Executive Solution Overview
[>Operations Management homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/business-finance-operations-management) See attached – a year ago **files (2)** – ## UnitVIIIReflectionPaper.docx – ## UnitVIIIResearchDesignMethodsStudyGuide.pdf **## UnitVIIIReflectionPaper.docx** Unit VIII Reflection Paper T…
Instant Solution Download
$6.99Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Need a Fresh Custom Paper?
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Assignment Prompt & Instructions
[>Operations Management homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/business-finance-operations-management)
See attached
– a year ago
**files (2)**
– ## UnitVIIIReflectionPaper.docx
– ## UnitVIIIResearchDesignMethodsStudyGuide.pdf
**## UnitVIIIReflectionPaper.docx**
Unit VIII Reflection Paper
This reflection paper measures your mastery of ULO 2.5.
Reflect on how you can apply the concepts learned in this course to your current career, future career, entrepreneurial venture, or personal endeavors. How might the lessons you have learned positively impact your decision-making effectiveness and goal attainment? In your answer, consider the different research methods you have learned in this course.
Submit your response as an attached Word document. Your response must be at least 200 words in length. No references or citations are necessary.
**## UnitVIIIResearchDesignMethodsStudyGuide.pdf**
RCH 5301, Research Design and Methods 1
Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VIII
At the end of this unit, you should be able to:
2. Discriminate among the characteristics of qualitative and quantitative research methods.
2.5 Recognize the melding of quantitative and qualitative methodologies into mixed methods.
Required Unit Resources
Chapter 3: The Use of Theory
Read the following sections from this chapter:
Mixed Methods Theory Use
Chapter 10: Mixed Methods Procedures (ULO 2.5)
Unit Lesson
Lesson: Mixed Methods: All Mixed Up? (ULO 2.5)
Congratulations for persevering throughout the course and arriving at this final unit of the term. The course
began with an explanation of the purpose and value of studying research methods, which is to enhance
decision-making in order to reduce risk and improve performance. While perfect information is rarely available
to assist in making difficult decisions, employing research methods and evidence-based decision-making can
help improve the odds of achieving favorable outcomes.
This course focused predominately on the positivist tradition of using a quantitative methodological research
strategy, empiricism, and the scientific method to accomplish research goals. This was intentional since
quantitative research is well-suited to problem solving in today’s data-driven world. Data is ubiquitous,
inexpensive, and overwhelmingly used for strategic decision-making, which makes a quantitative
methodological strategy a superior choice to address many problems. What has been provided this term is
enough knowledge for students to design their own quantitative research projects, whether they be career-
related, personal, or in pursuit of terminal degrees.
Notwithstanding the attention paid to quantitative research in the course, Unit VII addressed qualitative
research and Unit VIII discusses mixed methods research. Since research methods is a new area of study for
most students, this is intended to give a flavor for the interpretivist research tradition.
Mixed Methods Research
The argument for using a mixed methods research (MMR) strategy, sometimes referred to as pragmatism, is
that the researcher has access to the best of both worlds: quantitative and qualitative methodological
strategies. MMR integrates the philosophical assumptions of each of these research strategies to benefit from
both a breadth and depth of understanding of their research topic. This begs the question of why a researcher
would not then always choose an MMR strategy over simply a quantitative or qualitative approach. The
following will summarize some of the pros and cons of MMR and answer this question.
UNIT VIII STUDY GUIDE
Mixed Methods
RCH 5301, Research Design and Methods 2
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
Arguments in Favor of MMR
There are three reasons for using an MMR strategy.
• The first, as alluded to, is that MMR adds both breadth and depth to the study. This can be
accomplished simultaneously by asking closed-ended and open-ended questions to research
participants. The data collected through close-ended questions permits the use of inferential statistics
to generalize results to a population. The data collected through open-ended questions provides the
benefit of obtaining deeper insights not possible through structured, self-completion questionnaires.
Qualitative findings can also be used to create theories, which are then tested through quantitative
research. This advantage is called triangulation, which is using one research strategy to validate
findings using a different strategy.
• A second reason for using MMR is that the individual strategies are complementary to one another.
The respective strengths of quantitative and qualitative strategies compensate for the weaknesses of
the other. This results in MMR findings that are greater than the sum of the individual parts.
• A third justification for MMR is that findings from the opposing methodological strategies can
introduce new ways of visualizing the research problem that would not have occurred if only one
strategy were used (Dawadi et al., 2021).
It is important for the researcher choosing MMR to be deliberative in the research design. Research designs
are exploratory (qualitative), descriptive (quantitative/non-experimental), and explanatory
(quantitative/experimental). Even in the early stage of design, the complexity of MMR becomes evident as it is
necessary for the researcher to prioritize things like research design, analytical approach, data collection
methods, sampling design, and data analysis procedures. Prioritization is best done in consideration of the
research problems and questions. Priority can be given to the quantitative methodology, the qualitative
methodology, or equal priority between the two. Once prioritization is decided, the researcher must decide
how much interaction there will be between the two methodologies. One straightforward approach is to keep
the methodologies independent during all stages of the study through data analysis, only to be mixed during
the interpretation of findings. It is possible, however, to mix the methodologies at all stages of the study,
including the design, the analytical approach, data collection method, sampling, data analysis, and
interpretation and reporting of results (Dawadi et al., 2021).
Arguments Against MMR
A practical reason for avoiding MMR is that it generally requires more time, more money, and more expertise
than would be required using a quantitative or qualitative strategy alone. Data collection and data analysis are
particularly lengthy endeavors in MMR. Qualitative research and interviewing participants are particularly time
intensive. This leads to greater costs and budget requirements.
Another reason for avoiding MMR is a lack of research experience in both quantitative and qualitative
strategies. Having the knowledge to correctly select from the wide array of methods available, properly
implement the chosen methods, adequately collect the data, sufficiently analyze the data, and appropriately
interpret the results requires a great deal of expertise. Many researchers, however, are only proficient in their
favored research traditions, positivist, or interpretivist. If researchers lack the expertise to appropriately
prioritize the design and methods since they each have their own set of advantages and challenges that are
dependent on the goals of the research project, threats to validity and reliability are possible (Dawadi et al.,
2021; Karpatschof, 2007).
A final MMR challenge stems from the influence of results occurring from the mixing of methodologies. For
example, a sequential data collection and analysis could lead to the results of the first process influencing the
results of the second process. Even results from concurrent designs have been found to influence one
another. While proponents of MMR argue that quantitative and qualitative methodologies are complementary,
the reality for many researchers is that results are often confounding or contradictory, placing validity and
reliability in jeopardy (Dawadi et al., 2021; Karpatschof, 2007).
In Closing
As was discussed in Unit I, one’s research tradition normally predetermines the research strategy chosen for
the study of phenomena. A quantitative strategy is aligned with positivism, and a qualitative strategy is aligned
RCH 5301, Research Design and Methods 3
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
with interpretivism. Although there are no codified rules about employing research strategies, it would seem
inconsistent, at best, for a true positivist to use qualitative methods given their loyalty to empiricism. The
critique of qualitative research as being too subjective, difficult to replicate, unable to generalize results, and
lacking in transparency is completely at odds with the quantitative methodology and the positivist tradition.
Similarly, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for an interpretivist to use quantitative methods to determine
the meaning observed in participant observation. An interpretivist simply could not use quantitative research
to quantify the multiple meanings that are created through multiple experiences and realities. From the
interpretivist’s perspective, quantitative research fails to recognize the social world as different from the
natural world, forces qualitative data into numbers, relies on instruments and procedures that fail to reflect
everyday life, and analyzes relationships between variables that neglect the human interaction that brings
meaning to those relationships. This is completely at odds with the qualitative methodology and interpretivist
tradition.
So, for every proponent that argues for the complimentary relationship between quantitative and qualitative
methodologies, there are opponents that argue MMR is a non-starter due to the incompatibility of quantitative
and qualitative methodologies. Researchers, especially those who are novice, should develop a level of
competence with each methodological strategy before choosing to employ an MMR strategy, or at least have
a compelling reason for using a dual strategy. It should not be assumed that a two-in-one approach
automatically translates into a superior strategy (Bell et al., 2022).
References
Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2022). Business research methods (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.
https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780192640505
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2022). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (6th ed.). SAGE. https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781071817964
Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., Giri, R. A. (2021, February 24). Mixed-methods research: A discussion on its types,
challenges, and criticisms. Journal of Practical Studies in Education, 2(2), 25–36.
https://doi.org/10.46809/jpse.v2i2.20
Karpatschof, B. (2007, October). Bringing quality and meaning to quantitative data – Bringing quantitative
evidence to qualitative observation. Nordic Psychology, 59(3), 191–209.
https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dire
ct=true&db=edo&AN=32170950&site=eds-live&scope=site
– Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VIII
– Required Unit Resources
– Chapter 3: The Use of Theory
– Chapter 10: Mixed Methods Procedures (ULO 2.5)
– Unit Lesson
– Lesson: Mixed Methods: All Mixed Up? (ULO 2.5)
– Mixed Methods Research
– Arguments in Favor of MMR
– Arguments Against MMR
– In Closing
– References
**## UnitVIIIResearchDesignMethodsStudyGuide.pdf**
RCH 5301, Research Design and Methods 1
Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VIII
At the end of this unit, you should be able to:
2. Discriminate among the characteristics of qualitative and quantitative research methods.
2.5 Recognize the melding of quantitative and qualitative methodologies into mixed methods.
Required Unit Resources
Chapter 3: The Use of Theory
Read the following sections from this chapter:
Mixed Methods Theory Use
Chapter 10: Mixed Methods Procedures (ULO 2.5)
Unit Lesson
Lesson: Mixed Methods: All Mixed Up? (ULO 2.5)
Congratulations for persevering throughout the course and arriving at this final unit of the term. The course
began with an explanation of the purpose and value of studying research methods, which is to enhance
decision-making in order to reduce risk and improve performance. While perfect information is rarely available
to assist in making difficult decisions, employing research methods and evidence-based decision-making can
help improve the odds of achieving favorable outcomes.
This course focused predominately on the positivist tradition of using a quantitative methodological research
strategy, empiricism, and the scientific method to accomplish research goals. This was intentional since
quantitative research is well-suited to problem solving in today’s data-driven world. Data is ubiquitous,
inexpensive, and overwhelmingly used for strategic decision-making, which makes a quantitative
methodological strategy a superior choice to address many problems. What has been provided this term is
enough knowledge for students to design their own quantitative research projects, whether they be career-
related, personal, or in pursuit of terminal degrees.
Notwithstanding the attention paid to quantitative research in the course, Unit VII addressed qualitative
research and Unit VIII discusses mixed methods research. Since research methods is a new area of study for
most students, this is intended to give a flavor for the interpretivist research tradition.
Mixed Methods Research
The argument for using a mixed methods research (MMR) strategy, sometimes referred to as pragmatism, is
that the researcher has access to the best of both worlds: quantitative and qualitative methodological
strategies. MMR integrates the philosophical assumptions of each of these research strategies to benefit from
both a breadth and depth of understanding of their research topic. This begs the question of why a researcher
would not then always choose an MMR strategy over simply a quantitative or qualitative approach. The
following will summarize some of the pros and cons of MMR and answer this question.
UNIT VIII STUDY GUIDE
Mixed Methods
RCH 5301, Research Design and Methods 2
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
Arguments in Favor of MMR
There are three reasons for using an MMR strategy.
• The first, as alluded to, is that MMR adds both breadth and depth to the study. This can be
accomplished simultaneously by asking closed-ended and open-ended questions to research
participants. The data collected through close-ended questions permits the use of inferential statistics
to generalize results to a population. The data collected through open-ended questions provides the
benefit of obtaining deeper insights not possible through structured, self-completion questionnaires.
Qualitative findings can also be used to create theories, which are then tested through quantitative
research. This advantage is called triangulation, which is using one research strategy to validate
findings using a different strategy.
• A second reason for using MMR is that the individual strategies are complementary to one another.
The respective strengths of quantitative and qualitative strategies compensate for the weaknesses of
the other. This results in MMR findings that are greater than the sum of the individual parts.
• A third justification for MMR is that findings from the opposing methodological strategies can
introduce new ways of visualizing the research problem that would not have occurred if only one
strategy were used (Dawadi et al., 2021).
It is important for the researcher choosing MMR to be deliberative in the research design. Research designs
are exploratory (qualitative), descriptive (quantitative/non-experimental), and explanatory
(quantitative/experimental). Even in the early stage of design, the complexity of MMR becomes evident as it is
necessary for the researcher to prioritize things like research design, analytical approach, data collection
methods, sampling design, and data analysis procedures. Prioritization is best done in consideration of the
research problems and questions. Priority can be given to the quantitative methodology, the qualitative
methodology, or equal priority between the two. Once prioritization is decided, the researcher must decide
how much interaction there will be between the two methodologies. One straightforward approach is to keep
the methodologies independent during all stages of the study through data analysis, only to be mixed during
the interpretation of findings. It is possible, however, to mix the methodologies at all stages of the study,
including the design, the analytical approach, data collection method, sampling, data analysis, and
interpretation and reporting of results (Dawadi et al., 2021).
Arguments Against MMR
A practical reason for avoiding MMR is that it generally requires more time, more money, and more expertise
than would be required using a quantitative or qualitative strategy alone. Data collection and data analysis are
particularly lengthy endeavors in MMR. Qualitative research and interviewing participants are particularly time
intensive. This leads to greater costs and budget requirements.
Another reason for avoiding MMR is a lack of research experience in both quantitative and qualitative
strategies. Having the knowledge to correctly select from the wide array of methods available, properly
implement the chosen methods, adequately collect the data, sufficiently analyze the data, and appropriately
interpret the results requires a great deal of expertise. Many researchers, however, are only proficient in their
favored research traditions, positivist, or interpretivist. If researchers lack the expertise to appropriately
prioritize the design and methods since they each have their own set of advantages and challenges that are
dependent on the goals of the research project, threats to validity and reliability are possible (Dawadi et al.,
2021; Karpatschof, 2007).
A final MMR challenge stems from the influence of results occurring from the mixing of methodologies. For
example, a sequential data collection and analysis could lead to the results of the first process influencing the
results of the second process. Even results from concurrent designs have been found to influence one
another. While proponents of MMR argue that quantitative and qualitative methodologies are complementary,
the reality for many researchers is that results are often confounding or contradictory, placing validity and
reliability in jeopardy (Dawadi et al., 2021; Karpatschof, 2007).
In Closing
As was discussed in Unit I, one’s research tradition normally predetermines the research strategy chosen for
the study of phenomena. A quantitative strategy is aligned with positivism, and a qualitative strategy is aligned
RCH 5301, Research Design and Methods 3
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
with interpretivism. Although there are no codified rules about employing research strategies, it would seem
inconsistent, at best, for a true positivist to use qualitative methods given their loyalty to empiricism. The
critique of qualitative research as being too subjective, difficult to replicate, unable to generalize results, and
lacking in transparency is completely at odds with the quantitative methodology and the positivist tradition.
Similarly, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for an interpretivist to use quantitative methods to determine
the meaning observed in participant observation. An interpretivist simply could not use quantitative research
to quantify the multiple meanings that are created through multiple experiences and realities. From the
interpretivist’s perspective, quantitative research fails to recognize the social world as different from the
natural world, forces qualitative data into numbers, relies on instruments and procedures that fail to reflect
everyday life, and analyzes relationships between variables that neglect the human interaction that brings
meaning to those relationships. This is completely at odds with the qualitative methodology and interpretivist
tradition.
So, for every proponent that argues for the complimentary relationship between quantitative and qualitative
methodologies, there are opponents that argue MMR is a non-starter due to the incompatibility of quantitative
and qualitative methodologies. Researchers, especially those who are novice, should develop a level of
competence with each methodological strategy before choosing to employ an MMR strategy, or at least have
a compelling reason for using a dual strategy. It should not be assumed that a two-in-one approach
automatically translates into a superior strategy (Bell et al., 2022).
References
Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2022). Business research methods (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.
https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780192640505
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2022). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (6th ed.). SAGE. https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781071817964
Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., Giri, R. A. (2021, February 24). Mixed-methods research: A discussion on its types,
challenges, and criticisms. Journal of Practical Studies in Education, 2(2), 25–36.
https://doi.org/10.46809/jpse.v2i2.20
Karpatschof, B. (2007, October). Bringing quality and meaning to quantitative data – Bringing quantitative
evidence to qualitative observation. Nordic Psychology, 59(3), 191–209.
https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dire
ct=true&db=edo&AN=32170950&site=eds-live&scope=site
– Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VIII
– Required Unit Resources
– Chapter 3: The Use of Theory
– Chapter 10: Mixed Methods Procedures (ULO 2.5)
– Unit Lesson
– Lesson: Mixed Methods: All Mixed Up? (ULO 2.5)
– Mixed Methods Research
– Arguments in Favor of MMR
– Arguments Against MMR
– In Closing
– References
**## UnitVIIIReflectionPaper.docx**
Unit VIII Reflection Paper
This reflection paper measures your mastery of ULO 2.5.
Reflect on how you can apply the concepts learned in this course to your current career, future career, entrepreneurial venture, or personal endeavors. How might the lessons you have learned positively impact your decision-making effectiveness and goal attainment? In your answer, consider the different research methods you have learned in this course.
Submit your response as an attached Word document. Your response must be at least 200 words in length. No references or citations are necessary.
**## UnitVIIIResearchDesignMethodsStudyGuide.pdf**
RCH 5301, Research Design and Methods 1
Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VIII
At the end of this unit, you should be able to:
2. Discriminate among the characteristics of qualitative and quantitative research methods.
2.5 Recognize the melding of quantitative and qualitative methodologies into mixed methods.
Required Unit Resources
Chapter 3: The Use of Theory
Read the following sections from this chapter:
Mixed Methods Theory Use
Chapter 10: Mixed Methods Procedures (ULO 2.5)
Unit Lesson
Lesson: Mixed Methods: All Mixed Up? (ULO 2.5)
Congratulations for persevering throughout the course and arriving at this final unit of the term. The course
began with an explanation of the purpose and value of studying research methods, which is to enhance
decision-making in order to reduce risk and improve performance. While perfect information is rarely available
to assist in making difficult decisions, employing research methods and evidence-based decision-making can
help improve the odds of achieving favorable outcomes.
This course focused predominately on the positivist tradition of using a quantitative methodological research
strategy, empiricism, and the scientific method to accomplish research goals. This was intentional since
quantitative research is well-suited to problem solving in today’s data-driven world. Data is ubiquitous,
inexpensive, and overwhelmingly used for strategic decision-making, which makes a quantitative
methodological strategy a superior choice to address many problems. What has been provided this term is
enough knowledge for students to design their own quantitative research projects, whether they be career-
related, personal, or in pursuit of terminal degrees.
Notwithstanding the attention paid to quantitative research in the course, Unit VII addressed qualitative
research and Unit VIII discusses mixed methods research. Since research methods is a new area of study for
most students, this is intended to give a flavor for the interpretivist research tradition.
Mixed Methods Research
The argument for using a mixed methods research (MMR) strategy, sometimes referred to as pragmatism, is
that the researcher has access to the best of both worlds: quantitative and qualitative methodological
strategies. MMR integrates the philosophical assumptions of each of these research strategies to benefit from
both a breadth and depth of understanding of their research topic. This begs the question of why a researcher
would not then always choose an MMR strategy over simply a quantitative or qualitative approach. The
following will summarize some of the pros and cons of MMR and answer this question.
UNIT VIII STUDY GUIDE
Mixed Methods
RCH 5301, Research Design and Methods 2
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
Arguments in Favor of MMR
There are three reasons for using an MMR strategy.
• The first, as alluded to, is that MMR adds both breadth and depth to the study. This can be
accomplished simultaneously by asking closed-ended and open-ended questions to research
participants. The data collected through close-ended questions permits the use of inferential statistics
to generalize results to a population. The data collected through open-ended questions provides the
benefit of obtaining deeper insights not possible through structured, self-completion questionnaires.
Qualitative findings can also be used to create theories, which are then tested through quantitative
research. This advantage is called triangulation, which is using one research strategy to validate
findings using a different strategy.
• A second reason for using MMR is that the individual strategies are complementary to one another.
The respective strengths of quantitative and qualitative strategies compensate for the weaknesses of
the other. This results in MMR findings that are greater than the sum of the individual parts.
• A third justification for MMR is that findings from the opposing methodological strategies can
introduce new ways of visualizing the research problem that would not have occurred if only one
strategy were used (Dawadi et al., 2021).
It is important for the researcher choosing MMR to be deliberative in the research design. Research designs
are exploratory (qualitative), descriptive (quantitative/non-experimental), and explanatory
(quantitative/experimental). Even in the early stage of design, the complexity of MMR becomes evident as it is
necessary for the researcher to prioritize things like research design, analytical approach, data collection
methods, sampling design, and data analysis procedures. Prioritization is best done in consideration of the
research problems and questions. Priority can be given to the quantitative methodology, the qualitative
methodology, or equal priority between the two. Once prioritization is decided, the researcher must decide
how much interaction there will be between the two methodologies. One straightforward approach is to keep
the methodologies independent during all stages of the study through data analysis, only to be mixed during
the interpretation of findings. It is possible, however, to mix the methodologies at all stages of the study,
including the design, the analytical approach, data collection method, sampling, data analysis, and
interpretation and reporting of results (Dawadi et al., 2021).
Arguments Against MMR
A practical reason for avoiding MMR is that it generally requires more time, more money, and more expertise
than would be required using a quantitative or qualitative strategy alone. Data collection and data analysis are
particularly lengthy endeavors in MMR. Qualitative research and interviewing participants are particularly time
intensive. This leads to greater costs and budget requirements.
Another reason for avoiding MMR is a lack of research experience in both quantitative and qualitative
strategies. Having the knowledge to correctly select from the wide array of methods available, properly
implement the chosen methods, adequately collect the data, sufficiently analyze the data, and appropriately
interpret the results requires a great deal of expertise. Many researchers, however, are only proficient in their
favored research traditions, positivist, or interpretivist. If researchers lack the expertise to appropriately
prioritize the design and methods since they each have their own set of advantages and challenges that are
dependent on the goals of the research project, threats to validity and reliability are possible (Dawadi et al.,
2021; Karpatschof, 2007).
A final MMR challenge stems from the influence of results occurring from the mixing of methodologies. For
example, a sequential data collection and analysis could lead to the results of the first process influencing the
results of the second process. Even results from concurrent designs have been found to influence one
another. While proponents of MMR argue that quantitative and qualitative methodologies are complementary,
the reality for many researchers is that results are often confounding or contradictory, placing validity and
reliability in jeopardy (Dawadi et al., 2021; Karpatschof, 2007).
In Closing
As was discussed in Unit I, one’s research tradition normally predetermines the research strategy chosen for
the study of phenomena. A quantitative strategy is aligned with positivism, and a qualitative strategy is aligned
RCH 5301, Research Design and Methods 3
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
with interpretivism. Although there are no codified rules about employing research strategies, it would seem
inconsistent, at best, for a true positivist to use qualitative methods given their loyalty to empiricism. The
critique of qualitative research as being too subjective, difficult to replicate, unable to generalize results, and
lacking in transparency is completely at odds with the quantitative methodology and the positivist tradition.
Similarly, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for an interpretivist to use quantitative methods to determine
the meaning observed in participant observation. An interpretivist simply could not use quantitative research
to quantify the multiple meanings that are created through multiple experiences and realities. From the
interpretivist’s perspective, quantitative research fails to recognize the social world as different from the
natural world, forces qualitative data into numbers, relies on instruments and procedures that fail to reflect
everyday life, and analyzes relationships between variables that neglect the human interaction that brings
meaning to those relationships. This is completely at odds with the qualitative methodology and interpretivist
tradition.
So, for every proponent that argues for the complimentary relationship between quantitative and qualitative
methodologies, there are opponents that argue MMR is a non-starter due to the incompatibility of quantitative
and qualitative methodologies. Researchers, especially those who are novice, should develop a level of
competence with each methodological strategy before choosing to employ an MMR strategy, or at least have
a compelling reason for using a dual strategy. It should not be assumed that a two-in-one approach
automatically translates into a superior strategy (Bell et al., 2022).
References
Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2022). Business research methods (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.
https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780192640505
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2022). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (6th ed.). SAGE. https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781071817964
Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., Giri, R. A. (2021, February 24). Mixed-methods research: A discussion on its types,
challenges, and criticisms. Journal of Practical Studies in Education, 2(2), 25–36.
https://doi.org/10.46809/jpse.v2i2.20
Karpatschof, B. (2007, October). Bringing quality and meaning to quantitative data – Bringing quantitative
evidence to qualitative observation. Nordic Psychology, 59(3), 191–209.
https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dire
ct=true&db=edo&AN=32170950&site=eds-live&scope=site
– Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VIII
– Required Unit Resources
– Chapter 3: The Use of Theory
– Chapter 10: Mixed Methods Procedures (ULO 2.5)
– Unit Lesson
– Lesson: Mixed Methods: All Mixed Up? (ULO 2.5)
– Mixed Methods Research
– Arguments in Favor of MMR
– Arguments Against MMR
– In Closing
– References
**## UnitVIIIReflectionPaper.docx**
Unit VIII Reflection Paper
This reflection paper measures your mastery of ULO 2.5.
Reflect on how you can apply the concepts learned in this course to your current career, future career, entrepreneurial venture, or personal endeavors. How might the lessons you have learned positively impact your decision-making effectiveness and goal attainment? In your answer, consider the different research methods you have learned in this course.
Submit your response as an attached Word document. Your response must be at least 200 words in length. No references or citations are necessary.
**## UnitVIIIResearchDesignMethodsStudyGuide.pdf**
RCH 5301, Research Design and Methods 1
Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VIII
At the end of this unit, you should be able to:
2. Discriminate among the characteristics of qualitative and quantitative research methods.
2.5 Recognize the melding of quantitative and qualitative methodologies into mixed methods.
Required Unit Resources
Chapter 3: The Use of Theory
Read the following sections from this chapter:
Mixed Methods Theory Use
Chapter 10: Mixed Methods Procedures (ULO 2.5)
Unit Lesson
Lesson: Mixed Methods: All Mixed Up? (ULO 2.5)
Congratulations for persevering throughout the course and arriving at this final unit of the term. The course
began with an explanation of the purpose and value of studying research methods, which is to enhance
decision-making in order to reduce risk and improve performance. While perfect information is rarely available
to assist in making difficult decisions, employing research methods and evidence-based decision-making can
help improve the odds of achieving favorable outcomes.
This course focused predominately on the positivist tradition of using a quantitative methodological research
strategy, empiricism, and the scientific method to accomplish research goals. This was intentional since
quantitative research is well-suited to problem solving in today’s data-driven world. Data is ubiquitous,
inexpensive, and overwhelmingly used for strategic decision-making, which makes a quantitative
methodological strategy a superior choice to address many problems. What has been provided this term is
enough knowledge for students to design their own quantitative research projects, whether they be career-
related, personal, or in pursuit of terminal degrees.
Notwithstanding the attention paid to quantitative research in the course, Unit VII addressed qualitative
research and Unit VIII discusses mixed methods research. Since research methods is a new area of study for
most students, this is intended to give a flavor for the interpretivist research tradition.
Mixed Methods Research
The argument for using a mixed methods research (MMR) strategy, sometimes referred to as pragmatism, is
that the researcher has access to the best of both worlds: quantitative and qualitative methodological
strategies. MMR integrates the philosophical assumptions of each of these research strategies to benefit from
both a breadth and depth of understanding of their research topic. This begs the question of why a researcher
would not then always choose an MMR strategy over simply a quantitative or qualitative approach. The
following will summarize some of the pros and cons of MMR and answer this question.
UNIT VIII STUDY GUIDE
Mixed Methods
RCH 5301, Research Design and Methods 2
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
Arguments in Favor of MMR
There are three reasons for using an MMR strategy.
• The first, as alluded to, is that MMR adds both breadth and depth to the study. This can be
accomplished simultaneously by asking closed-ended and open-ended questions to research
participants. The data collected through close-ended questions permits the use of inferential statistics
to generalize results to a population. The data collected through open-ended questions provides the
benefit of obtaining deeper insights not possible through structured, self-completion questionnaires.
Qualitative findings can also be used to create theories, which are then tested through quantitative
research. This advantage is called triangulation, which is using one research strategy to validate
findings using a different strategy.
• A second reason for using MMR is that the individual strategies are complementary to one another.
The respective strengths of quantitative and qualitative strategies compensate for the weaknesses of
the other. This results in MMR findings that are greater than the sum of the individual parts.
• A third justification for MMR is that findings from the opposing methodological strategies can
introduce new ways of visualizing the research problem that would not have occurred if only one
strategy were used (Dawadi et al., 2021).
It is important for the researcher choosing MMR to be deliberative in the research design. Research designs
are exploratory (qualitative), descriptive (quantitative/non-experimental), and explanatory
(quantitative/experimental). Even in the early stage of design, the complexity of MMR becomes evident as it is
necessary for the researcher to prioritize things like research design, analytical approach, data collection
methods, sampling design, and data analysis procedures. Prioritization is best done in consideration of the
research problems and questions. Priority can be given to the quantitative methodology, the qualitative
methodology, or equal priority between the two. Once prioritization is decided, the researcher must decide
how much interaction there will be between the two methodologies. One straightforward approach is to keep
the methodologies independent during all stages of the study through data analysis, only to be mixed during
the interpretation of findings. It is possible, however, to mix the methodologies at all stages of the study,
including the design, the analytical approach, data collection method, sampling, data analysis, and
interpretation and reporting of results (Dawadi et al., 2021).
Arguments Against MMR
A practical reason for avoiding MMR is that it generally requires more time, more money, and more expertise
than would be required using a quantitative or qualitative strategy alone. Data collection and data analysis are
particularly lengthy endeavors in MMR. Qualitative research and interviewing participants are particularly time
intensive. This leads to greater costs and budget requirements.
Another reason for avoiding MMR is a lack of research experience in both quantitative and qualitative
strategies. Having the knowledge to correctly select from the wide array of methods available, properly
implement the chosen methods, adequately collect the data, sufficiently analyze the data, and appropriately
interpret the results requires a great deal of expertise. Many researchers, however, are only proficient in their
favored research traditions, positivist, or interpretivist. If researchers lack the expertise to appropriately
prioritize the design and methods since they each have their own set of advantages and challenges that are
dependent on the goals of the research project, threats to validity and reliability are possible (Dawadi et al.,
2021; Karpatschof, 2007).
A final MMR challenge stems from the influence of results occurring from the mixing of methodologies. For
example, a sequential data collection and analysis could lead to the results of the first process influencing the
results of the second process. Even results from concurrent designs have been found to influence one
another. While proponents of MMR argue that quantitative and qualitative methodologies are complementary,
the reality for many researchers is that results are often confounding or contradictory, placing validity and
reliability in jeopardy (Dawadi et al., 2021; Karpatschof, 2007).
In Closing
As was discussed in Unit I, one’s research tradition normally predetermines the research strategy chosen for
the study of phenomena. A quantitative strategy is aligned with positivism, and a qualitative strategy is aligned
RCH 5301, Research Design and Methods 3
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
with interpretivism. Although there are no codified rules about employing research strategies, it would seem
inconsistent, at best, for a true positivist to use qualitative methods given their loyalty to empiricism. The
critique of qualitative research as being too subjective, difficult to replicate, unable to generalize results, and
lacking in transparency is completely at odds with the quantitative methodology and the positivist tradition.
Similarly, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for an interpretivist to use quantitative methods to determine
the meaning observed in participant observation. An interpretivist simply could not use quantitative research
to quantify the multiple meanings that are created through multiple experiences and realities. From the
interpretivist’s perspective, quantitative research fails to recognize the social world as different from the
natural world, forces qualitative data into numbers, relies on instruments and procedures that fail to reflect
everyday life, and analyzes relationships between variables that neglect the human interaction that brings
meaning to those relationships. This is completely at odds with the qualitative methodology and interpretivist
tradition.
So, for every proponent that argues for the complimentary relationship between quantitative and qualitative
methodologies, there are opponents that argue MMR is a non-starter due to the incompatibility of quantitative
and qualitative methodologies. Researchers, especially those who are novice, should develop a level of
competence with each methodological strategy before choosing to employ an MMR strategy, or at least have
a compelling reason for using a dual strategy. It should not be assumed that a two-in-one approach
automatically translates into a superior strategy (Bell et al., 2022).
References
Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2022). Business research methods (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.
https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780192640505
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2022). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (6th ed.). SAGE. https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781071817964
Dawadi, S., Shrestha, S., Giri, R. A. (2021, February 24). Mixed-methods research: A discussion on its types,
challenges, and criticisms. Journal of Practical Studies in Education, 2(2), 25–36.
https://doi.org/10.46809/jpse.v2i2.20
Karpatschof, B. (2007, October). Bringing quality and meaning to quantitative data – Bringing quantitative
evidence to qualitative observation. Nordic Psychology, 59(3), 191–209.
https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dire
ct=true&db=edo&AN=32170950&site=eds-live&scope=site
– Course Learning Outcomes for Unit VIII
– Required Unit Resources
– Chapter 3: The Use of Theory
– Chapter 10: Mixed Methods Procedures (ULO 2.5)
– Unit Lesson
– Lesson: Mixed Methods: All Mixed Up? (ULO 2.5)
– Mixed Methods Research
– Arguments in Favor of MMR
– Arguments Against MMR
– In Closing
– References