By Pamela Mreji
What is mixed methods approach? When is it used? Why? What is the epistemology and theories underpinning it, how is it designed and at what point does the integration of methods occur; is it at data collection, at data analysis or at the interpretation stage?
These were among the questions occupying our minds as we made our way to Aalborg train station for a 4 1/2 hour long journey to Copenhagen to attend a mixed methods course at AAU Copenhagen campus. The journey itself was uneventful with great views of miles upon miles of the sprawling farmlands, totally covered in the late early march snow.
Reconciling the paradigm wars in research: The mixed method approach
The class attendance in the mixed method course was good, with a multidisciplary group of over 20 PhD students from across Denmark, brought together with one key objective; to learn the finer details of how to plan and execute a mixed methods approach.
Prof Morten Fredriksen took us through the introduction session with a brief description of the mixed methods approach, its epistemology and main theories underpinning its use as a scientific research approach. He positioned the mixed methods research as the third research paradigm that can help bridge the schism between quantitative and qualitative approaches, brought about by the paradigm wars.
In the paradigm wars, both qualitative and quantitative purists view their research paradigms as the ideal, and, implicitly if not explicitly, advocate the incompatibility thesis; claiming that qualitative and quantitative research paradigms, including their associated methods, can never be mixed with viable outcomes.
A disturbing feature of these paradigm wars has been the relentless focus on the differences between the two dominant research orientations, sometimes with devastating effects on graduate students and other upcoming scholars, some of whom as we heard, have been forced to pledge allegiance to the dominant school of thought in their current institutions or transfer to an institution with their type of research orientation. This can stifle research, especially in the highly dynamic field of social sciences like that of innovation and development studies; thereby calling for a third approach that attempts to reconcile the two approaches.
It was soon clear that the goal of mixed methods research is not to replace either of these approaches but rather to draw from the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of both, in single research study and across several studies. We got to learn that a key feature of mixed methods research is its methodological pluralism or eclecticism, which can result in superior research outcomes compared to its warring partners, if planned and executed well.
This planning and execution was the highlight of the lecture by the guest lecturer Patricia Bazeley who deftly took us through the practical aspects of the planning and execution of a mixed methods research study; highlighting different methods of integration techniques one can apply at different stages of the research journey; including data collection, analysis, and interpretation and even at the presentation stage.
The group breakout sessions in the afternoons offered a great opportunity to bond with colleagues from other parts of the country as we got to discuss the challenges and opportunities in our personal research PhD journey. It was quite illuminating to learn just how different the research problems that concern scholars in the developed countries like Denmark were markedly different from the research problems from the less developed countries. I noted with keen interest that the topics covered by my three colleagues were mainly within the psychological realm and mostly dealt with social issues like why high school students abscond classes while most of us from the developed world were more concerned with innovations towards poverty e.g through better financing of the informal sector enterprises.
Pamela Mreji with her group members in one of the breakout sessions at the mixed methods course
And soon it was Thursday, the last day of the course which ended at exactly 1 pm as planned. This was followed by a warm celebratory lunch before everyone dispersed to their various destinations.
Overall verdict: Course objectives greatly exceeded.
And as the Globelics saying goes, we had worked hard and it was time to play hard (literally). This begun with a late afternoon visit to the frozen waterfront, where we waddled through the thick frozen waters and got to build our very first snowman.
The next day we joined other tourists in one of the ‘Hop in Hop out’ tour buses for a grand tour of the various tourist attractions within the city center such as Nyhavn, Rosenberg palace, the little mermaid, the langelinje and just in time to watch the change of guard at the Amalienborg palace, residence of the Danish monarch Queen Margrethe 2.
A visit to the Amalienborg palace, residence of the Danish Monarch Queen Margrethe 2
In the afternoon we visited the National innovation Fund where we gathered great insights on how they invests in new knowledge and technology by funding SMEs and other innovative enterprises to create growth and employment in the country. We got learn practical ways that can help guide policy interventions for SME growth in our various countries. Later in the afternoon we got to visit the offices of the Investment Fund for Developing Countries, (IFU) which provides risk capital and advice to companies wanting to do business in Africa, Asia, Latin America and parts of Europe. Here we got great resources on creating viable business plans for attracting donor funds.
And that marked the end of our exciting visit to Copenhagen, the Viking fishing village founded in the 10th century, which is now a modern techno savvy city with a population of over 775,000 people. We took an early evening in preparation for our travel back to Aalborg the next day.