A’an Nursifa H 1305085111

Achmad Zulfikar H 1305085122

Rizky Ramadhan 1305085139
Abdul Wahid H 1305085112
Mix Method Research

As a method, it focuses on collecting, analyzing, and mixing both quantitative and

qualitative data in a single study or series of studies. Its central premise is that the use of
quantitative and qualitative approaches, in combination, provides a better understanding of
research problems than either approach alone. These are characteristics of mixed methods
research

 Collect and analyze both quantitative and qualitative data.

 Mix two forms of data in different ways.
 Give priority to one or both forms of data.
 Can be in a single study or in multiple phases of a study.

In the development of mixed methods research, the language used to describe this design has
not always been precise and consistent. Combine the methods in a way that achieves
complementary strengths and nonoverlapping weaknesses.Once it is recognized that both
quantitative and qualitative methods have theirstrengths and their weaknesses, it becomes easy to
see the logic of this principle.
On the other hand, qualitative research brings the strengths of sensitivity to meaning and to
context, local groundedness, the in-depth study of smaller samples, and great methodological
flexibility which enhances the ability to study process and change. Considerations such as these
imply that qualitative methods can be strong in those areas where quantitative methods are weak,
and similarly that quantitative methods can be strong in those areas where qualitative methods
are weak. Combining the two methods therefore offers the possibility of combining these two
sets of strengths, and compensating for the weaknesses. However, for mixed methods to develop
and grow in popularity in education research required the field of research methods to move past
the either–or methodological thinking of the paradigm wars period.
In addition to acknowledgement and apprecia- tion of the respective strengths and
weaknesses of the two approaches. Pragmatism is not the only philosophy or paradigm
associated with mixed methods research, but it is the main one (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003b:
20–4; 2003c: 677–80). Pragmatism is a philosophical position with a substantial history (see, for
example, Maxcy, 2003). The essential idea of pragmatism is to reject the either–or choices and
the metaphysical concepts associated with the paradigm wars, and to focus instead on ‘what
works’ in getting research questions answered (Tashakorri and Teddlie, 2003b: 20–1; 2003c:
713). Two implications of this stand out. The first is that the research question(s) is more
important than, and logically prior to, either the method used or the paradigm underlying the
method. The second is that specific decisions regarding the use of either qualitative methods,
quantitative methods or mixed methods depend on the research question(s) being asked. These
two implications are, of course, key aspects of the point of view about the logic of empirical
research stressed earlier in this book, especially in Chapters 4 and 5. This point of view is
summarized by saying that substantive issues come before methodological and paradigmatic
issues.
 These chapters have shown how this logic applies to both qualitative and quantitative
research, and in so doing they have pointed to numerous similarities in the two approaches. Thus,
the same basic model underlies both approaches, and the same main headings of design, data
collection and data analysis apply to both. The similar way both approaches move across
differing levels of abstraction has also been noted in Chapters 9 and 12.

Classroom Action Research

Action research is the process through which teachers collaborate in evaluating their practice
jointly; raise awareness of their personal theory; articulate a shared conception of values; try out
new strategies to render the values expressed in their practice more consistent with educational
values they espouse; record their work in a form which is readily available to and understandable
by other teachers; and thus develop a shared theory of teaching by research practice. Initial
planning of the bake sale activity began by posing the research question, “What learning activity
would satisfy the following course objectives:

 It would incorporate a real product to which students could relate,

 It would provide a method with which to teach the more abstract and difficult topics in
marketing, such as pricing/profit, and
 It would allow for the creation of a realistic marketing plan.”

In the first iteration, the course syllabus required the marketing plan to be worked on all
semester, which would allow students to apply course terms and concepts throughout,
culminating in a written marketing plan at the end. We began by examining the various
experiential learning activities described in the marketing education literature and decided the
bake sale met the criterion of realism, as previously discussed. In addition, the product could be
easily “manufactured” by students as well as provide straight forward performance
measurements, for example, profitability, units sold, etc, which is similar to how marketing
activities are assessed in “real life.” Finally, this activity could be completed within the semester
time frame and students would be able to see the relationship between their decisions and actions
and the end results that were achieved.

Implications and Recommendations

1) Action research an appropriate paradigm for improving everyday classroom practice.
Business educators work in their own environments, with their own students,
implementing their own pedagogies with the challenge and responsibility to improve their own
teaching and learning. Explicitly incorporating facultys’ practical goal of improving their
current practice and at the same time improving their understanding and contribution to theory
can help dissolve the differentiation between teaching and research.
2) Monitor the learning process, as well as, learning outcomes.
Relying solely on typical learning outcomes such as exams, projects, written cases, etc
provide the instructor with little direction for improvement. Was low performance due to lack
ofmotivation and effort or insufficient knowledge and skills? Was high performance based on
theuse of surface learning strategies that may result in satisfactory short-term performance but
lacks long-term transfers and generalizations? To develop a deeper understanding of the
learningoutcomes, we recommend that they be supplemented and interpreted with an evaluation
of thelearning process. In our action research we utilized the Student’s Approach to Learning
Scale(Biggs, Kember, & Leung, 2001) as an indicator that the learning process was fostering
deeperlearning strategies as compared to surface learning strategies.

Comparison

In mixed methods large populations are usually studied, while smaller Populations are set
apart for qualitative investigation. In action research smaller populations are investigated and
they remain the same for both the quantitative and qualitative part of the research. The most
popular data collection tools in all of these studies are questionnaires and interviews which are
supplemented by other tools, such as think aloud protocols and reflective essays (in mixed
methods) and observation, field notes, documents, journals and discussions (in action research).
Action research studies usually employ a larger variety of data collection tools. In mixed
methods research sequential data collection dominates, whereas in action research the sequential-
concurrent model is dominant. The qualitative and quantitative data collected in mixed methods
research are analysed separately, statistically and qualitatively, and integrated in the discussion
and conclusion sections. In action research quantitative data are simply calculated and discussed
together with the qualitative data, but the process of analysis is not described. To sum up the
comparison of these two research approaches it can be stated that:

 Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in research is a basic principle in

mixed methods approach, but only some action research studies employ such
combinations.
 The two research methods are similar in stating the goals for mixing methods and in data
collection.
 The two research methods may differ in the way qualitative and quantitative approaches
are combined, in data analysis and data presentation.
 They are different in the way the research is written up.

The comparison of these two sample sets of mixed methods research and action research
studies reveals that these are two distinct research methods.A mixed methods approach requires
firm knowledge of mixed methodsprinciples from the researcher, of both qualitative and
quantitative researchprocedures and the skills necessary to perform them, including the ability
toperform statistical operations. It also requires the ability to write up such a research project.
The action research procedure is also very demanding ofthe researcher, who is expected to
follow a cyclical research process in pursuinghis or her goal but,on the otherhand, can be more
flexible in his or her choice of approach to the research (qualitative, quantitative or both). This
makes action research more easily available for teacher researchers who may not be trained in
conducting research using statistical methods. On theother hand, if action research claims to be
based on mixed methods, itshould abide by the rigours of this method.
The lexical definition of triangulation is that it is a process of using trigonometry in determining
an unknown point or location by using the position of two fixed points a known distance apart
(Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1980). Triangulation is the combination of two or more
data sources, investigators, methodologic approaches, theoretical perspectives (Denzin, 1970;
Kimchi, Polivka, & Stevenson,1991), or analytical methods (Kimchi et al., 1991) within the
same study.

Basic Concept of Triangulation

Types of Triangulation:
- Data Sources Triangulation
Three types of data sources are time, space, and person (Denzin, 1970). Data sources can
vary based on the times the data were collected, the place, or setting and from whom the
data were obtained (Denzin, 1970; Mitchell, 1986). Because the purpose of longitudinal
studies is to identify changes over a time period, such studies are not considered
triangulated. Time triangulation indicates collection of data at different times to
determine if similar findings occur (Kimchi et al., 1991). Variance in events, situations,
times, places, and persons add to the study because of the possibility of revealing atypical
data or the potential of identifying similar patterns, thus increasing confidence in the
findings (Fielding & Fielding, 1986).

- Investigator Triangulation
Investigator triangulation involves using more than one observer, interviewer, coder, or
data analyst in the study. Confirmation of data among investigators, without prior
discussion or collaboration with one another, lends greater credibility to the observations
(Denzin, 1970).

- Methodologic Triangulation
Methodologic triangulation has also been called multimethod, mixed-method, or methods
triangulation (Barbour, 1998; Greene & Caracelli, 1997; Polit & Hungler,1995).
Methodologic triangulation as addressed in the literature can be somewhat confusing
(Goodwin & Goodwin, 1984) because it can refer to either data collection methods or
research designs (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Some authors have discussed methodologic
triangulation in reference to qualitative and quantitative methods, indicating a
paradigmatic connection (Barbour, 1998; Greene & Caracelli,1997). Others have referred
to qualitative and quantitative data collection methods, analysis and interpretation—not
philosophical stances (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1984). By using multiple methods, the
researcher strives to decrease the “deficiencies and biases that stem from any single
method” (Mitchell, 1986, p. 19) creating “the potential for counterbalancing the flaws or
the weaknesses of one method with the strengths of another”

- Theoritical Triangulation
Theoretical triangulation is the use of multiple theories or hypotheses when examining a
phenomenon (Denzin, 1970). The intent is to conduct the study with multiple lenses and
questions in mind, to lend support to or refute findings. In theoretical triangulation, the
perspectives or hypotheses used in the study may be related or have opposing viewpoints,
 depending on what the researcher hopes to accomplish (Denzin, 1970). Theoretical
triangulation may be used to test various theories by analyzing information from the same
data set (Boyd, 2000).

- Data-Analysis Triangulation
Data-analysis triangulation is the combination of two or more methods of analyzing data.
These techniques can include different families of statistical testing or different statistical
techniques to determine similarities or validate data (Kimchiet al., 1991).

Benefits of Triangulation
The benefits of triangulation can include increasing confidence in research data,
creating innovative ways of understanding a phenomenon, revealing unique findings,
challenging or integrating theories, and providing a clearer understanding of the problem
(Jick, 1979). These benefits may pertain to each type of triangulation.

- Data Triangulation
The advantage to data triangulation is the nature and amount of data generated for
interpretation (Banik, 1993). For example, using both structured and unstructured
techniques to collect data longitudinally from different family members of those who had
school-age children with chronic illness, Knafl, Breitmayer, Gallo, and Zoeller (1996)
identified five family management styles.
- Methodologic Trangulation
Within the same paradigm, mixing data-collection methods is sensible (Lincoln &
Guba, 2000). Methodologic triangulation can also occur by combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches in a single study (Cobb, 2000; Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Mitchell,
1986). Although some researchers argue that qualitative and quantitative paradigms differ
epistemologically and ontologically, the counterargument is that the two approaches are
similar in their objectives, scope, and nature of inquiry across methods
and paradigms (Dzurec & Abraham, 1993).
- investigator Triangulation
The intent of having more than one researcher is to compare and counterbalance
the effects of bias from each researcher. Measuring and validating bias are difficult
(Kimchi et al.,1991). The biases of each investigator might amplify the others; thus,
investigator triangulation might increase, rather
than decrease, researcher bias.
- Methodoligic Triangulation
At the paradigmatic or philosophic level, Polit and Hungler (1995) discussed
some of the prevalent problems in methodologic triangulation and cautioned about these
various barriers that might impede the use of methodology triangulation: (a) differences
in epistemologic stance may cause conflict about the research design; (b) the increased
expense of multimethod research may be a strong barrier; (c) investigator expertise may
be lacking in either method; (d) difficulty in meshing numerical and narrative data to
understand the phenomenon; and (e) reluctance of some editors to publish multimethod
works.