Mixed Research Methodology: Bridging the Limitations of Quantitative & Qualitative Research - Essay Sample

Introduction

One of the drawbacks of relying only on either quantitative or qualitative research method is that the inherent limitation of each research method that can only be bridged by combining the two research methods (mixed research method). Faculty members may not be committed to providing adequate feedbacks that is why quantitative data from feedbacks and qualitative data from the faculty members. The researcher argues that most of the past assessment have been unsatisfactory excuse od the way the assessments are done. By reviewing the articles by (Elliott, 2018), the researcher argues that the Explanatory Sequential Design Model is the most effective method for assessing faculty enjoyment because the model anal used both quantitative and qualitative feedback and dialogues essentially.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Faculty engagement is the main challenges faced by the evacuation team because of the staff negative attitudes towers assessments. There are also other empirical factors that tend to influences the faculty members engagement towards achieving the learning outcomes-based assessments (Elliott, 2018). The paper also explored internal factors such as beliefs, perceptions, attitudes as well as knowledge in addition to the external factors such as institutional culture, policies as well as resources allocation for such assessment. The researcher noted that while quantitative data would have addressed the assessment problem, the use of qualitative data.

The researcher found that relying only on one type of data affected the outcomes of the study in that the limitation of the quantities data could only be delimitated by using qualitative data (Elliott, 2018). The literature reviews pointed towards improving the research and assessment methods because there are also other factors that affected the faculty members engaged in the assessment activities including the time allocated for the assessment, the faculty members workload, their lack of preparedness for the assessment as this affected their knowledge of the assessment.

Some faculty members also performed poorly because of the doubt they have concerning the necessity of the assessment. Finally, there was also fear of linking the assessment results to the evaluation (Elliott, 2018). Without proper sensitization about the assessment, the researcher noted that the faculty members were concerned that the assessment might have interceded academic freedom. Never the less, only a few discussions were based on the empirical examination which calls for the adoption or inclusion of then empirical examination in the assessments.

Research Method

The researchers conducted a complete explanatory mixed research method using the sequential method starting with initial quantitative instruments phased that was followed by a qualitative data collection phase. The goal often the explanatory sequentially mixed method is that the qualitative results built directly on the results that were gathered from the quantitative phase to help in explaining the quantitative results in more details using the qualitative data. The sequential mixed research method is much preferable because of the limitation of each of the research methods dressed by other research methods. However, the sequential method has limitation in that there are some problems with the qualitative research that can only be covered by the quantitative method. Therefore, when conducting qualitative research after quantitative research, it is also important to carry out quantitative research after qualitative research. The goal is to corroborate the research findings and bridge any research gaps that were not addressed by the other research methods.

Literature Review

The sequential research method may fuse the qualitative and quantitative methods to find the reality from two different perspectives but this pragmatic paradigm has the limitation that needs to be addressed through action research especially in the context of staff assessment (Elliott, 2018). Legitimizing knowledge claim based on the explanatory sequential mixed research method is advisable but should not be the final standpoint because there are also other methodological possibilities that can be explored. The researcher should, therefore, have improved the data collection method, and probably increased the same size or the sample characteristics.

Understanding that the faculty's intention to participate in the assessment is caused by either the attituded of the subjective norms. The researcher should, therefore, have assessed the respondent's evaluation and the strength of their belief. These are measurable meta-inferences. Attitudes toward the assessment can only be improved by changing the subjective norm and creating culture or policy for mandatory period evaluation

Research Outcomes

The main strength of the study is the research method because it combines the qualitative and quantitative research method. However, the research outcomes still need further review. The multifactorial method adopted helped in improving research validity and reliability. However, the researcher failed to examine that role of the student's faculty members in the staff lack of motivation to participate in the assessment. Conducting the qualitative research after the quantitative research created a research gap that was not addressed by the researcher for examine, the researcher gaps or limitation of the qualitative research were not addressed by the quantitative research.

The good internal consistency reliability measured by the Cronbach's alpha is also worth mentioning because the variables that were used by the research probably did not capture all the sentiments that te LMP participants had in mind. Even though the article adequately answers the research question, the researcher has not reported whether the focus groups were involved in the development of the research questions or selection of components to be considered. The focus groups should have participated in choosing the variables to be evaluated (Elliott, 2018). Some of the variables were just constructs that are subjective as they represent the researcher's opinions and not evaluated variable that resonated with all the respondents. There could have been additional components that the responded wanted to be included apart from the participation in assessment, willingness, lack of support, times, assessment for improvement, concerns of threatening and scholarly work.

Conclusion

The research met the objectives but there are a lot of opportunities for improvement. The first area is to improve the number of components under consideration and the best possible way was to conducts a pilot study to help in refining the research instrument. Additionally, the researcher concluded that organizational policies and countries can be changed to help the organization achieve their assessment goals. The explanatory sequential design model is the appropriate model in this context despite its limitation. The researchers have properly tied back the research findings with the theories such as the theories of reasoned action and the social cognitive theory proposed by Bandura convincingly. Creating a culture of assessment can help relieve the staff of the pressure of assessment. The only way to allay the negative attitude is by sensitizing the faculty on the importance and benefits of the assessment to them individually and to the faculties and not to target specific faculty members.

References

Elliott, R. (2018). Understanding Faculty Engagement in Assessment through Feedback and Dialogues: A Mixed Methods Approach. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 7(3), 167. Doi: 10.11591/ijere. v7i3.13346