Remaining Open to Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed‐Method Designs: An Unscientific Compromise, or Good Research Practice?1
Introduction
This is an era of methodological pluralism in applied social science, including the field of evaluation. Multiple frameworks for inquiry abound.… The dissonance and discord created by such competition are softened, to a degree, by continuing endeavours to embrace multiple methodologies within the same study or inquiry project (Greene & Caracelli, 1997, p. 5).
In this chapter we discuss methodological issues, from both philosophical and pragmatic points of view, in an effort to resolve some of the dissonance and discord described by Greene and Caracelli (1997). Particular attention is paid to the design and application of mixed methodologies, given their growing importance to research generally (Denzin 2005, Greene 1997, Johnson 2004, Teddlie 2003) and, specifically, to the field of disability studies (O'Day 2002, Schalock 2001, Switzky 2006). An enhanced understanding of the capacities and limitations of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed‐method designs will better equip researchers to be of service to people with disabilities and the communities for whom they conduct their research. Importantly, a better understanding of the different methodological approaches, and how they can be utilized, will contribute to the establishment of a valid, reliable, trustworthy, and robust evidence base that will increase understanding of what it means to be a person with disability, and enhance the provision and evaluation of policy, services, and strategies intended to promote quality of life (QoL) for people with disability.
The purpose of this chapter is to present a range of issues that, in particular, new investigators in the field of intellectual disability need to consider when planning a research or evaluation project. To this end, we discuss how quantitative and qualitative methods relate to each other and can coexist. Techniques for soliciting quantitative and qualitative data from participants with intellectual disability are addressed. We also discuss the scientific rigor required for the reliable analyses of these data, their valid interpretation and application.
We begin by examining the factors that can influence a researcher's selection of a particular methodology. The clinical research paradigm and critical multiplism are then critiqued. The key elements of quantitative and qualitative research methods are outlined, compared, and contrasted. Research strategies incorporating mixed‐method designs are proposed as a means of addressing the complex questions and methodological issues that arise in research relating to people with intellectual disability. Finally, we address issues concerned with sample building, participant consent, data collection, and data processing.
Section snippets
Selecting Appropriate Research Method(s)
When selecting appropriate methodology, the researcher needs to be cognizant of the complexity of the issues that influence his or her decision. In Fig. 5.1, we portray the relations among the researcher's ontological and epistemological perspective, his or her professional formation and stance toward the subject matter, the research questions posed, the context in which the researcher conducts and reports the research, and the research design ultimately selected. Also, it needs to be noted
The characteristics of quantitative research methods
Quantitative, positivistic research is arguably the most widely understood approach to scientific research and could be considered the dominant research paradigm. It is predicated on the understanding that reality exists “out there” and can be captured and understood with the appropriate technology. Quantitative research is most commonly concerned with positivistic inquiry into observable facts. These so‐called facts in turn give rise to propositions (i.e., hypotheses), which can be supported
Obtaining consent from people with disability
When building a sample, the issue of voluntary, informed consent is a major consideration in any research endeavor, be it quantitative, qualitative, or a mixed‐method design (Dinerstein, Herr, & O'Sullivan, 1999). Gaining voluntary, informed consent is one safeguard designed to minimize the exploitation of the participants, including exploitation by means of appropriating participants' knowledge or personal story without their understanding the purposes or intentions of the researcher (Fontana
Summary and Concluding Remarks
Researchers have a responsibility to conduct work that is ethical (Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences [CIOMS] 2002, Dalton 2004, European Parliament 2001, Griffin 2004, Nuremberg Code 1949, World Medical Association 2000). An important consideration in judging the ethical merit and scientific value of a research project is the integrity of its methodology. In this chapter we have proposed that a significant determinant of both the ethical merit and scientific value of a
References (166)
- et al.
Quality of life: A contribution to its definition and measurement
Research in Developmental Disabilities
(1995) What do you mean “what's wrong with her?”: Stigma and the lives of families of children with disabilities
Social Science & Medicine
(2003)- et al.
Psychological testing
(1996) - et al.
Shaping client's answers: Departures from neutrality in care‐staff interviews with people with learning disability
Disability & Society
(2002) - et al.
Consent to psychological research by people with intellectual disabilities
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
(1998) Engaging competent others: A study of the support networks of people with mental handicap
British Journal of Social Work
(1986)- et al.
Diagnosis of dementia in individuals with intellectual disability
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
(1997) - et al.
Listening to adolescents and adults with intellectual disabilities from South Asian communities
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
(1997) - et al.
Seeking consent to participate in research from people whose ability to make an informed decision could be questioned: The supported decision‐making model
(1996)
Happily ever after: Communicating results to participants in research
Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability
Qualitative research: Valuable or irrelevant?
Disability, Handicap & Society
Legal and ethical complexities with cognitively impaired subjects: Proposed guidelines
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
Impact of children with troubles on working poor families: Mixed method and experimental evidence
Mental Retardation
Are you retarded? No, I'm Catholic: Qualitative methods in the study of people with severe handicaps
Journal of the Association of the Severely Handicapped
Sounds of silence: Narrative research with inarticulate subjects
Disability & Society
Multi‐method research: A synthesis of styles
Quantitative and qualitative research: Further reflections on their integration
Why and how to study the influence of living arrangements
Crafting mixed‐method evaluation designs
Linking qualitative and quantitative methods: Integrating cultural factors into public health
Qualitative Health Research
Nothing about us without us: Disability oppression and empowerment
Applying mixed methods under the framework of theory driven evaluations
On, to, for, with—Vulnerable people and the practices of the research community
Behaviour and Cognitive Psychotherapy
Exploring perspectives on transition of youth with disabilities: Voices of young adults, parents and professionals
Mental Retardation
International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects
Critical multiplism: A research strategy for nursing science
Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship
Methods in behavioural research
Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches
Qualitative inquiry and research designs
The foundations of social research
Assessing quality of life
Comprehensive Quality of Life Scale (ComQoL)
The second approximation to an international standard for life satisfaction
Social Indicators Research
The validity and utility of subjective quality of life: A reply to Hatton & Ager
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
Ethics guidelines for international multi‐centre research involving people with intellectual disabilities [Guidelines commissioned by the International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual Disability (IASSID)]
Journal of Policy & Practice in Intellectual Disability
Statistics without maths for psychology
Qualitative research in practice: Stories from the field
A pragmatic basis for mixed method designs
Interviewing people with mental retardation: Validity and reliability strategies
Therapeutic Recreation Journal
Handbook of qualitative research
Handbook of qualitative research
A guide to consent
Creative interviewing
Neighbourhood walks: A semi‐quantitative method for assessing the access people with a learning difficulty have to resources in their community
Mental Handicap Research
The participant‐observer approach to research in mental retardation
American Journal of Mental Deficiency
Friendship activities of adults with learning disabilities in supported accommodation
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
Adults with learning difficulties in England, 2003/4
The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine
Science
Directive on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use
Official Journal of the European Communities
Cited by (18)
Photographic visualization of stories: documenting the experiences of people with intellectual disabilities with guided photovoice
2024, Journal of Intellectual DisabilitiesWhat students with intellectual disabilities know about writing planning
2022, Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities‘Let’s play?’ A systematic review of board games in biology
2022, Journal of Biological EducationA Flourishing Quality of Life Amidst Disability
2022, Journal of Disability and Religion
- 1
Author note: This paper is based on the Doctoral Research of Keith R. McVilly, which was recognized with Australian Psychological Society's 2005 Thesis Award for a thesis in the field of human relationships. The research was partly funded by an Australian Post Graduate Award, in the Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney.