Remaining Open to Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed‐Method Designs: An Unscientific Compromise, or Good Research Practice?1

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0074-7750(07)35005-2Get rights and content

Abstract

The tension between quantitative and qualitative research paradigms are discussed together with the important contribution of mixed‐method designs, particularly as they are applied in the field of disability studies. Practical issues inherent in research designs involving participants with intellectual disability are explored, including sample building, participant consent, data collection and data analysis. It is concluded, scientific debate needs to move beyond the dialectic of quantitative vs qualitative research to recognise the merit of a variety of different approaches. The question is not which design is inherently superior, but which design, or combination of designs, best addresses the research question.

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)

  • D. Felce et al.

    Quality of life: A contribution to its definition and measurement

    Research in Developmental Disabilities

    (1995)
  • S. Green

    What do you mean “what's wrong with her?”: Stigma and the lives of families of children with disabilities

    Social Science & Medicine

    (2003)
  • A. Anastasi et al.

    Psychological testing

    (1996)
  • C. Antaki et al.

    Shaping client's answers: Departures from neutrality in care‐staff interviews with people with learning disability

    Disability & Society

    (2002)
  • K. Arscott et al.

    Consent to psychological research by people with intellectual disabilities

    Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

    (1998)
  • D. Atkinson

    Engaging competent others: A study of the support networks of people with mental handicap

    British Journal of Social Work

    (1986)
  • E. Aylward et al.

    Diagnosis of dementia in individuals with intellectual disability

    Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

    (1997)
  • S. Azmi et al.

    Listening to adolescents and adults with intellectual disabilities from South Asian communities

    Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

    (1997)
  • M. Bach 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)
  • S. Balandin

    Happily ever after: Communicating results to participants in research

    Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability

    (2003)
  • C. Barnes

    Qualitative research: Valuable or irrelevant?

    Disability, Handicap & Society

    (1992)
  • J. Berg

    Legal and ethical complexities with cognitively impaired subjects: Proposed guidelines

    Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics

    (1996)
  • L. Bernheimer et al.

    Impact of children with troubles on working poor families: Mixed method and experimental evidence

    Mental Retardation

    (2003)
  • S. Bilken et al.

    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

    (1988)
  • T. Booth et al.

    Sounds of silence: Narrative research with inarticulate subjects

    Disability & Society

    (1996)
  • J. Brewer et al.

    Multi‐method research: A synthesis of styles

    (1989)
  • A. Bryman

    Quantitative and qualitative research: Further reflections on their integration

  • Butterfield

    Why and how to study the influence of living arrangements

  • V. Caracelli et al.

    Crafting mixed‐method evaluation designs

  • J. Carey

    Linking qualitative and quantitative methods: Integrating cultural factors into public health

    Qualitative Health Research

    (1993)
  • J. Charlton

    Nothing about us without us: Disability oppression and empowerment

    (1998)
  • H. Chen

    Applying mixed methods under the framework of theory driven evaluations

  • J. Clements et al.

    On, to, for, with—Vulnerable people and the practices of the research community

    Behaviour and Cognitive Psychotherapy

    (1999)
  • B. Cooney

    Exploring perspectives on transition of youth with disabilities: Voices of young adults, parents and professionals

    Mental Retardation

    (2002)
  • International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects

    (2002)
  • D. Coward

    Critical multiplism: A research strategy for nursing science

    Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship

    (1990)
  • P. Cozby

    Methods in behavioural research

    (1997)
  • J. Creswell

    Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches

    (1994)
  • J. Creswell

    Qualitative inquiry and research designs

    (1998)
  • M. Crotty

    The foundations of social research

    (1998)
  • R. Cummins

    Assessing quality of life

  • R. Cummins

    Comprehensive Quality of Life Scale (ComQoL)

    (1997)
  • R. Cummins

    The second approximation to an international standard for life satisfaction

    Social Indicators Research

    (1998)
  • R. Cummins

    The validity and utility of subjective quality of life: A reply to Hatton & Ager

    Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

    (2002)
  • A. Dalton et al.

    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

    (2004)
  • C. Dancey et al.

    Statistics without maths for psychology

    (2004)
  • Y. Darlington et al.

    Qualitative research in practice: Stories from the field

    (2002)
  • L. Datta

    A pragmatic basis for mixed method designs

  • J. Dattilo et al.

    Interviewing people with mental retardation: Validity and reliability strategies

    Therapeutic Recreation Journal

    (1996)
  • N. Denzin et al.

    Handbook of qualitative research

    (2000)
  • N. Denzin et al.

    Handbook of qualitative research

    (2005)
  • R. Dinerstein et al.

    A guide to consent

    (1999)
  • J. Douglas

    Creative interviewing

    (1985)
  • R. Drewett et al.

    Neighbourhood walks: A semi‐quantitative method for assessing the access people with a learning difficulty have to resources in their community

    Mental Handicap Research

    (1993)
  • R. Edgerton

    The participant‐observer approach to research in mental retardation

    American Journal of Mental Deficiency

    (1984)
  • E. Emerson et al.

    Friendship activities of adults with learning disabilities in supported accommodation

    Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

    (2004)
  • E. Emerson et al.

    Adults with learning difficulties in England, 2003/4

    (2005)
  • G.L. Engel

    The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine

    Science

    (1977)
  • 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

    (2001)
  • 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.

    View full text