A) Safe Schools: Consider the following mixed methods (exploratory) case
study on bullying.
scope of study:
“[examine] factors that contribute to rural high school students’ sense of
safety and variables that contribute to bullying at school” deLara, E.W.
2000 (as cited in Espelageb and Honga, 2012, p. 119)
mixed methodologies: quantitative:
“researcher-designed survey on students’ perceptions of safety at their school”
deLara, E.W. 2000 (as cited in Espelageb and Honga, 2012, p. 119) qualitative: “focus groups and
individual interviews with students, teachers, and school administrators”
deLara, E.W. 2000 (as cited in Espelageb and Honga, 2012, p. 119)
findings/implications:
While the quantitative data “found that girls are more likely than boys to
believe in conflict resolution as a resolving peer conflicts”, the qualitative
data illustrate how “the students express a need for adult supervision and
intervention in bullying incidents” deLara, E.W. 2000 (as cited in Espelageb
and Honga, 2012, p. 119). Qualitative approaches “facilitated trustworthiness of the
survey findings and more importantly, added depth and richness to the
understanding of students’ perceptions of their school environment” deLara,
E.W. 2000 (as cited in Espelageb and Honga, 2012, p. 119). In this
way, “the survey and the interviews produced information that served different
purposes – breadth versus depth – both of which were critical to the study”
deLara, E.W. 2000 (as cited in Espelageb and Honga, 2012, p. 119).
Our thoughts Knowing that…The
intent of qualitative research is to “gain an in-depth perspective” and the
intent ofquantitative research is to
“generalize” (Creswell 2014 p. 222) and that… “…we do not yet have a comprehensive
understanding of childhood bullying behavior, which is attributed, in part, to
the types of methods that have been used. The majority of researchers on bullying
have traditionally employed quantitative methodology to generate statistical
findings with large samples” (Griffin and Gross 2004 as cited in Espelageb and
Honga 2012 p. 117) and,
finally, that… “Unfortunately, the over-reliance on
quantitative studies has limited our understanding of certain aspects of the
bullying phenomenon…. Regrettably, much is still unknown about this phenomenon
(Espelageb and Honga 2012 p. 117)…
We come to a point where we see mixed methods as a useful approach in settings
where numbers alone cannot fully capture the essence of a problem.
Further, individual perspectives, on their own, cannot justly reveal the
magnitude of a problem. Knowing that x number of students are bullied
does not take us far or anywhere at all. And knowing what one or some
people feel, in isolation of this number, is equally limiting. Taken
together, the number of students experiencing bullying and their reflections on
bullying can bring us to a point where we have something deeper to work with.
Your thoughts
Given your understanding of quantitative research and qualitative research
along with your experiences related to bullying, why might a mixed methods
approach to bullying be more suitable than a purely quantitative one or a
purely qualitative one?
B) School Budget: Consider the following mixed methods explanatory case
study on shortening the school calendar to support a reduced budget.
scope: To respond to fiscal
priorities while not adversely affecting student achievement, two school
districts in Virginia shortened the school year calendar by 15 days (from 180
days to 165 days). The study seeks to respond to: How does student
performance during a shortened school year differ from student performance
during a traditional school year for students in grades 9 to 12 at Lancaster
County and Northumberland County Public Schools in Virginia? How does teacher
use of time in the shortened school year differ from teacher use of time during
a traditional school year for teachers in Lancaster County and Northumberland
County Public Schools in Virginia? (Watrous, 2011, p. 5)
mixed methodologies: quantitative:
“archived data of pass rates for students who attended Lancaster High
School or Northumberland High School during the years from the fall of
2004 through the end of the 2010 school year” (Watrous, 2011, p. 20) qualitative:
“interviews of English, math, science, and history teachers at Lancaster High
School and Northumberland High School who taught in these schools during
at least one traditional calendar year and the first year of shortened calendar
implementation. All core content teachers with experience in both
types of calendars were invited to participate” (Watrous, 2011, p. 20)
findings/implications: “Qualitative interview data
provided insight into the quantitative discoveries to provide a richer
understanding of student performance during the shortened school year.
This case study provides quantitative and qualitative information as an initial
report on this novel school calendar approach” (Watrous, 2011, p. 21)
Our thoughts Knowing
that…“This study is not intended to
predict the future success of
this calendar model, but rather
to provide a richer interpretation of the experience” (Watrous, 2011, p. 21).
We see mixed methods as a useful approach when research seeks to explain rather
than direct. If we accept that…“Mixed
methods research permits ‘investigators to address more complicated research
questions and collect a richer and stronger array of evidence than can be
accomplished by any single method alone’ ” (Yin 2009 as cited in Watrous, 2011,
p. 65) and that… “Interviews allowed for open-ended
questions and elaboration of responses that could provide explanations for
data” (Creswell 2011 as cited in Watrous, 2011, p. 81). …
We find ourselves viewing mixed methods as an approach that is suitable when
that which we are researching is complex and therefore dependent on a research
approach that makes room for complex findings to surface. If we consider
technology, for example, we see that technology, like a school budget, is in
constant motion. As new technologies are rapidly making their ways to
schools and classrooms, we do not have a substantial enough store of
quantitative data to discover the impact of these teaching and learning
tools. A reliance on qualitative measures (ex. interviewing teachers and students)
will be imperative in helping to form an accurate understanding of the tools’
effects.
Your thoughts
Where might mixed methods approaches be most suitable? Where might a
qualitative approach alone or a quantitative approach alone be suitable and
sufficient?
Also think about: Since Mixed
Methods incorporates both quantitative and qualitative methodologies does it
enhance validity in any way?
What unique
qualities does a Mixed Methods research approach bring that others may not?
Given the cost and the length of time required, what avenues of research would
be worthy for a mixed methods researcher to pursue?