Pros and Cons of Using a Mixed Method Research Design
The selection of research design is challenging for scholars who strive to cover as many issues as possible. This reasoning results in the preference of a mixed method processing quantitative and qualitative data for the precision of an outcome. This approach is a beneficial instrument incorporating such values as elaboration, generalization, triangulation, and interpretation (Gibson, 2017). However, it also includes specific cons alongside the apparent pros.
The principal complications of a mixed method research design are related to the human factor. The Bible says, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (“2 Timothy 2:15,” n.d.). Nevertheless, most researchers do not possess the required knowledge and experience, ensuring practicality and ethics at the same time (Hafsa, 2019). Therefore, they might fail to provide comprehensive results of their studies.
There are several advantages of the specified approach as well. They are related to the fact that a mixed method better reflects scholars’ needs because of the emerging complexity and the interrelation between various issues (Hafsa, 2019). In this way, it allows analyzing more aspects of a problem under consideration (Hafsa, 2019). Thus, the mentioned benefits lead to an outcome that implies more practical implications than other types of research design.
Indeed, the issue of bias takes a central place when the mixed method is used by researchers. It can also be connected to the need for integrity and the necessary knowledge regarding the subject of study (Hafsa, 2019). Their ability in terms of “rightly handling the word of truth” can be questioned as well (“2 Timothy 2:15,” n.d.). As a result, the values provided by this type of research can be compensated by its drawbacks (Gibson, 2017). Therefore, the successful implementation of a mixed method is conditional upon the attention of the participants in the first place.
(n.d.). Literal World ESV. Web.
Gibson, C. B. (2017). Organizational Research Methods, 20(2), 193-223. Web.
Hafsa, N. E. (2019). Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics, 58. Web.