479 The Qualitative Report September 2006
personal, social, institutional, and/or organizational impact; (d) measure change; (e)
understand complex phenomena; (f) test new ideas; (g) generate new ideas; (h) inform
constituencies; and (i) examine the past
3
.
The research goal leads naturally to the research objective, the second step of the
mixed methods research process. In determining the research objective, the researcher
should determine which of the following five major standard research objectives are
pertinent for the quantitative and qualitative phases of the study: (a) exploration, (b)
description, (c) explanation, (d) prediction, and/or (e) influence (Johnson & Christensen,
2004). Specifically, exploration involves using primarily inductive methods to explore a
concept, construct, phenomenon, or situation in order to develop tentative hypotheses or
generalizations. Description involves identifying and describing the antecedents, nature,
and etiology of a phenomenon. Explanation represents developing theory for the purpose
of elucidating the relationship among concepts or phenomena and determining reasons
for occurrences of events. Prediction refers to using pre-existing knowledge or theory to
forecast what will occur at a later point in time. Finally, influence relates to the
manipulation of the setting or variable to produce a desired outcome. Both the qualitative
and quantitative phases of each mixed methods research study can be linked to one or
more of these five research objectives.
Once the research goal and objective(s) have been determined, the next step in the
mixed research process is to determine the research mixing/rationale. This not only
involves determining the rationale of the study (i.e., why the study is needed), but also
identifying the rationale for mixing quantitative and qualitative approaches. Collins et al.
(2006) have identified the following four major rationales for mixing quantitative and
qualitative approaches: participant enrichment (i.e., the mixing of quantitative and
qualitative techniques for the rationale of optimizing the sample; such as increasing the
number of participants), instrument fidelity (i.e., maximizing the appropriateness and/or
utility of the instruments used in the study, whether quantitative or qualitative; for e.g.,
via a pilot study), treatment integrity (i.e., mixing quantitative and qualitative techniques
in order to assess the fidelity of interventions, treatments, or programs), and significance
enhancement (i.e., mixing quantitative and qualitative techniques in order to maximize
researchers’ interpretations of data).
“direction” and “focus”---hence our relabeling of Newman et al.’s “research purpose” into the phrase
“research goal.”
3 It should be noted that epistemological stances or theoretical foundation choices might enter into the
decisions made about the goal of the study, which, ultimately, can affect the nature of the mixed methods
research questions composed. In particular, epistemological, ontological, axiological, methodological,
and/or rhetorical beliefs might drive the type of research questions that are addressed. For example, a
researcher with a stance that is subjectivist (i.e., epistemological belief) and relativist (ontological belief),
who believes in value-bound research (i.e., axiological beliefs), and who takes a dialectical, dialogical, or a
hermeneutical perspective (i.e., methodological belief) likely would pose different mixed methods research
questions (e.g., research questions that are more constructivist in nature versus research questions that
represent theory testing, respectively) than would a researcher with a stance that is objectivist (i.e.,
epistemological belief) and realist (ontological belief), who believes in value-free research (i.e., axiological
beliefs), and who utilizes deductive reasoning in which time- and context-free generalizations are desirable
and possible, and wherein real causes to social scientific outcomes can be determined reliably and validly
(i.e., methodological belief). For an in-depth discussion of epistemological, ontological, axiological,
methodological, and/or rhetorical differences among researchers, see for example, Guba and Lincoln
(2005), Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004), Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, and Turner (2005), and Risjord,
Moloney, and Dunbar (2001).