Experiences from Sequential Use of Mixed Methods

1. IntroductionOver the years there has been an on-going debate regarding qualitative approaches and quantitative approaches. Often this debate has been controversial (cf. Bryman, 1988). Followers of quantitative approaches are often characterised as positivists, while the followers of qualitative approaches are often characterized as hermeneutists. Followers of quantitative approaches often criticise qualitative approaches for: 1) results are hard or impossible to generalise (ibid), 2) results are not objective and hard to replicate and 3) there is a lack of transparency (Bryman, 2009). We agree with this criticism since qualitative studies are often based on one or a few case studies and many times data can be hard to interpret.Vice versa, followers of qualitative approaches criticise quantitative approaches for 1) using irrelevant hypothesis (Blumer, 1956) and 2) descriptions are too superficial (Schutz, 1962). We concur with this criticism. In our opinion, hypothesis stemming from qualitative research are more grounded than hypothesis stemming from quantitative research. We also agree that the qualitative approaches have a better opportunity to achieve "richer" descriptions. One basic difference between these two approaches is that the aim of a quantitative approach is to suggest a hypothesis that should be verified or falsified while the aim of a qualitative approach is to generate a hypothesis. Simplified, it seems as the primary interest of the qualitative approaches is to justify "Is this the right question to ask? " while the quantitative approaches are more concerned with "Is this answer trustworthy? ". Our view of research is that every approach has advantages and disadvantages. This is also valid for qualitative and quantitative approaches.Many scholars have brought forward the idea of combining qualitative and quantitative approaches (e.g. Bryman 1988, Bryman, 2009, Creswell, 2009). The objective of combining the two approaches is to preserve the strengths and reduce the weaknesses in both approaches (Bergman 2009b). The preferred term for combining these approaches is "mixed methods" (Bryman, 2009). The aim of this paper is to present usage experiences in terms of strengths and problems from combinations of qualitative and quantitative approaches. According to Bergman (2009a) mixed methods have experienced a tremendous increase in popularity. Creswell (2009), identifies that there is not much written about experiences from certain types of combinations of qualitative and quantitative approaches which hamper the practical use of mixed methods in research. In this paper, we are presenting experiences from real use of combinations of qualitative and quantitative approaches. This introductory section is followed by a description of our theoretical bases and in section 3 we outline our research approach. In section 4, we present our findings. Finally, in section 5 the conclusions are presented.2. Theoretical basisAccording to Creswell (2009) a mixed method is more than simply collecting and analyzing data from a qualitative and quantitative approach. The mixed method approach provides a specific perspective of the world. Besides, it also incorporates a combined qualitative and a quantitative approach. That is, the overall strength should be more beneficial than using qualitative or quantitative research individually. One aim of using a mixed method is to increase the possibility to achieve findings that are more trustworthy and relevant than using the approaches separately.A key design component in mixed method research is whether the research methods are implemented in a parallel manner or in a sequential manner (Teddlie & Tashakkori 2009). Sequential mixed method research refers to an investigation in which the phases of the research occur in a consecutive order, with one phase emerging from or are following the other. The research questions addressed as well as the procedures used in one phase depend on the previous phase. …