Mixed Methods and Quality of Postgraduate Research: A Kenyan Perspective

Introduction

Mixed methods research is perceived as a new research approach which is still evolving compared with the more established quantitative and qualitative methods (Tashakkori & Creswell, 2007). Consequently, what it is and its application are still the subject of myriad studies and conversations. Indeed, a critical subject of debate in this regard is the uncertainty of the paradigm in which it fits (Migiro & Magangi, 2011). Some researchers have argued that it is challenging to mix quantitative and qualitative approaches because they are perceived as being incompatible (Doyle, Brady & Byrne, 2016). Despite a lack of consensus about the aforementioned aspects of mixed methods research, Hashemi and Babaii (2013) asserted that it has been accepted as the third research approach which is distinct from the qualitative and quantitative methods. Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner (2007) argued that mixed methods of research is the third research approach anchored on the pragmatic paradigm. Thus, mixed methods research considers “multiple viewpoints, perspectives, positions, and standpoints” (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie & Turner, 2007, p. 113).

In the attempt to develop an acceptable characterisation of the concept, Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner (2007) examined nineteen definitions of mixed methods research. They concluded that there is a consensus that mixed methods research mixes both qualitative and quantitative approaches to scientific research. They also averred that the mixing of the approaches can occur at any stage of the research process depending on the context and purpose of the study. On the orientation of mixed methods research, two viewpoints are evident in literature; the first is the bottom-up approach which argues that mixed methods research should be driven by the research questions under investigation (Newman et al., 2003). By contrast, the second viewpoint argues that a top-down orientation in mixed methods research is not driven by research questions but by the determination of the researcher to conduct a study which is participatory and less marginalising (Mertens, 2003; Tashakkori, 2006). Although views on the orientation of mixed methods research are divided, Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner (2007) propose a middle ground by explaining that the orientation can either be bottom-up or top-down depending on the purpose and context of the specific research project. While some scholars (Morse, 2003) posit that mixed methods research should demonstrate either a qualitative or quantitative dominance, others (Johnson et al., 2004; Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006) hold the view that it involves a blending of the approaches leading to mixed ideas, assumptions, and worldviews.

It is also evident from literature that different scholars use diverse terms to describe mixed methods research. Some of these include blended research (Thomas, 2003), integrative research (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004), negotiated study (Bryman, 2007), triangulated research (Campbell & Fiske, 1959), multimethod research (Morse, 2003; Bazeley, 2006; Hunter & Brewer, 2003), multiple methods (Smith, 2006), triangulated studies (Sandelowski, 2003), ethnographic residual analysis (Fry, Chantavanich, & Chantavanich, 1981), and mixed research (Johnson, 2006; Johnson & Christensen, 2019).