Mixing Methods in Health Psychology and Related Disciplines

Combining qualitative and quantitative research methods in psychology is potentially difficult and contentious. This is because methodological debates do not originate in the techniques used to elicit and analyse data. Instead, they emanate from more profound differences in the epistemological frameworks (or paradigms) that are typically associated with different approaches. Differences between paradigms are typically overstated and are maintained by misleading conceptualisations of ‘science’ and ‘constructivism’ which are held by proponents and critics of both qualitative and quantitative methods. I will outline the conceptual challenges of mixing methods and draw on pragmatic theory to attempt to reconcile ‘constructivist’ (qualitative) and ‘scientific’ (quantitative) paradigms. From the perspective of pragmatic theory, all psychological research involves creativity and values and must be grounded in empirical embodied experience. The aim of research is not to seek a universal independent truth but to achieve a richer, better, experience. While there is no fundamental contradiction between the aims and characteristics of ‘constructivist’ and ‘scientific’ research, different methods of inquiry and validation are required to generate meaningful qualitative and quantitative inquiry. This presents another set of challenges to the design and conduct of projects incorporating qualitative and quantitative approaches.
I will use examples from my own work in health psychology to illustrate one way – composite analysis - in which pragmatic theory can be used as a guiding framework for conducting research using qualitative and quantitative methods. Composite analysis involves retaining the integrity of qualitative and quantitative methods, rather than necessarily seeking to mix methods within single studies or publications. In composite analysis, the focus is on maintaining coherence between aims and method for each part of the study or research programme. This allows each part (qualitative or quantitative) to be understood both as an individual piece of work and as a contribution to a broader whole; the added value comes from relating the insights from one component to the other, whether that happens sequentially or otherwise.

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/psychology/about/staff/flb100.page#background

 

---

 

Workshop :

Louvain-la-Neuve, 11 juin de 10 à 18h, (faculté de psychologie et sc. de l’éducation), SOC 26.
Inscription obligatoire pour le workshop auprès de : Olivier.Luminet@uclouvain.be

In the workshop we will discuss the conceptual issues in combining qualitative and quantitative methods before focusing more practically on how to design and conduct mixed methods studies. We will review the differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches; identify potential pitfalls of mixing qualitative and quantitative methods in psychological research and how to avoid them; and explore different research designs for mixing methods, considering their strengths and limitations.

 

Reference List

1. O'Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J: The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy 2008, 13: 92-98.
2. O'Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J: Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research in England: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res 2007, 7: 85.
3. Yardley L, Bishop FL: Mixing methods. In The handbook of qualitative methods in psychology. Edited by Willig C, Stainton Rogers W. London: Sage; 2007.
4. Sandelowski M: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Sampling, Data Collection, and Analysis Techniques in Mixed-Method Studies. Research in Nursing & Health 2000, 23: 246-255.
5. White P, Bishop FL, Prescott P, Scott C, Little P, Lewith G: Practice, practitioner or placebo? A multifactorial, mixed methods randomized controlled trial of acupuncture. Pain 2012, 153: 455-462.
6. Dures E, Rumsey N, Morris M, Gleeson K: Mixed Methods in Health Psychology: Theoretical and Practical Considerations of the Third Paradigm. J Health Psychol 2011, 16: 332-341.
7. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL: Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2006.
8. Creswell JW, Fetters MD, Ivankova NV: Designing A Mixed Methods Study In Primary Care. The Annals of Family Medicine 2004, 2: 7-12.

 

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/psychology/about/staff/flb100.page#background