative and quantitative data and the logical relationships between these. Theoretical proposition 1 is supported by the quantitative findings. From qualitative findings, a complementary theoretical proposition (theoretical proposition 2) can be stated explaining the process that led to the DNs improved confidence in competence.

3.2.2. Triangulating convergent results

To illustrate how the methodological metaphor of triangulation can be used to draw inferences from convergent findings, we have drawn on the example of a Danish study by Midtgaard et al. (2006) ( Fig. 3 ). This study was conducted to explore experiences of group cohesion and changes in quality of life (QoL) among people ( n  = 55) who participated in a weekly physical exercise intervention (for six weeks) during treatment for cancer. The study, conducted in a Danish hospital, involved the use of structured QoL questionnaires, administered at baseline and post intervention (at six weeks) to determine changes in QoL and health status, and qualitative focus groups, conducted post intervention (at six weeks), to explore aspects of cohesion within the group. With regards to the theoretical proposition of the study ( Fig. 3 ), group cohesion was seen as essential to understand the processes within the group that facilitated the achievement of desired outcomes and the satisfaction of affective needs as well as promoting a sense of belonging to the group itself.

Illustrating the use of triangulation ( Erzberger and Kelle, 2003 ) on convergent results in the study by Midtgaard et al. (2006) .

This proposition was deductively tested in an intervention where patients exercised in mixed gender groups of seven to nine members during a nine hour weekly session over a six week period and was supported by both the empirical quantitative and qualitative findings. The quantitative data showed significant improvements in peoples’ emotional functioning, social functioning and mental health. The qualitative data showed how the group setting motivated the individuals to pursue personal endeavors beyond physical limitations, that patients used each others as role models during ‘down periods’ and how exercising in a group made individuals feel a sense of obligation to train and to do their best. This subsequently helped to improve their social functioning which in turn satisfied their affective needs, improving their improved emotional functioning and mental health.

Fig. 3 illustrates the theoretical propositions, empirical findings from qualitative and quantitative data and the logical relationships between these. Both the quantitative and qualitative findings, demonstrating improvements in participants’ emotional and social functioning and their mental health, can be attributed to the nature of group cohesion within the programme as expected.

3.2.3. Triangulating divergent results

Qualitative and quantitative results that seem to contradict each other are often explained as resulting from methodological error. However, instead of a methodological flaw, a divergent result could be a consequence of the inadequacy of the theoretical concepts used. This may indicate the need for changing or developing the theoretical concepts involved ( Erzberger and Kelle, 2003 ). The following example of using the methodological metaphor of triangulation ( Erzberger and Kelle, 2003 ) for drawing inferences from divergent results is intended as an example rather than an attempt to change the theoretical concept involved. In a study by Skilbeck et al. (2005) ( Fig. 4 ), some results were found to be divergent which was explained as resulting from the use of inadequate questionnaires. We do not wish to critique their conclusion; rather we intend to simply offer an alternative interpretation for their findings.

Illustrating the use of triangulation ( Erzberger and Kelle, 2003 ) on divergent results using the study by Skilbeck et al. (2005) .

The study aimed to explore family carers’ expectations and experiences of respite services provided by one independent hospice in North England. This hospice provides inpatient respite beds specifically for planned respite admission for a two-week period. Referrals were predominated from general practitioners and patients and their carers were offered respite care twice a year, during the study this was reduced to once a year for each patient. Data was collected prior to respite admission and post respite care by semi-structured interviews and using the Relative Stress Scale inventory (RSSI), a validated scale to measure relative distress in relation to caring. Twenty-five carers were included but pre- and post-data were completed by 12 carers. Qualitative data was analysed by using a process of constant comparison and quantitative data by descriptive and comparative statistical analysis.

No clear theoretical proposition was stated by the authors, but from the definition of respite care it is possible to deduce that ‘respite care is expected to provide relief from care-giving to the primary care provider’ (theoretical proposition 1, Fig. 4 ). This proposition was tested quantitatively by pre- and post-test using the RSSI showing that the majority of carers experienced either a negative or no change in scores following the respite stay (no test of significance was stated). Accordingly, the theoretical proposition was not supported by the quantitative empirical data. The qualitative empirical results, however, were supportive in showing that most of the carers considered respite care to be important as it enabled them to have a break and a rest from ongoing care-responsibilities. From this divergent empirical data it could be suggested changing or developing the original theoretical proposition. It seems that respite care gave the carers relief from their care-responsibilities but not from the distress carers experienced in relation to caring (measured by the used scale). We would therefore suggest that in order to lessen distress related to caring, other types of support is also needed which would change the theoretical proposition as suggested (theoretical proposition 2).

Fig. 4 illustrates the theoretical propositions, empirical findings from qualitative and quantitative data and the logical relationships between these. Theoretical proposition 1 was not supported by the quantitative findings (indicated in Fig. 4 by the broken arrow), but the qualitative findings supported this proposition. From these divergent empirical findings, the theoretical proposition could accordingly be changed and developed. Respite care seemed to provide relief from carers’ on-going care-responsibilities, but other types of support need to be added to provide relief from distress experienced (theoretical proposition 2).

3.2.4. Triangulation to produce theoretical propositions

Methodological triangulation has also been applied to illustrate how theoretical propositions can be produced by drawing on the findings from a Finnish study by Lukkarinen (2005) ( Fig. 5 ). The purpose of this longitudinal study was to describe, explain and understand the subjective health related quality of life (QoL) and life course of people with coronary artery disease (CAD). A longitudinal quantitative study was undertaken during the year post treatment and 19 individuals also attended thematic interviews one year after treatment. This study is one of the few studies that clearly defines theoretical underpinnings for both the selected methods and their purpose, namely “to obtain quantitatively abundant average information about the QoL of CAD patients and the changes in it as well as the patients’ individual, unique experiences of their respective life situations” ( Lukkarinen, 2005 :622).

Illustrating the use of triangulation ( Erzberger and Kelle, 2003 ) to develop theory from the study by Lukkarinen (2005) .

The results of the quantitative analysis showed that the male and female CAD patients in the youngest age group had the poorest QoL. While patients’ QoL improved in the dimensions of pain, energy and mobility it deteriorated on dimensions of social isolation, sleep and emotional reactions. From the viewpoint of methodological triangulation used in the study the aim of the quantitative approach was to observe changes in QoL at the group level and also explore correlations of background factors to QoL. The qualitative approach generated information concerning both QoL in the individuals’ life situation and life course and the individuals’ rehabilitation. Both the quantitative and the qualitative analysis showed the youngest CAD patients to have the poorest psychosocial QoL. The results obtained using qualitative methods explained the quantitative findings and offered new insight into the factors related to poor psychosocial QoL, which could be used to help develop theoretical propositions around these. Patients at risk of poorer QoL were those with an acute onset of illness at a young age that led to an unexpected termination of career, resulting in financial problems, and worries about family. This group also experienced lack of emotional support (especially the females with CAD) and were concerned for the illness that was not alleviated by treatment. The interviews and the method of phenomenological psychology therefore helped to gain insight into the participants’ situational experience of QoL and life course, not detectable by the use of a questionnaire.

Fig. 5 illustrates the theoretical propositions, empirical findings from qualitative and quantitative data and the relationships between these. The use of the mixed methods approach enabled a clearer understanding to emerge in relation to the lived experience of CAD patients and the factors that were related to poor QoL. This understanding allows new theoretical propositions about these issues to be developed and further explored, as depicted at the theoretical level.

4. Discussion

As the need for, and use of, mixed methods research continues to grow, the issue of quality within mixed methods studies is becoming increasingly important ( O’Cathain et al., 2008 , O’Cathain et al., 2007 ). Similarly, the need for guidance on the analysis and integration of qualitative and quantitative data is a prominant issue ( Bazeley, 2009 ). This paper firstly intended to review the types of analytic approaches (parallel, concurrent or sequential data analysis) that have been used in mixed methods studies within healthcare research. As identified in previous research ( O’Cathain et al., 2008 ), we found that the majority of studies included in our review employed parallel data analysis in which the different analyses are not compared or consolidated until the full analysis of both data sets have been completed. A trend to conduct separate analysis on quantitative and qualitative data is apparent in mixed methods healthcare studies, despite the fact that if the data were correlated, a more complete picture of a particular phenomenon may be produced ( Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie, 2003 ). If qualitative and quantitative data are not integrated during data collection or analysis, the findings may be integrated at the stage of interpretation and conclusion.

Although little pragmatic guidance exists within the wider literature, Erzberger and Kelle (2003) have published some practical advice, on the integration of mixed methods findings. For mixed methodologists, the ‘triangulation metaphor’ offers a framework to facilitate a description of the relationships between data sets and theoretical concepts and can also assist in the integration of qualitative and quantitative data ( Erzberger and Kelle, 2003 ). Yet despite the fact that the framework was published in 2003 within Tashakkori and Teddlie's (2003) seminal work, the Handbook for Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioural Research, our search revealed that it has received little application within the published body of work around mixed methods studies since its publication. This is surprising since mixed methodologists are acutely aware of the lack of guidance with regards to the pragmatics and practicalities of conducting mixed methods research ( Bryman, 2006 , Leech et al., 2010 ). Furthermore, there have been frequent calls to move the field of mixed methods away from the “should we or shouldn’t we” debate towards the practical application, analysis and integration of mixed methods and its’ findings and what we can learn from each other's work and advice. Consequently, we have a state of ambiguity and instability in the field of mixed methods in which mixed methodologists find themselves lacking appropriate sources or evidence to draw upon with which to facilitate the future design, conduct and interpretation of mixed methods studies. It is for these reasons that we, in this paper, also intended to identify and select studies that could be used as examples for the application of Erzberger and Kelle's (2003) triangulation metaphor.

When reviewing the studies it was clear that the majority of theoretical assumptions were implicit, rather than explicitly stated by authors. Wu and Volker (2009) previously acknowledged that while studies undoubtedly have a theoretical basis in their literature reviews and the nature of their research questions, they often fail to clearly articulate a particular theoretical framework. This is unfortunate as theory can help researchers to clarify their ideas and also help data collection, analysis and to improve the study's rigour ( Wu and Volker, 2009 ). When using triangulation as a methodological metaphor ( Erzberger and Kelle, 2003 ), researchers are encouraged to articulate their theoretical propositions and to validate their conclusions in relation to the chosen theories. Theory can also guide researchers when defining outcome measures . Should the findings not support the chosen theory, as shown in our examples on complementary and divergent results, researchers can modify or expand their theory accordingly and new theory may be developed ( Wu and Volker, 2009 ). It is therefore our belief that using triangulation as a methodological metaphor in mixed methods research can also benefit the design of mixed method studies.

Like other researchers ( O’Cathain et al., 2008 ), we have also found that most of the papers reviewed lacked clarity in whether the reported results primarily stemmed from qualitative or quantitative findings. Many of the papers were even less clear when discussing their results and the basis of their conclusions. The reporting of mixed methods studies is notoriously challenging, but clarity and transparency are, at the very least, crucial in such reports ( O’Cathain, 2009 ). Using triangulation as a methodological metaphor ( Erzberger and Kelle, 2003 ) may be one way of addressing this lack of clarity by explicitly showing the types of data that researchers have based their interpretations on. It may even help address some of the issues raised in the debate on the feasibility of integrating research methods and results stemming from different epistemological and ontological assumptions and paradigms ( Morgan, 2007 , Sale et al., 2002 ). In order to carry out methodological triangulation researchers also need to identify and observe the consistency and adequacy of the two methods, positivistic and phenomenological regarding the research questions, data collection, methods of analysis and conclusions.

While we used systematic principles in our search for mixed methods studies in healthcare research, we cannot claim to have included all such studies. In many cases, reports of mixed methods studies are subjected to ‘salami slicing’ by researchers and hence the conduct of, and findings from, individual approaches are addressed in separate papers. Since these papers are often not indexed as a ‘mixed method’ study, they are undoubtedly more difficult to identify. Furthermore, different terminologies are used to describe and index mixed methods studies within the electronic databases ( Halcomb and Andrew, 2009a ), making it challenging to be certain that all relevant studies were captured in this review. However, the studies included in this review should give a sufficient overview of the use of mixed analysis in healthcare research and most importantly, they enable us to make suggestions for the future design, conduct, interpretation and reporting of mixed methods studies. It is also important to emphasise that we have based our triangulation examples on the data published but have no further knowledge of the analysis and findings undertaken by the authors. The examples should thus be taken as examples and not alternative explanations or interpretations.

Mixed methods research within healthcare remains an emerging field and its use is subject to much debate. It is therefore particularly important that researchers clearly describe their use of the approach and the conclusions made to improve transparency and quality within mixed methods research. The use of triangulation as a methodological metaphor ( Erzberger and Kelle, 2003 ) can help researchers not only to present their theoretical propositions but also the origin of their results in an explicit way and to understand the links between theory, epistemology and methodology in relation to their topic area. Furthermore it has the potential to make valid inferences, challenge existing theoretical assumptions and to develop or create new ones.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Ethical approval

Not required.

• Abadia C.E., Oviedo D.G. Bureaucratic itineraries in Colombia. A theoretical and methodological tool to assess managed-care health care systems. Social Science & Medicine. 2009; 68 (6):1153–1160. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bazeley P. Analysing mixed methods data. In: Andrew S., Halcomb E.J., editors. Mixed Methods Research for Nursing and the Health Sciences. Wiley-Blackwell; Chichester: 2009. pp. 84–118. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beatty P.W., Neri M.T., Bell K., DeJong G. Use of outcomes information in acute inpatient rehabilitation. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. 2004; 83 (6):468–478. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernardi L., Kleim S., von der Lippe H. Social influences on fertility: a comparative mixed methods study in Eastern and Western Germany. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2007; 1 (1):23–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brannen J. Prologue: mixed methods for novice researchers: reflections and themes. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches. 2009; 3 (1):8–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryman A. University Press; Oxford: 2004. Social Research Methods. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryman A. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qualitative Research. 2006; 6 (1):97–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryman A. Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2007; 1 (1):8–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bussing R., Koro-Ljungberg M.E., Gary F., Mason D.M., Garvan C.W. Exploring help-seeking for ADHD symptoms: a mixed-methods approach. Harvard Review of Psychiatry. 2005; 13 (2):85–101. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Canales M.K., Rakowski W. Development of a culturally specific instrument for mammography screening: an example with American Indian women in Vermont. Journal of Nursing Measurement. 2006; 14 (2):99–115. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheng G.Y. A study of clinical questions posed by hospital clinicians. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 2004; 92 (4):445–458. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clarke P.N., Yaros P.S. Research blenders: commentary and response. Transitions to new methodologies in nursing sciences. Nursing Science Quarterly. 1988; 1 (4):147–151. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cochrane, 2009. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/ . The Cochrane Collaboration.
• Creswell J.W. Sage; Thousand Oaks: 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell J.W., Plano Clark V.L. Sage; Thousand Oaks: 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. [ Google Scholar ]
• Erzberger C., Kelle U. Making inferences in mixed methods: The rules of integration. In: Tashakkori A., Teddlie C., editors. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioural Research. Sage; Thousand Oaks: 2003. pp. 457–488. [ Google Scholar ]
• Foss C., Ellefsen B. The value of combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in nursing research by means of method triangulation. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2002; 40 (2):242–248. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halcomb E.J., Andrew A. Managing mixed methods projects. In: Andrew S., Halcomb E.J., editors. Mixed Methods Research for Nursing and the Health Sciences. Wiley-Blackwell; Chichester: 2009. pp. 50–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halcomb E.J., Andrew A., Brannen J. Introduction to mixed methods research for nursing and the health sciences. In: Andrew S., Halcomb E.J., editors. Mixed Methods Research for Nursing and the Health Sciences. Wiley-Blackwell; Chichester: 2009. pp. 3–12. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halcomb E.J., Davidson P.M., Griffiths R., Daly J. Cardiovascular disease management: time to advance the practice nurse role? Australian Health Review. 2008; 32 (1):44–53. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jick T.D. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1979; 24 :602–611. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson R.B., Onquegbuzie A.J. Mixed methods research: a paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher. 2004; 33 (7):14–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kartalova-O’Doherty Y., Tedstone Doherty D. Satisfied carers of persons with enduring mental illness: who and why? The International Journal of Social Psychiatry. 2009; 55 (3):257–271. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelle U. Sociological explanations between micro and macro and the integration of qualitative and quantitative methods. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2001; 2 (1):5. Art. [ Google Scholar ]
• Khan K.S. Centre for Review and Dissemination; York: 2001. Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness: CRD's Guidance for those Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kroll T., Neri M. Designs for mixed methods research. In: Andrew S., Halcomb E.J., editors. Mixed Methods Research for Nursing and the Health Sciences. Wiley-Blackwell; Chichester: 2009. pp. 31–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leech N.L., Dellinger A.M., Brannagan K.B., Tanaka H. Evaluating mixed research studies: a mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2010; 4 (1):17–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lukkarinen H. Methodological triangulation showed the poorest quality of life in the youngest people following treatment of coronary artery disease: a longitudinal study. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2005; 42 (6):619–627. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Midtgaard J., Rorth M., Stelter R., Adamsen L. The group matters: an explorative study of group cohesion and quality of life in cancer patients participating in physical exercise intervention during treatment. European Journal of Cancer Care. 2006; 15 (1):25–33. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgan D.L. Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2007; 1 (1):48–76. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Cathain A. Reporting mixed methods projects. In: Andrew S., Halcomb E.J., editors. Mixed Methods Research for Nursing and the Health Sciences. Wiley-Blackwell; Chichester: 2009. pp. 135–158. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Cathain A., Murphy E., Nicholl J. Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research in England: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Services Research. 2007; 7 :85. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Cathain A., Murphy E., Nicholl J. The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2008; 13 (2):92–98. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Onwuegbuzie A., Teddlie C. A framework for analysing data in mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori A., Teddlie C., editors. Handbook of Mixed Methods in socIal & Behavioural Research. Sage; Thousands Oak: 2003. pp. 351–383. [ Google Scholar ]
• Onwuegbuzie A.J., Leech N.L. On becoming a pragmatic researcher: the importance of combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005; 8 (5):375–387. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sale J.E.M., Lohfeld L.H., Brazil K. Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: implications for mixed methods research. Quality and Quantity. 2002; 36 :43–53. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shipman C., Burt J., Ream E., Beynon T., Richardson A., Addington-Hall J. Improving district nurses’ confidence and knowledge in the principles and practice of palliative care. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2008; 63 (5):494–505. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Skilbeck J.K., Payne S.A., Ingleton M.C., Nolan M., Carey I., Hanson A. An exploration of family carers’ experience of respite services in one specialist palliative care unit. Palliative Medicine. 2005; 19 (8):610–618. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steckler A., McLeroy K.R., Goodman R.M., Bird S.T., McCormick L. Toward integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: an introduction. Health Education Quarterly. 1992; 19 (1):1–8. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tashakkori A., Creswell J.W. Editorial: the new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2007; 1 (1):3–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tashakkori A., Teddlie C. Sage; Thousands Oak: 2003. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioural Research. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu H.L., Volker D.L. The use of theory in qualitative approaches to research: application in end-of-life studies. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2009; 65 (12):2719–2732. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Skip to main content
• Accessibility information

• Enlighten Enlighten

Enlighten Theses

• Latest Additions
• Browse by Year
• Browse by Subject
• Browse by College/School
• Browse by Author
• Browse by Funder
• Login (Library staff only)

In this section

A mixed methods study exploring the barriers and facilitators of screening for autism spectrum disorder in Oman

Al Maskari, Turkiya Saleh (2018) A mixed methods study exploring the barriers and facilitators of screening for autism spectrum disorder in Oman. PhD thesis, University of Glasgow.

Background: Within the routine practice, specific screening for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has been recommended, in order to facilitate early intervention and improve outcomes. Despite the substantial advantages of this process, it has also presented a variety of challenges, across clinical settings, which have not yet been explored sufficiently. There is little information available to support the introduction of ASD screening in Oman. Research is required to identify the potential facilitators of and barriers to ASD screening in Oman, prior to the implementation of a screening programme, to ensure its successful introduction.

Method: An exploratory mixed-methods design was adopted, in two sequential phases. Phase 1 involved two focus group discussions, with seven nurses and six GPs, from primary health care (PHC) settings in Oman. The participants were recruited using a purposive and snowballing technique. The discussions were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Framework Analysis was used to identify recurrent themes within and across groups. Data from the focus groups was then used to inform the development of a questionnaire, which was piloted on a sub-sample of volunteers from both groups. Phase two (quantitative phase) comprised of sending the final draft of the questionnaire to a random sample of primary health care providers (PHPs) (n=571) across Oman. The returned data was analysed statistically with the software program SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 22.0). The Social Ecological Model (SEM) was then applied to interpret the final data from both phases and to draw conclusions.

Results: Qualitative data analysis revealed five themes, which voiced the major challenges facing ASD screening in Oman, as well as highlighting a few facilitators. The findings revealed that both nurses and GPs believed that introducing screening for ASD would be a positive step. However, they felt overwhelmed by their responsibilities and believed that their workplaces lacked the necessary infrastructure. Practitioners’ awareness of ASD services was identified as poor, as were the essential skills required for undertaking screening. Additionally, limited public awareness of ASD and a strong interest in traditional medicine, as well as the social stigma attributed to ASD, were thought to create barriers to screening. The groups also discussed their preference for a clear, simple, paper-based questionnaire, supported with guidance and researcher availability to reward their willingness to participate. The findings from the focus group informed the development of a 38-item questionnaire to explore the potential barriers to and facilitators of the introduction of ASD screening in Oman. The questionnaire was short so that it could be completed within 15 minutes.

Five hundred and seventy-one questionnaires were sent to a random sample of PHP providers across Oman. Of those, five hundred and sixteen questionnaires were returned, in phase 2 (response rate 90.37%). The quantitative results of this phase were congruent with the qualitative findings, in that they suggested a deficit in the knowledge of professionals, among both older respondents and nurse respondents. In addition, a lack of resources, time constraints, workload issues and staff shortages were highlighted. The respondents also emphasised the ambiguity surrounding their role and the lack of guidance on protocols to identify or refer suspected cases. This was compounded by a lack of public awareness and knowledge of ASD identification and its potential causes, as well as the attributed social stigma.

Conclusions: The root challenges and potential facilitators for screening for ASD were examined, through the SEM. Challenges were addressed and resolved across three levels (intrapersonal, organisational, and community). At the intrapersonal level, more training and knowledge regarding ASD is required. Organisations need to implement a clear protocol, to guide the process, with greater coordination and collaboration among services. A country-wide awareness campaign, targeting social issues, may reduce the stigma and improve the uptake of screening.

Actions (login required)

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics

The University of Glasgow is a registered Scottish charity: Registration Number SC004401

• Cookies & Privacy
• GETTING STARTED
• Introduction
• FUNDAMENTALS

Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods dissertations

What are they and which one should i choose.

In the sections that follow, we briefly describe the main characteristics of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods dissertations. Rather than being exhaustive, the main goal is to highlight what these types of research are and what they involve. Whilst you read through each section, try and think about your own dissertation, and whether you think that one of these types of dissertation might be right for you. After reading about these three types of dissertation, we highlight some of the academic, personal and practical reasons why you may choose to take on one type over another.

• Types of dissertation: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods dissertations
• Choosing between types: Academic, personal and practical justifications

Types of dissertation

Whilst we describe the main characteristics of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods dissertations, the Lærd Dissertation site currently focuses on helping guide you through quantitative dissertations , whether you are a student of the social sciences, psychology, education or business, or are studying medical or biological sciences, sports science, or another science-based degree. Nonetheless, you may still find our introductions to qualitative dissertations and mixed methods dissertations useful, if only to decide whether these types of dissertation are for you. We discuss quantitative dissertations , qualitative dissertations and mixed methods dissertations in turn:

Quantitative dissertations

When we use the word quantitative to describe quantitative dissertations , we do not simply mean that the dissertation will draw on quantitative research methods or statistical analysis techniques . Quantitative research takes a particular approach to theory , answering research questions and/or hypotheses , setting up a research strategy , making conclusions from results , and so forth. Classic routes that you can follow include replication-based studies , theory-driven research and data-driven dissertations . However, irrespective of the particular route that you adopt when taking on a quantitative dissertation, there are a number of core characteristics to quantitative dissertations:

They typically attempt to build on and/or test theories , whether adopting an original approach or an approach based on some kind of replication or extension .

They answer quantitative research questions and/or research (or null ) hypotheses .

They are mainly underpinned by positivist or post-positivist research paradigms .

They draw on one of four broad quantitative research designs (i.e., descriptive , experimental , quasi-experimental or relationship-based research designs).

They try to use probability sampling techniques , with the goal of making generalisations from the sample being studied to a wider population , although often end up applying non-probability sampling techniques .

They use research methods that generate quantitative data (e.g., data sets , laboratory-based methods , questionnaires/surveys , structured interviews , structured observation , etc.).

They draw heavily on statistical analysis techniques to examine the data collected, whether descriptive or inferential in nature.

They assess the quality of their findings in terms of their reliability , internal and external validity , and construct validity .

They report their findings using statements , data , tables and graphs that address each research question and/or hypothesis.

They make conclusions in line with the findings , research questions and/or hypotheses , and theories discussed in order to test and/or expand on existing theories, or providing insight for future theories.

If you choose to take on a quantitative dissertation , go to the Quantitative Dissertations part of Lærd Dissertation now. You will learn more about the characteristics of quantitative dissertations, as well as being able to choose between the three classic routes that are pursued in quantitative research: replication-based studies , theory-driven research and data-driven dissertations . Upon choosing your route, the Quantitative Dissertations part of Lærd Dissertation will help guide you through these routes, from topic idea to completed dissertation, as well as showing you how to write up quantitative dissertations.

Qualitative dissertations

Qualitative dissertations , like qualitative research in general, are often associated with qualitative research methods such as unstructured interviews, focus groups and participant observation. Whilst they do use a set of research methods that are not used in quantitative dissertations, qualitative research is much more than a choice between research methods. Qualitative research takes a particular approach towards the research process , the setting of research questions , the development and use of theory , the choice of research strategy , the way that findings are presented and discussed, and so forth. Overall, qualitative dissertations will be very different in approach, depending on the particular route that you adopt (e.g., case study research compared to ethnographies). Classic routes that you can follow include autoethnographies , case study research , ethnographies , grounded theory , narrative research and phenomenological research . However, irrespective of the route that you choose to follow, there are a number of broad characteristics to qualitative dissertations:

They follow an emergent design , meaning that the research process , and sometimes even the qualitative research questions that you tackle, often evolve during the dissertation process.

They use theory in a variety of ways - sometimes drawing on theory to help the research process; on other occasions, using theory to develop new theoretical insights ; sometimes both - but the goal is infrequently to test a particular theory from the outset.

They can be underpinned by one of a number of research paradigms (e.g., interpretivism , constructivism , critical theory , amongst many other research paradigms).

They follow research designs that heavily influence the choices you make throughout the research process, as well as the analysis and discussion of 'findings' (i.e., such research designs differ considerably depending on the route that is being followed, whether an autoethnography , case study research , ethnography , grounded theory , narrative research , phenomenological research , etc.).

They try to use theoretical sampling - a group of non-probability sampling techniques - with the goal of studying cases (i.e., people or organisations) that are most appropriate to answering their research questions.

They study people in-the-field (i.e., in natural settings ), often using multiple research methods , each of which generate qualitative data (e.g., unstructured interviews , focus groups , participant observation , etc.).

They interpret the qualitative data through the eyes and biases of the researcher , going back-and-forth through the data (i.e., an inductive process ) to identify themes or abstractions that build a holistic/gestalt picture of what is being studied.

They assess the quality of their findings in terms of their dependability , confirmability , conformability and transferability .

They present (and discuss ) their findings through personal accounts , case studies , narratives , and other means that identify themes or abstracts , processes , observations and contradictions , which help to address their research questions.

They discuss the theoretical insights arising from the findings in light of the research questions, from which tentative conclusions are made.

If you choose to take on a qualitative dissertation , you will be able to learn a little about appropriate research methods and sampling techniques in the Fundamentals section of Lærd Dissertation. However, we have not yet launched a dedicated section to qualitative dissertations within Lærd Dissertation. If this is something that you would like us to do sooner than later, please leave feedback .

Mixed methods dissertations

Mixed methods dissertations combine qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. Whilst they are increasingly used and have gained greater legitimacy, much less has been written about their components parts. There are a number of reasons why mixed methods dissertations are used, including the feeling that a research question can be better addressed by:

Collecting qualitative and quantitative data , and then analysing or interpreting that data, whether separately or by mixing it.

Conducting more than one research phase ; perhaps conducting qualitative research to explore an issue and uncover major themes, before using quantitative research to measure the relationships between the themes.

One of the problems (or challenges) of mixed methods dissertations is that qualitative and quantitative research, as you will have seen from the two previous sections, are very different in approach. In many respects, they are opposing approaches to research. Therefore, when taking on a mixed methods dissertation, you need to think particularly carefully about the goals of your research, and whether the qualitative or quantitative components (a) are more important in philosophical, theoretical and practical terms, and (b) should be combined or kept separate.

Again, as with qualitative dissertations, we have yet to launch a dedicated section of Lærd Dissertation to mixed methods dissertations . However, you will be able to learn about many of the quantitative aspects of doing a mixed methods dissertation in the Quantitative Dissertations part of Lærd Dissertation. You may even be able to follow this part of our site entirely if the only qualitative aspect of your mixed methods dissertation is the use of qualitative methods to help you explore an issue or uncover major themes, before performing quantitative research to examine such themes further. Nonetheless, if you would like to see a dedicated section to mixed methods dissertations sooner than later, please leave feedback .

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Mixed Methods Research | Definition, Guide, & Examples

Mixed Methods Research | Definition, Guide, & Examples

Published on 4 April 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on 25 October 2022.

Mixed methods research combines elements of quantitative research and qualitative research in order to answer your research question . Mixed methods can help you gain a more complete picture than a standalone quantitative or qualitative study, as it integrates benefits of both methods.

Mixed methods research is often used in the behavioral, health, and social sciences, especially in multidisciplinary settings and complex situational or societal research.

• To what extent does the frequency of traffic accidents ( quantitative ) reflect cyclist perceptions of road safety ( qualitative ) in Amsterdam?
• How do student perceptions of their school environment ( qualitative ) relate to differences in test scores ( quantitative ) ?
• How do interviews about job satisfaction at Company X ( qualitative ) help explain year-over-year sales performance and other KPIs ( quantitative ) ?
• How can voter and non-voter beliefs about democracy ( qualitative ) help explain election turnout patterns ( quantitative ) in Town X?
• How do average hospital salary measurements over time (quantitative) help to explain nurse testimonials about job satisfaction (qualitative) ?

Table of contents

When to use mixed methods research, mixed methods research designs, benefits of mixed methods research, disadvantages of mixed methods research, frequently asked questions about mixed methods research.

Mixed methods research may be the right choice if your research process suggests that quantitative or qualitative data alone will not sufficiently answer your research question. There are several common reasons for using mixed methods research:

• Generalisability : Qualitative research usually has a smaller sample size , and thus is not generalisable . In mixed methods research, this comparative weakness is mitigated by the comparative strength of ‘large N’, externally valid quantitative research.
• Contextualisation: Mixing methods allows you to put findings in context and add richer detail to your conclusions. Using qualitative data to illustrate quantitative findings can help ‘put meat on the bones’ of your analysis.
• Credibility: Using different methods to collect data on the same subject can make your results more credible. If the qualitative and quantitative data converge, this strengthens the validity of your conclusions. This process is called triangulation .

As you formulate your research question , try to directly address how qualitative and quantitative methods will be combined in your study. If your research question can be sufficiently answered via standalone quantitative or qualitative analysis, a mixed methods approach may not be the right fit.

Keep in mind that mixed methods research doesn’t just mean collecting both types of data; you need to carefully consider the relationship between the two and how you’ll integrate them into coherent conclusions. Mixed methods can be very challenging to put into practice, so it’s a less common choice than standalone qualitative or qualitative research.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

There are different types of mixed methods research designs . The differences between them relate to the aim of the research, the timing of the data collection , and the importance given to each data type.

As you design your mixed methods study, also keep in mind:

• Your research approach ( inductive vs deductive )
• Your research questions
• What kind of data is already available for you to use
• What kind of data you’re able to collect yourself.

Here are a few of the most common mixed methods designs.

Convergent parallel

In a convergent parallel design, you collect quantitative and qualitative data at the same time and analyse them separately. After both analyses are complete, compare your results to draw overall conclusions.

• On the qualitative side, you analyse cyclist complaints via the city’s database and on social media to find out which areas are perceived as dangerous and why.
• On the quantitative side, you analyse accident reports in the city’s database to find out how frequently accidents occur in different areas of the city.

In an embedded design, you collect and analyse both types of data at the same time, but within a larger quantitative or qualitative design. One type of data is secondary to the other.

This is a good approach to take if you have limited time or resources. You can use an embedded design to strengthen or supplement your conclusions from the primary type of research design.

Explanatory sequential

In an explanatory sequential design, your quantitative data collection and analysis occurs first, followed by qualitative data collection and analysis.

You should use this design if you think your qualitative data will explain and contextualise your quantitative findings.

Exploratory sequential

In an exploratory sequential design, qualitative data collection and analysis occurs first, followed by quantitative data collection and analysis.

You can use this design to first explore initial questions and develop hypotheses. Then you can use the quantitative data to test or confirm your qualitative findings.

‘Best of both worlds’ analysis

Combining the two types of data means you benefit from both the detailed, contextualised insights of qualitative data and the generalisable, externally valid insights of quantitative data. The strengths of one type of data often mitigate the weaknesses of the other.

For example, solely quantitative studies often struggle to incorporate the lived experiences of your participants, so adding qualitative data deepens and enriches your quantitative results.

Solely qualitative studies are often not very generalisable, only reflecting the experiences of your participants, so adding quantitative data can validate your qualitative findings.

Method flexibility

Mixed methods are less tied to disciplines and established research paradigms. They offer more flexibility in designing your research, allowing you to combine aspects of different types of studies to distill the most informative results.

Mixed methods research can also combine theory generation and hypothesis testing within a single study, which is unusual for standalone qualitative or quantitative studies.

Mixed methods research is very labour-intensive. Collecting, analysing, and synthesising two types of data into one research product takes a lot of time and effort, and often involves interdisciplinary teams of researchers rather than individuals. For this reason, mixed methods research has the potential to cost much more than standalone studies.

Differing or conflicting results

If your analysis yields conflicting results, it can be very challenging to know how to interpret them in a mixed methods study. If the quantitative and qualitative results do not agree or you are concerned you may have confounding variables , it can be unclear how to proceed.

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to test a hypothesis by systematically collecting and analysing data, while qualitative methods allow you to explore ideas and experiences in depth.

In mixed methods research , you use both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods to answer your research question .

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organisations.

Triangulation in research means using multiple datasets, methods, theories and/or investigators to address a research question. It’s a research strategy that can help you enhance the validity and credibility of your findings.

Triangulation is mainly used in qualitative research , but it’s also commonly applied in quantitative research . Mixed methods research always uses triangulation.

These are four of the most common mixed methods designs :

• Convergent parallel: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected at the same time and analysed separately. After both analyses are complete, compare your results to draw overall conclusions. 
• Embedded: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected at the same time, but within a larger quantitative or qualitative design. One type of data is secondary to the other.
• Explanatory sequential: Quantitative data is collected and analysed first, followed by qualitative data. You can use this design if you think your qualitative data will explain and contextualise your quantitative findings.
• Exploratory sequential: Qualitative data is collected and analysed first, followed by quantitative data. You can use this design if you think the quantitative data will confirm or validate your qualitative findings.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

George, T. (2022, October 25). Mixed Methods Research | Definition, Guide, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 14 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/mixed-methods/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

University of Minnesota Twin Cities

University digital conservancy, teacher perceptions of the influence of principal instructional leadership on school culture: a case study of the american embassy school in new delhi, india., view/download file, persistent link to this item, journal title, journal issn, volume title, published date, description, collections, series/report number, funding information, isbn identifier, doi identifier, previously published citation, suggested citation.

Content distributed via the University Digital Conservancy may be subject to additional license and use restrictions applied by the depositor. By using these files, users agree to the Terms of Use . Materials in the UDC may contain content that is disturbing and/or harmful. For more information, please see our statement on harmful content in digital repositories .