Introduction Making a choice of research method is very important in any research as this is the determinant of the result that

will be gotten from the research. In line with the above, the research method appropriate for any research topic/project is dependent on the type of research, the research questions, the nature of the data to be collected and analysed (Walliman, 2010; Patrick and Steve, 2005). Even with this fact made, researchers still have different opinions on how research should be carried out based on their different believes and values- positivists (quantitative researchers) and interpretist (qualitative researchers). To many, a research can either be done quantitatively or qualitatively depending on the belief of the researcher and the type of research to be carried out. The belief of a researcher determines the method of data collection as identified by Lugosi (2006). This has brought about a debate on which is best. To HoppeGraff and Lemmm-Hanel (2006), there isnt a significant difference between the two methods- qualitative and quantitative method of data collection- while Smith and Danbar (2003) in support of Hoppe-Graff and Lemmm-Hanel, (2006) states that the difference between qualitative and quantitative research method is identified in the meaning, analysis of the level of meaning and the methodology capture. The type of research and the aim of such research determine the method to use and the way it will be used (Bowen, 2008). The debate on which is best has brought about the consideration of mixed-method which is also identified as triangulation by some researchers (Harris and Brown, 2010; Sandalowski, 2000). Qualitative research is focused on defining and giving meanings to a thing in relations to concept, metaphor and characteristics in a descriptive way (Berg, 2007) while quantitative research is focused on numerically describing things (Tewskbury, 2009). The distinguishing factor of the two methods of research is the fact that one deals with numbers while the other is theoretical in nature. Based on the experience of observing, interviewing and designing a questionnaire on international food in the university, the focus of this report is to

compare the experience of carrying out these tasks to the literature. These methods will be analysed critically in respect to their usage, and how they can be combined for effective result of any research (Kinn and Curzio, 2005). These research methods can be classified under two main data sourcing method which are qualitative and quantitative research methods depending on the usage of the methods. This means that each of these methods can be done either qualitatively or quantitatively depending on the nature of the research and the beliefs of the researcher (Hoppe-Graff and Lemmm-Hanel, 2006). Ideally, each of these research methods is attached to either quantitative or qualitative research method while its usage and analysis-especially observation and interview-can also determine under which method it can be classified. Observation and interview in an unstructured format is seen as a qualitative research method while its structured format is quantitative research. Questionnaire is majorly seen as a quantitative research method because of its nature and the method of its analysis. Observation Observation is seen as an ethnography research method which is used in studying people in their in their usual environment based on the purpose of study (Baker, 2006; Pope and Mays, 2008). While some see observation as a research method, some see it as a means of collecting data (Powell and Connaway, 2004; Adams et al., 2007). In carrying out any research, observation is very important no matter the method you choose to collect the data (Adams et al., 2007). In observation, the researcher doesnt ask questions from the people to be observed, rather, the researcher observe by looking (Pope and Mays, 2008). Observation as a research method or a method of collecting data can be done quantitatively or qualitatively depending on the way what is being observed is recorded i.e. structured or unstructured (Petzlik, 1994), participating or nonparticipatory (Adams et al., 2007) and overt or covert (Lugosi, 2005). Qualitatively, observation is carried out in an unstructured way while

quantitatively, observation is done is a structured format where a recording sheet with specific details is used (Mulhall, 2003). The task on International food using observation was carried out in an unstructured format (See appendix 1) because it is believed that this will enable further description and inferential judgement based on what was seen (Pat and Angene, 1999). This exposed the researcher to the reality of the method as it wasnt easy studying people without their consent while they eat at the deli. This therefore relates back to the issue of overt or covert as discussed by Lugosi (2005). Adams et al., (2007) suggest that in carrying out an observation, the researcher needs to be part of the study. While carrying out the task on international food, the researcher didnt participate but only observed-looking and recording what has been observed (Robson, 2002). But according to Caldwell, 2005), a nonparticipatory observation is done in a structured/quantitative format. This therefore indicates the different opinions of people as regards observation. Based on the article by Moug (2007) which indicates that it is possible to observe in an unstructured manner without participating. Caldwell (2005) idea of carrying out a non-participatory observation is using camera, video in the collection of data, this will definitely need the consent of the people due to the ethical issues that can be attached to it (Cotton, 2010). From the perspective of the task carried out on international food using observation, it will be not be appropriate to carry out a non-participatory observation with the use of either camera or camcorder while people eat. This means that, the method to use will be dependent on the subject matter. In the consideration of the appropriate type of observation to use, participant observation can be the most appropriate because it allows for details, the researcher will be able to feel what the people feel and it is said to aid good judgement and result (Jorgensen, 1989). In support of this statement, Bowen (2008) states that with participant observation, the researcher is able to get the data needed. Even with the fact that participant observation seems to be the best

type of observation, it has its disadvantages. Conducting a participative observation can get the researcher so attached to the people to be observed especially in the cases of small groups, and then will be hard to disengage which might lead to change of research focus (Lee, 1984) and can influence the result because the researcher has to play two roles and balance these roles (Gomm, 2004). This can happen in the case of an overt participatory observation. Interview Interview as a research method or a method of collecting data is a form of conversation between two or more people in a flexible and fluid style, leading to the achievement of the purpose of the interview through the active engagement of the interviewer and interviewee in a discussion on the subject matter (Mason, 2002). Interview as a technique of collecting data is mostly used as a qualitative research method (Silverman, 2000). Interviews can be classified into three categories; structured, semi-structured and unstructured (DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree, 2006). The task on international food using interview (see appendix 2) as a method of collecting data was a semi-structured in-depth interview, recorded with a phone, was done in 21minutes and later transcribed (Casey, 2006). Semi-structured interview is a form of interview where the interviewer have prepared some questions as regards the topic of discussion and other questions arises during the interview as a result of the response from the interviewee (DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree, 2006). Unstructured and semi-structured interviews are majorly analysed qualitatively using a stage-by stage process (Burnard, 1991) while the structured interview are often analysed quantitatively (DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree, 2006). Often times in the analysis of the data collected through interview, they always have a quantitative result due to the counting that might occur when the transcript is coded. According to Knox and Burkard (2009), before conducting any interview at all, the questions needs to be considered before the interview

occurs because according to Seidman (1991) interview is carried out in trying to understand the experience of the people to be interviewed and then make a meaning of their experience. In carrying out an unstructured in-depth interview, the researcher might have few planned questions but during the interview, the interviewer while listening, can get more questions to ask the interviewee which might make the interview more interesting and allow for extended data gathering. As a result of the task, the researcher was able to generate questions from the discussion with the interviewee but it is essential to have guiding principles and if care is not taken, the researcher might dissuade from the main purpose of the task, which might provide some more unnecessary data (Kvale, 1996). When this occur, this might make transcribing more stressful and analysing difficult. To Knox and Burkard (2009), there is no strictly structured or unstructured interview because for any researcher to get to understand and make meaning of the experience of the interviewee/s, the interview will move from open-ended question to unstructured approaches which makes the interviewee much comfortable (Seidman, 1991) to totally structured interview. Questionnaire This research method or method of collecting data is a quantitative research method. Questionnaires are used in almost all researches and analysed quantitatively because of its advantages and it allows for easy administration (Gorrell and Eaglestone, 2011). Questionnaire is the only method of collecting data that allows for some basic details such as; age, habits (smoking, eating), and measurement record such as heights and weights (Fehily and Johns, 2004). Other research methods like observation and interview cannot get this data; this therefore indicates the importance of this method of data collection to any research with the aim of making a justifiable judgement (Nauta and Kluwer, 2004).

Although this method of data collection is important, it can be hard to design as it has to cover the main topic of discussion (Shaughnessy et al., 2000). In designing the questionnaire for the task on international food (see appendix 3), the researcher was able to use both the closed ended questions and the open ended questions which is seen as the best way to get the needed data assuming the questionnaire is the only method of collecting data on the subject matter. This is so because, it is believed that respondents will be truthful in their answers but in some cases they could just answer the question to suit the needs of the researcher which might not allow for good judgement (Podsakoff et al., 2003). From the experience of the task, it became obvious that, administration of questionnaire might be easy, but getting the accurate result from its analysis might be difficult as there is the possibility that the responses are not all true. Most people dont like to be stopped to fill a questionnaire. It is therefore important that when administering questionnaire, this should be considered and a decision on where to administer the questionnaire should be made because this will allow the respondent to think before answering the question. The use of Mixed-method for the collection of data Having carried out the above three methods on the research topic international food in the university, the application of individual method sole for a research project might not be sufficient enough to get the accurate result (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Creswell, 2003; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003). Therefore, the use of a mixed method is advised. Although, different researchers have their different ontology and epistemology, but if all these can be put aside, and they consider the application of a mixed-method approach, the result to be obtained will be less biased and good judgement can be made. Some researchers have tried the use of Mixed-method approach and have found it more helpful (Dheram and Rani, 2008). The task on using the three methods to research on the same topic-international food, made it obvious that, none of this methods can be used alone to gather

enough data for the research topic. The purpose of the research was to know the feelings of the students as regards the service of international food in the university as the majority of students are international students from around the world. According to Bowen (2008) when carrying out a research on the feeling of people within service management, it is important to make use of the best technique in gathering the data. The topic of the research determines the method to use but, none of the above discussed method can be used solely for a research if a valid result and a justifiable judgement be made. In support of the mixed method, Kendall (2008) suggests the combination of questionnaire and interview. This is a good idea as it is also supported by Harris and Brown (2010), but a consideration of observation as part would be an addition for a more justifiable result. In this case, observation can be used as the foundation of the research in the sense that, an observation helps to identify the situation as regards the topic of research, an interview is conducted, and questionnaire prepared to reach a wider scope which could not be interviewed to justify the statement and to answer the research question. Without the consideration of mixed-method, most research work carried out supposedly as a qualitative research mostly ends up being analysed quantitatively either knowingly to the researcher or unknowingly. This therefore identifies the importance of the two to any research. The interpretation of any quantitative research, though might not have been done qualitatively but it has to be interpreted for the easy understanding of the reader, who most often times might not be the professionals in that field. The aim of any research is for the reader to understand and make use of the result by those it is targeted at. For this aim to be accomplished, the researcher has to present the result in an understandable manner for any reader. This then indicates the relationship between quantitative and qualitative research methods. Most researchers sees the mixed-method approach as the third research method as the qualitative and quantitative methods.

Conclusion In conclusion, the three methods used in carrying out a research on international food have been discussed in relation to experience and the literature. The analysis of each of the method has been done as regards the meaning, types and the experience of using each of them. Then discussion on the use of mixedmethod approach using the research topic-international food as an example. The mixed-method was argued to be the best approach to getting a justifiable result in any research as using just one of the methods for a research can be biased but a combination can reduce the level of bias or totally remove bias in the research. Each of the methods discussed have its role in any research project and cannot be of overlooked. When administering questionnaires or interviewing people, there is the aspect of observation even when it is not decided for it to be part of the method used to gather data. Therefore, the three methods can be combined to have a justifiable result and to make a good judgement. Although, questionnaires are seen as the technique of collecting data which gives the opportunity of asking about the feeling of people explicitly using both closed-ended and open-ended question, but it has been seen to have loads of bias which might be due to lack of truthfulness from the respondent. In this case, interview and observation can help identify this and this can help in obtaining good result and making good judgement which will be justifiable anywhere. Based on the experience had making use of the three method in carrying out the task, it is therefore recommended that the combination of the three method will be good if applied in research especially when it comes to the study of humans, as they can easily pretend and can be somewhat unfaithful in some cases. Making use of the mixed-method approach can help in the identification of some details that might not be identified if one of the methods was to be used solely for a research. This is not to say that, there would not be limitation, but it will be reduced compared to the limitation of using one of the methods. This is because

each of the method will complement each other. The questionnaire can help reduce the excesses of both observation and interview.