Looking Back & Moving Forward: Two MMR Articles from 2016 & More to Come in 2017

In 2016, Research Design Review included two articles pertaining to mixed metmoving-forwardhods research (MMR), each highlighting the advantages of an approach that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative methods.  The first of these articles – “Life Is Meaningful, Or Is It?: The Road To Meaning In Survey Data” – appeared in February and discusses the idea that not all research questions – such as “the meaning of life” and other personal, sensitive, or complicated issues – are appropriately investigated by quantitative methods alone.  The other article – “Qualitative Analysis: The Biggest Obstacle to Enriching Survey Outcomes” – was published in March and deals with how the complexity and “messiness” of qualitative data analysis hampers “the wider use and acceptance of qualitative research among survey researchers,” and includes four suggestions towards fostering ways researchers may become more comfortable with qualitative and “more inclusive” in their methodology.

Because of the increasingly important role that qualitative and quantitative research play together in achieving credible and useful outcomes, Research Design Review will address MMR to a greater extent in 2017 (and beyond) than it has in the past.  For instance, one topic that is of utmost interest and import has to do with developing MMR studies and, specifically, the structure prescribed to mixed methods design by various typologies espoused by Creswell & Plano Clark (2011), Hanson, et al. (2005), Leech & Onwuegbuzie (2007), and others.  While these typologies serve the worthwhile purpose of helping to organize and thereby facilitate the doing of MMR, the how-to structure of these design schemes potentially binds the researcher within these design parameters while stifling a more broad-minded approach that thinks outside a typology, focusing instead on the optimal design to answer the research question(s).  Sharlene Hesse-Biber (2015) calls this the “’thing-ness’ problem,” meaning that the “formalized practice” of MMR has moved it “toward a more bounded concept” (p. 776) that has objectified mixed methods as a concrete “thing.”

This and other issues pertaining to MMR – along with other approaches and a host of research design considerations across qualitative and quantitative methods – will be the subject of future articles in Research Design Review.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Petska, K. S., & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 224–235.

Hesse-Biber, S. (2015). Mixed methods research: The “thing-ness” problem. Qualitative Health Research, 25(6), 775–788.

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43(2), 265–275.

Image captured from: http://www.orlandoab.com/oab/

Qualitative Research: A Collection of Articles from 2016

qr-2016-collection-headerMany of the articles published in Research Design Review in 2016 were dedicated to qualitative research for the simple reason that qualitative researchers are faced with myriad issues when attempting to achieve quality outcomes, and yet there is relatively little discussion about the quality standards by which to guide their research.  RDR attempts to fill this void by focusing on the unique attributes of qualitative research and how they serve to define the optimal approaches to conducting qualitative research that is credible, analyzable, transparent, and useful.

Qualitative Research: A Collection of Articles from Research Design Review Published in 2016 is a compilation of the 17 RDR articles that were published in 2016 devoted to qualitative research.  These 17 articles include articles on:

Paying Attention to Bias in Qualitative Research: A Message to Marketing Researchers (& Clients)

Researchers of all ilk care about bias and how it may creep into their research designs resulting in measurement error.  This is true among quantitative researchers as well as among qualitative researchers who routinely head-in-the-sand-2demonstrate their sensitivity to potential bias in their data by way of building interviewer training, careful recruitment screening, and appropriate modes into their research designs.  It is these types of measures that acknowledge qualitative researchers’ concerns about quality data; and yet, there are many other ways to mitigate bias in qualitative research that are often overlooked.

Marketing researchers (and marketing clients) in particular could benefit from thinking more deeply about bias and measurement error.  In the interest of “faster, cheaper, better” research solutions, marketing researchers often lose sight of quality design issues, not the least of which concern bias and measurement error in the data.  If marketing researchers care enough about mitigating bias to train interviewers/moderators, develop screening questions that effectively target the appropriate participant, and carefully select the suitable mode for the population segment, then it is sensible to adopt broader design standards that more fully embrace the collecting of quality data.

An example of a tool that serves to raise the design standard is the reflexive journal.  The reflexive journal has been the subject (in whole or in part) of many articles in Research Design Review, most notably Read Full Text