CHAPTER ONE
The Selection of a Research Design
Research designs are plans and the procedures for research that span the decisions from broad
assumptions to detailed methods of data collection and analysis. This plan involves several
decisions, and they need not be taken in the order in which they make sense to me and the
order of their presentation here. The overall decision involves which design should be used to
study a topic. Informing this decision should be the worldview assumptions the researcher
brings to the study; procedures of inquiry (called strategies); and specific methods of data
collection, analysis, and interpretation. The selection of a research design is also based on the
nature of the research problem or issue being addressed, the researchers’ personal experiences,
and the audiences for the study.
THE THREE TYPES OF DESIGNS
In this book, three types of designs are advanced: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods.
Unquestionably, the three approaches are not as discrete as they first appear. Qualitative and
quantitative approaches should not be viewed as polar opposites or dichotomies; instead, they
represent different ends on a continuum (Newman & Benz, 1998). A study tends to be more
qualitative than quantitative or vice versa. Mixed methods research resides in the middle of this
continuum because it incorporates elements of both qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Often the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research is framed in terms of using
words (qualitative) rather than numbers (quantitative), or using closed-ended questions
(quantitative hypotheses) rather than open-ended questions (qualitative interview questions).
A more complete way to view the gradations of differences between them is in the basic
philosophical assumptions researchers bring to the study, the types of research strategies used
overall in the research (e.g., quantitative experiments or qualitative case studies), and the
specific methods employed in conducting these strategies (e.g., collecting data quantitatively
on instruments versus collecting qualitative data through observing a setting). Moreover, there
is a historical evolution to both approaches, with the quantitative approaches dominating the
forms of research in the social sciences from the late 19th century up until the mid-20th
century. During the latter half of the 20th century, interest in qualitative research increased and
along with it, the development of mixed methods research (see Creswell, 2008, for more of this
history). With this background, it should prove helpful to view definitions of these three key
terms as used in this book:
• Qualitative research is a means for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or
groups ascribe to a social or human problem. The process of research involves emerging
questions and procedures, data typically collected in the participant’s setting, data analysis
inductively building from particulars to general themes, and the researcher making
interpretations of the meaning of the data. The final written report has a flexible structure.
Those who engage in this form of inquiry support a way of looking at research that honors an
inductive style, a focus on individual meaning, and the importance of rendering the complexity
of a situation (adapted from Creswell, 2007).
• Quantitative research is a means for testing objective theories by examining the relationship
among variables. These variables, in turn, can be measured, typically on instruments, so that
numbered data can be analyzed using statistical procedures. The final written report has a set
structure consisting of introduction, literature and theory, methods, results, and discussion
(Creswell, 2008). Like qualitative researchers, those who engage in this form of inquiry have
assumptions about testing theories deductively, building in protections against bias, controlling
for alternative explanations, and being able to generalize and replicate the findings.
• Mixed methods research is an approach to inquiry that combines or associates both
qualitative and quantitative forms. It involves philosophical assumptions, the use of qualitative
and quantitative approaches, and the mixing of both approaches in a study. Thus, it is more
than simply collecting and analyzing both kinds of data; it also involves the use of both
approaches in tandem so that the overall strength of a study is greater than either qualitative
or quantitative research (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007).
These definitions have considerable information in each one of them. Throughout this book, I
discuss the parts of the definitions so that their meanings become clear to you.
THREE COMPONENTS INVOLVED IN A DESIGN
Two important components in each definition are that the approach to research involves
philosophical assumptions as well as distinct methods or procedures. Research design, which I
refer to as the plan or proposal to conduct research, involves the intersection of philosophy,
strategies of inquiry, and specific methods. A framework that I use to explain the interaction of
these three components is seen in Figure 1.1. To reiterate, in planning a study, researchers
need to think through the philosophical worldview assumptions that they bring to the study,
the strategy of inquiry that is related to this worldview, and the specific methods or procedures
of research that translate the approach into practice.
Philosophical Worldviews
Although philosophical ideas remain largely hidden in research (Slife & Williams, 1995), they
still influence the practice of research and need to be identified. I suggest that individuals
preparing a research proposal or plan make explicit the larger philosophical ideas they espouse.
This information will help explain why they chose qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods
approaches for their research. In writing about worldviews, a proposal might include a section
that addresses the following:
• The philosophical worldview proposed in the study
• A definition of basic considerations of that worldview
• How the worldview shaped their approach to research
Figure 1.1 A Framework for Design—The Interconnection of Worldviews, Strategies of Inquiry,
and Research Methods
I have chosen to use the term worldview as meaning “a basic set of beliefs that guide action”
(Guba, 1990, p. 17). Others have called them paradigms (Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Mertens, 1998);
epistemologies and ontologies (Crotty, 1998), or broadly conceived research methodologies
(Neuman, 2000). I see worldviews as a general orientation about the world and the nature of
research that a researcher holds. These worldviews are shaped by the discipline area of the
student, the beliefs of advisers and faculty in a student’s area, and past research experiences.
The types of beliefs held by individual researchers will often lead to embracing a qualitative,
quantitative, or mixed methods approach in their research. Four different worldviews are
discussed: postpositivism, constructivism, advocacy/participatory, and pragmatism. The major
elements of each position are presented in Table 1.1.
The Postpositivist Worldview
The postpositivist assumptions have represented the traditional form of research, and these
assumptions hold true more for quantitative research than qualitative research. This worldview
is sometimes called the scientific method or doing science research. It is also called
positivist/postpositivist research, empirical science, and postpostivism. This last term is called
postpositivism because it represents the thinking after positivism, challenging the traditional
notion of the absolute truth of knowledge (Phillips & Burbules, 2000) and recognizing that we
cannot be “positive” about our claims of knowledge when studying the behavior and actions of
humans. The postpositivist tradition comes from 19th-century writers, such as Comte, Mill,
Durkheim, Newton, and Locke (Smith, 1983), and it has been most recently articulated by
writers such as Phillips and Burbules (2000).
Table 1.1 Four Worldviews
Postpositivists hold a deterministic philosophy in which causes probably determine effects or
outcomes. Thus, the problems studied by postpositivists reflect the need to identify and assess
the causes that influence outcomes, such as found in experiments. It is also reductionistic in
that the intent is to reduce the ideas into a small, discrete set of ideas to test, such as the
variables that comprise hypotheses and research questions. The knowledge that develops
through a postpositivist lens is based on careful observation and measurement of the objective
reality that exists “out there” in the world. Thus, developing numeric measures of observations
and studying the behavior of individuals becomes paramount for a postpositivist. Finally, there
are laws or theories that govern the world, and these need to be tested or verified and refined
so that we can understand the world. Thus, in the scientific method, the accepted approach to
research by postpostivists, an individual begins with a theory, collects data that either supports
or refutes the theory, and then makes necessary revisions before additional tests are made.
In reading Phillips and Burbules (2000), you can gain a sense of the key assumptions of this
position, such as,
1. Knowledge is conjectural (and antifoundational)—absolute truth can never be found. Thus,
evidence established in research is always imperfect and fallible. It is for this reason that
researchers state that they do not prove a hypothesis; instead, they indicate a failure to reject
the hypothesis.
2. Research is the process of making claims and then refining or abandoning some of them for
other claims more strongly warranted. Most quantitative research, for example, starts with the
test of a theory.
3. Data, evidence, and rational considerations shape knowledge. In practice, the researcher
collects information on instruments based on measures completed by the participants or by
observations recorded by the researcher.
4. Research seeks to develop relevant, true statements, ones that can serve to explain the
situation of concern or that describe the causal relationships of interest. In quantitative studies,
researchers advance the relationship among variables and pose this in terms of questions or
hypotheses.
5. Being objective is an essential aspect of competent inquiry; researchers must examine
methods and conclusions for bias. For example, standard of validity and reliability are
important in quantitative research.
The Social Constructivist Worldview
Others hold a different worldview. Social constructivism (often combined with interpretivism;
see Mertens, 1998) is such a perspective, and it is typically seen as an approach to qualitative
research. The ideas came from Mannheim and from works such as Berger and Luekmann’s
(1967) The Social Construction of Reality and Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry.
More recent writers who have summarized this position are Lincoln and Guba (2000), Schwandt
(2007), Neuman (2000), and Crotty (1998), among others. Social constructivists hold
assumptions that individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work.
Individuals develop subjective meanings of their experiences—meanings directed toward
certain objects or things. These meanings are varied and multiple, leading the researcher to
look for the complexity of views rather than narrowing meanings into a few categories or ideas.
The goal of the research is to rely as much as possible on the participants’ views of the situation
being studied. The questions become broad and general so that the participants can construct
the meaning of a situation, typically forged in discussions or interactions with other persons.
The more open-ended the questioning, the better, as the researcher listens carefully to what
people say or do in their life settings. Often these subjective meanings are negotiated socially
and historically. They are not simply imprinted on individuals but are formed through
interaction with others (hence social constructivism) and through historical and cultural norms
that operate in individuals’ lives. Thus, constructivist researchers often address the processes of
interaction among individuals. They also focus on the specific contexts in which people live and
work, in order to understand the historical and cultural settings of the participants. Researchers
recognize that their own backgrounds shape their interpretation, and they position themselves
in the research to acknowledge how their interpretation flows from their personal, cultural, and
historical experiences. The researcher’s intent is to make sense of (or interpret) the meanings
others have about the world. Rather than starting with a theory (as in postpostivism), inquirers
generate or inductively develop a theory or pattern of meaning.
For example, in discussing constructivism, Crotty (1998) identified several assumptions:
1. Meanings are constructed by human beings as they engage with the world they are
interpreting. Qualitative researchers tend to use open-ended questions so that the participants
can share their views.
2. Humans engage with their world and make sense of it based on their historical and social
perspectives—we are all born into a world of meaning bestowed upon us by our culture. Thus,
qualitative researchers seek to understand the context or setting of the participants through
visiting this context and gathering information personally. They also interpret what they find,
an interpretation shaped by the researcher’s own experiences and background.
3. The basic generation of meaning is always social, arising in and out of interaction with a
human community. The process of qualitative research is largely inductive, with the inquirer
generating meaning from the data collected in the field.
The Advocacy and Participatory Worldview
Another group of researchers holds to the philosophical assumptions of the
advocacy/participatory approach. This position arose during the 1980s and 1990s from
individuals who felt that the postpostivist assumptions imposed structural laws and theories
that did not fit marginalized individuals in our society or issues of social justice that needed to
be addressed. This worldview is typically seen with qualitative research, but it can be a
foundation for quantitative research as well. Historically, some of the advocacy/participatory
(or emancipatory) writers have drawn on the works of Marx, Adorno, Marcuse, Habermas, and
Freire (Neuman, 2000). Fay (1987), Heron and Reason (1997), and Kemmis and Wilkinson (1998)
are more recent writers to read for this perspective. In the main, these inquirers felt that the
constructivist stance did not go far enough in advocating for an action agenda to help
marginalized peoples. An advocacy/participatory worldview holds that research inquiry needs
to be intertwined with politics and a political agenda. Thus, the research contains an action
agenda for reform that may change the lives of the participants, the institutions in which
individuals work or live, and the researcher’s life. Moreover, specific issues need to be
addressed that speak to important social issues of the day, issues such as empowerment,
inequality, oppression, domination, suppression, and alienation. The researcher often begins
with one of these issues as the focal point of the study. This research also assumes that the
inquirer will proceed collaboratively so as to not further marginalize the participants as a result
of the inquiry. In this sense, the participants may help design questions, collect data, analyze
information, or reap the rewards of the research. Advocacy research provides a voice for these
participants, raising their consciousness or advancing an agenda for change to improve their
lives. It becomes a united voice for reform and change.
This philosophical worldview focuses on the needs of groups and individuals in our society that
may be marginalized or disenfranchised. Therefore, theoretical perspectives may be integrated
with the philosophical assumptions that construct a picture of the issues being examined, the
people to be studied, and the changes that are needed, such as feminist perspectives, racialized
discourses, critical theory, queer theory, and disability theory—theoretical lens to be discussed
more in Chapter 3.
Although these are diverse groups and my explanations here are generalizations, it is helpful to
view the summary by Kemmis and Wilkinson (1998) of key features of the advocacy or
participatory forms of inquiry:
1. Participatory action is recursive or dialectical and focused on bringing about change in
practices. Thus, at the end of advocacy/participatory studies, researchers advance an action
agenda for change.
2. This form of inquiry is focused on helping individuals free themselves from constraints found
in the media, in language, in work procedures, and in the relationships of power in educational
settings. Advocacy/participatory studies often begin with an important issue or stance about
the problems in society, such as the need for empowerment.
3. It is emancipatory in that it helps unshackle people from the constraints of irrational and
unjust structures that limit self-development and self-determination. The
advocacy/participatory studies aim to create a political debate and discussion so that change
will occur.
4. It is practical and collaborative because it is inquiry completed with others rather than on or
to others. In this spirit, advocacy/participatory authors engage the participants as active
collaborators in their inquiries.
The Pragmatic Worldview
Another position about worldviews comes from the pragmatists. Pragmatism derives from the
work of Peirce, James, Mead, and Dewey (Cherryholmes, 1992). Recent writers include Rorty
(1990), Murphy (1990), Patton (1990), and Cherryholmes (1992). There are many forms of this
philosophy, but for many, pragmatism as a worldview arises out of actions, situations, and
consequences rather than antecedent conditions (as in postpositivism). There is a concern with
applications—what works—and solutions to problems (Patton, 1990). Instead of focusing on
methods, researchers emphasize the research problem and use all approaches available to
understand the problem (see Rossman & Wilson, 1985). As a philosophical underpinning for
mixed methods studies, Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998), Morgan (2007), and Patton (1990)
convey its importance for focusing attention on the research problem in social science research
and then using pluralistic approaches to derive knowledge about the problem. Using
Cherryholmes (1992), Morgan (2007), and my own views, pragmatism provides a philosophical
basis for research:
• Pragmatism is not committed to any one system of philosophy and reality. This applies to
mixed methods research in that inquirers draw liberally from both quantitative and qualitative
assumptions when they engage in their research.
• Individual researchers have a freedom of choice. In this way, researchers are free to choose
the methods, techniques, and procedures of research that best meet their needs and purposes.
• Pragmatists do not see the world as an absolute unity. In a similar way, mixed methods
researchers look to many approaches for collecting and analyzing data rather than subscribing
to only one way (e.g., quantitative or qualitative).
• Truth is what works at the time. It is not based in a duality between reality independent of
the mind or within the mind. Thus, in mixed methods research, investigators use both
quantitative and qualitative data because they work to provide the best understanding of a
research problem.
• The pragmatist researchers look to the what and how to research, based on the intended
consequences—where they want to go with it. Mixed methods researchers need to establish a
purpose for their mixing, a rationale for the reasons why quantitative and qualitative data need
to be mixed in the first place.
• Pragmatists agree that research always occurs in social, historical, political, and other
contexts. In this way, mixed methods studies may include a postmodern turn, a theoretical lens
that is reflective of social justice and political aims.
• Pragmatists have believed in an external world independent of the mind as well as that
lodged in the mind. But they believe that we need to stop asking questions about reality and
the laws of nature (Cherryholmes, 1992). “They would simply like to change the subject” (Rorty,
1983, p. xiv).
• Thus, for the mixed methods researcher, pragmatism opens the door to multiple methods,
different worldviews, and different assumptions, as well as different forms of data collection
and analysis.
Strategies of Inquiry
The researcher not only selects a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods study to conduct,
the inquirer also decides on a type of study within these three choices. Strategies of inquiry are
types of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods designs or models that provide specific
direction for procedures in a research design. Others have called them approaches to inquiry
(Creswell, 2007) or research methodologies (Mertens, 1998). The strategies available to the
researcher have grown over the years as computer technology has pushed forward our data
analysis and ability to analyze complex models and as individuals have articulated new
procedures for conducting social science research. Select types will be emphasized in Chapters
8, 9, and 10, strategies frequently used in the social sciences. Here I introduce those that are
discussed later and that are cited in examples throughout the book. An overview of these
strategies is shown in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2 Alternative Strategies of Inquiry
Quantitative Strategies
During the late 19th and throughout the 20th century, strategies of inquiry associated with
quantitative research were those that invoked the postpositivist worldview. These include true
experiments and the less rigorous experiments called quasi-experiments and correlational
studies (Campbell & Stanley, 1963) and specific single-subject experiments (Cooper, Heron, &
Heward, 1987; Neuman & McCormick, 1995). More recently, quantitative strategies have
involved complex experiments with many variables and treatments (e.g., factorial designs and
repeated measure designs). They have also included elaborate structural equation models that
incorporate causal paths and the identification of the collective strength of multiple variables.
In this book, I focus on two strategies of inquiry: surveys and experiments.
• Survey research provides a quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitudes, or
opinions of a population by studying a sample of that population. It includes cross-sectional and
longitudinal studies using questionnaires or structured interviews for data collection, with the
intent of generalizing from a sample to a population (Babbie, 1990).
• Experimental research seeks to determine if a specific treatment influences an outcome. This
impact is assessed by providing a specific treatment to one group and withholding it from
another and then determining how both groups scored on an outcome. Experiments include
true experiments, with the random assignment of subjects to treatment conditions, and quasiexperiments
that use nonrandomized designs (Keppel, 1991). Included within quasiexperiments
are single-subject designs.
Qualitative Strategies
In qualitative research, the numbers and types of approaches have also become more clearly
visible during the 1990s and into the 21st century. Books have summarized the various types
(such as the 19 strategies identified by Wolcott, 2001), and complete procedures are now
available on specific qualitative inquiry approaches. For example, Clandinin and Connelly (2000)
constructed a picture of what narrative researchers do. Moustakas (1994) discussed the
philosophical tenets and the procedures of the phenomenological method, and Strauss and
Corbin (1990, 1998) identified the procedures of grounded theory. Wolcott (1999) summarized
ethnographic procedures, and Stake (1995) suggested processes involved in case study research.
In this book, illustrations are drawn from the following strategies, recognizing that approaches
such as participatory action research (Kemmis & Wilkinson, 1998), discourse analysis (Cheek,
2004), and others not mentioned (see Creswell, 2007b) are also viable ways to conduct
qualitative studies:
• Ethnography is a strategy of inquiry in which the researcher studies an intact cultural group in
a natural setting over a prolonged period of time by collecting, primarily, observational and
interview data (Creswell, 2007b). The research process is flexible and typically evolves
contextually in response to the lived realities encountered in the field setting (LeCompte &
Schensul, 1999).
• Grounded theory is a strategy of inquiry in which the researcher derives a general, abstract
theory of a process, action, or interaction grounded in the views of participants. This process
involves using multiple stages of data collection and the refinement and interrelationship of
categories of information (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss and Corbin, 1990, 1998). Two primary
characteristics of this design are the constant comparison of data with emerging categories and
theoretical sampling of different groups to maximize the similarities and the differences of
information.
• Case studies are a strategy of inquiry in which the researcher explores in depth a program,
event, activity, process, or one or more individuals. Cases are bounded by time and activity, and
researchers collect detailed information using a variety of data collection procedures over a
sustained period of time (Stake, 1995).
• Phenomenological research is a strategy of inquiry in which the researcher identifies the
essence of human experiences about a phenomenon as described by participants.
Understanding the lived experiences marks phenomenology as a philosophy as well as a
method, and the procedure involves studying a small number of subjects through extensive and
prolonged engagement to develop patterns and relationships of meaning (Moustakas, 1994). In
this process, the researcher brackets or sets aside his or her own experiences in order to
understand those of the participants in the study (Nieswiadomy, 1993).
• Narrative research is a strategy of inquiry in which the researcher studies the lives of
individuals and asks one or more individuals to provide stories about their lives. This
information is then often retold or restoried by the researcher into a narrative chronology. In
the end, the narrative combines views from the participant’s life with those of the researcher’s
life in a collaborative narrative (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000).
Mixed Methods Strategies
Mixed methods strategies are less well known than either the quantitative or qualitative
approaches. The concept of mixing different methods originated in 1959 when Campbell and
Fisk used multimethods to study validity of psychological traits. They encouraged others to
employ their multimethod matrix to examine multiple approaches to data collection. This
prompted others to mix methods, and soon approaches associated with field methods, such as
observations and interviews (qualitative data), were combined with traditional surveys
(quantitative data; Sieber, 1973). Recognizing that all methods have limitations, researchers felt
that biases inherent in any single method could neutralize or cancel the biases of other
methods. Triangulating data sources—a means for seeking convergence across qualitative and
quantitative methods—was born (Jick, 1979). By the early 1990s, the idea of mixing moved
from seeking convergence to actually integrating or connecting the quantitative and qualitative
data. For example, the results from one method can help identify participants to study or
questions to ask for the other method (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Alternatively, the
qualitative and quantitative data can be merged into one large database or the results used
side by side to reinforce each other (e.g., qualitative quotes support statistical results; Creswell
& Plano Clark, 2007). Or the methods can serve a larger, transformative purpose to advocate
for marginalized groups, such as women, ethnic/racial minorities, members of gay and lesbian
communities, people with disabilities, and those who are poor (Mertens, 2003).
These reasons for mixing methods have led writers from around the world to develop
procedures for mixed methods strategies of inquiry, and these take the numerous terms found
in the literature, such as multimethod, convergence, integrated, and combined (Creswell &
Plano Clark, 2007), and shape procedures for research (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003).
In particular, three general strategies and several variations within them are illustrated in this
book:
• Sequential mixed methods procedures are those in which the researcher seeks to elaborate
on or expand on the findings of one method with another method. This may involve beginning
with a qualitative interview for exploratory purposes and following up with a quantitative,
survey method with a large sample so that the researcher can generalize results to a population.
Alternatively, the study may begin with a quantitative method in which a theory or concept is
tested, followed by a qualitative method involving detailed exploration with a few cases or
individuals.
• Concurrent mixed methods procedures are those in which the researcher converges or
merges quantitative and qualitative data in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the
research problem. In this design, the investigator collects both forms of data at the same time
and then integrates the information in the interpretation of the overall results. Also, in this
design, the researcher may embed one smaller form of data within another larger data
collection in order to analyze different types of questions (the qualitative addresses the process
while the quantitative, the outcomes).
• Transformative mixed methods procedures are those in which the researcher uses a
theoretical lens (see Chapter 3) as an overarching perspective within a design that contains
both quantitative and qualitative data. This lens provides a framework for topics of interest,
methods for collecting data, and outcomes or changes anticipated by the study. Within this lens
could be a data collection method that involves a sequential or a concurrent approach.
Research Methods
The third major element in the framework is the specific research methods that involve the
forms of data collection, analysis, and interpretation that researchers propose for their studies.
As shown in Table 1.3, it is useful to consider the full range of possibilities of data collection and
to organize these methods, for example, by their degree of predetermined nature, their use of
closed-ended versus open-ended questioning, and their focus on numeric versus nonnumeric
data analysis. These methods will be developed further in Chapters 8 through 10.
Researchers collect data on an instrument or test (e.g., a set of questions about attitudes
toward self-esteem) or gather information on a behavioral checklist (e.g., observation of a
worker engaged in a complex skill). On the other end of the continuum, collecting data might
involve visiting a research site and observing the behavior of individuals without predetermined
questions or conducting an interview in which the individual is allowed to talk openly about a
topic, largely without the use of specific questions. The choice of methods turns on whether the
intent is to specify the type of information to be collected in advance of the study or allow it to
emerge from participants in the project. Also, the type of data analyzed may be numeric
information gathered on scales of instruments or text information recording and reporting the
voice of the participants. Researchers make interpretations of the statistical results, or they
interpret the themes or patterns that emerge from the data. In some forms of research, both
quantitative and qualitative data are collected, analyzed, and interpreted. Instrument data may
be augmented with open-ended observations, or census data may be followed by in-depth
exploratory interviews. In this case of mixing methods, the researcher makes inferences across
both the quantitative and qualitative databases.
Table 1.3 Quantitative, Mixed, and Qualitative Methods
RESEARCH DESIGNS AS WORLDVIEWS, STRATEGIES, AND METHODS
The worldviews, the strategies, and the methods all contribute to a research design that tends
to be quantitative, qualitative, or mixed. Table 1.4 creates distinctions that may be useful in
choosing an approach. This table also includes practices of all three approaches that are
emphasized in remaining chapters of this book.
Typical scenarios of research can illustrate how these three elements combine into a research
design.
• Quantitative approach—Postpositivist worldview, experimental strategy of inquiry, and preand
post-test measures of attitudes
In this scenario, the researcher tests a theory by specifying narrow hypotheses and the
collection of data to support or refute the hypotheses. An experimental design is used in which
attitudes are assessed both before and after an experimental treatment. The data are collected
on an instrument that measures attitudes, and the information is analyzed using statistical
procedures and hypothesis testing.
• Qualitative approach—Constructivist worldview, ethnographic design, and observation of
behavior
In this situation, the researcher seeks to establish the meaning of a phenomenon from the
views of participants. This means identifying a culture-sharing group and studying how it
develops shared patterns of behavior over time (i.e., ethnography). One of the key elements of
collecting data in this way is to observe participants’ behaviors by engaging in their activities.
• Qualitative approach—Participatory worldview, narrative design, and open-ended
interviewing
For this study, the inquirer seeks to examine an issue related to oppression of individuals. To
study this, stories are collected of individual oppression using a narrative approach. Individuals
are interviewed at some length to determine how they have personally experienced oppression.
Table 1.4 Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches
• Mixed methods approach—Pragmatic worldview, collection of both quantitative and
qualitative data sequentially
The researcher bases the inquiry on the assumption that collecting diverse types of data best
provides an understanding of a research problem. The study begins with a broad survey in
order to generalize results to a population and then, in a second phase, focuses on qualitative,
open-ended interviews to collect detailed views from participants.
CRITERIA FOR SELECTING A RESEARCH DESIGN
Given the possibility of qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods approaches, what factors
affect a choice of one approach over another for the design of a proposal? Added to worldview,
strategy, and methods would be the research problem, the personal experiences of the
researcher, and the audience(s) for whom the report will be written.
The Research Problem
A research problem, more thoroughly discussed in Chapter 5, is an issue or concern that needs
to be addressed (e.g., the issue of racial discrimination). Certain types of social research
problems call for specific approaches. For example, if the problem calls for (a) the identification
of factors that influence an outcome, (b) the utility of an intervention, or (c) understanding the
best predictors of outcomes, then a quantitative approach is best. It is also the best approach
to use to test a theory or explanation.
On the other hand, if a concept or phenomenon needs to be understood because little research
has been done on it, then it merits a qualitative approach. Qualitative research is exploratory
and is useful when the researcher does not know the important variables to examine. This type
of approach may be needed because the topic is new, the topic has never been addressed with
a certain sample or group of people, and existing theories do not apply with the particular
sample or group under study (Morse, 1991).
A mixed methods design is useful when either the quantitative or qualitative approach by itself
is inadequate to best understand a research problem or the strengths of both quantitative and
qualitative research can provide the best understanding. For example, a researcher may want
to both generalize the findings to a population as well as develop a detailed view of the
meaning of a phenomenon or concept for individuals. In this research, the inquirer first
explores generally to learn what variables to study and then studies those variables with a large
sample of individuals. Alternatively, researchers may first survey a large number of individuals
and then follow up with a few participants to obtain their specific language and voices about
the topic. In these situations, collecting both closed-ended quantitative data and open-ended
qualitative data proves advantageous.
Personal Experiences
Researchers’ own personal training and experiences also influence their choice of approach. An
individual trained in technical, scientific writing, statistics, and computer statistical programs
and familiar with quantitative journals in the library would most likely choose the quantitative
design. On the other hand, individuals who enjoy writing in a literary way or conducting
personal interviews or making up-close observations may gravitate to the qualitative approach.
The mixed methods researcher is an individual familiar with both quantitative and qualitative
research. This person also has the time and resources to collect both quantitative and
qualitative data and has outlets for mixed methods studies, which tend to be large in scope.
Since quantitative studies are the traditional mode of research, carefully worked out
procedures and rules exist for them. Researchers may be more comfortable with the highly
systematic procedures of quantitative research. Also, for some individuals, it can be
uncomfortable to challenge accepted approaches among some faculty by using qualitative and
advocacy/ participatory approaches to inquiry. On the other hand, qualitative approaches allow
room to be innovative and to work more within researcher-designed frameworks. They allow
more creative, literary-style writing, a form that individuals may like to use. For
advocacy/participatory writers, there is undoubtedly a strong stimulus to pursue topics that are
of personal interest—issues that relate to marginalized people and an interest in creating a
better society for them and everyone.
For the mixed methods researcher, the project will take extra time because of the need to
collect and analyze both quantitative and qualitative data. It fits a person who enjoys both the
structure of quantitative research and the flexibility of qualitative inquiry.
Audience
Finally, researchers write for audiences that will accept their research. These audiences may be
journal editors, journal readers, graduate committees, conference attendees, or colleagues in
the field. Students should consider the approaches typically supported and used by their
advisers. The experiences of these audiences with quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods
studies can shape the decision made about this choice.
SUMMARY
In planning a research project, researchers need to identify whether they will employ a
qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods design. This design is based on bringing together a
worldview or assumptions about research, the specific strategies of inquiry, and research
methods. Decisions about choice of a design are further influenced by the research problem or
issue being studied, the personal experiences of the researcher, and the audience for whom the
researcher writes.
Writing Exercises
1. Identify a research question in a journal article and discuss what design would be best to
study the question and why.
2. Take a topic that you would like to study, and using the four combinations of worldviews,
strategies of inquiry, and research methods in Figure 1.1, discuss a project that brings together
a worldview, strategies, and methods. Identify whether this would be quantitative, qualitative,
or mixed methods research.
3. What distinguishes a quantitative study from a qualitative study?
Mention three characteristics.
ADDITIONAL READINGS
Cherryholmes, C. H. (1992, August-September). Notes on pragmatism and scientific realism.
Educational Researcher, 14, 13-17.
Cleo Cherryholmes discusses pragmatism as a contrasting perspective from scientific realism.
The strength of this article lies in the numerous citations of writers about pragmatism and a
clarification of one version of pragmatism. Cherryholmes’s version points out that pragmatism
is driven by anticipated consequences, reluctance to tell a true story, and the embrace of the
idea that there is an external world independent of our minds. Also included in this article are
numerous references to historical and recent writers about pragmatism as a philosophical
position.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research
process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Michael Crotty offers a useful framework for tying together the many epistemological issues,
theoretical perspectives, methodology, and methods of social research. He interrelates the four
components of the research process and shows in a table a representative sampling of topics of
each component. He then goes on to discuss nine different theoretical orientations in social
research, such as postmodernism, feminism, critical inquiry, interpretivism, constructionism,
and positivism.
Kemmis, S., & Wilkinson, M. (1998). Participatory action research and the study of practice. In B.
Atweh, S. Kemmis, & P. Weeks (Eds.), Action research in practice: Partnerships for social justice
in education (pp. 21-36). New York: Routledge.
Stephen Kemmis and Mervyn Wilkinson provide an excellent overview of participatory research.
In particular, they note the six major features of this inquiry approach and then discuss how
action research is practiced at the individual level, the social level, or both levels.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging
confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.,
pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Yvonna Lincoln and Egon Guba have provided the basic beliefs of five alternative inquiry
paradigms in social science research: positivism, postpositivism, critical theory, constructivism,
and participatory. These extend the earlier analysis provided in the first and second editions of
the Handbook. Each is presented in terms of ontology (i.e., nature of reality), epistemology (i.e.,
how we know what we know), and methodology (i.e., the process of research). The
participatory paradigm adds another alternative paradigm to those originally advanced in the
first edition. After briefly presenting these five approaches, they contrast them in terms of
seven issues, such as the nature of knowledge, how knowledge accumulates, and goodness or
quality criteria.
Neuman, W. L. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Lawrence Neuman provides a comprehensive research method text as an introduction to social
science research. Especially helpful in understanding the alternative meaning of methodology is
Chapter 4, titled, “The Meanings of Methodology,” in which he contrasts three
methodologies—positivist social science, interpretive social science, and critical social science—
in terms of eight questions (e.g., What constitutes an explanation or theory of social reality?
What does good evidence or factual information look like?).
Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
D. C. Phillips and Nicholas Burbules summarize the major ideas of postpostivist thinking.
Through two chapters, “What is Postpositivism?” and “Philosophical Commitments of
Postpositivist Researchers,” the authors advance major ideas about postpositivism, especially
those that differentiate it from positivism. These include knowing that human knowledge is
conjectural rather than unchallengeable and that our warrants for knowledge can be
withdrawn in light of further investigations.