Mixed Methods Critique free essay sample

I raise some cautionary issues in this paper by critiquing the methodology in the journal article titled â€Å"Researching men: the politics and possibilities of a qualitative mixed-methods approach† published by Meth and McClymont (2011). Meth and McClymont (2011) explores the possibility and politics of using qualitative mixed methods approach in researching men. The methods employed in the study include focus group discussion, one-on-one interview, archival method (diary), visual methods, and evaluation interview. I deduced these methods from the data sources highlighted in the article (page 911) since the authors failed to explicitly highlight the various methods that make up their mixed methods. More importantly, I discuss a number of problems associated with their methodological choices. First, the authors were not clear in revealing the purpose and focus of the paper. Researchers engaging in mixed methods research need to have a clear sense of the logic and purpose of their approach. A clear focus ultimately underpins a practical strategy not only for choosing and deploying a particular mix of methods, but also for linking their data analytically (Mason, 2006). We will write a custom essay sample on Mixed Methods Critique or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Were the authors interested in revealing the possibility of researching men using mixed methods (page 910)? Or were they actually developing a mixed method framework for researching men (page 910)? Or were they exploring the various ways in which men are subjected to violence (page 911)? Inexplicit research focus complicates methodological issues since ‘mixed methods’ is in itself a complex method. As a consequence, I found it difficult to identify and integrate the various methods and their justification to understand the entire paper. To expand on the methodological complications inherent in the paper, the authors confuse mixed methods with repeat research. For instance, in xplaining why they were able to get a research participant to reveal sensitive information, Meth and McClymont (2011) wrote: This transformation of disclosure illustrate the intrinsic value of repeat research and the varying benefits (and limitation) of each method, with each offering a particular space for knowledge production to take place (page 917) Deducing from the quote, repeat research is used in place of mixed methods. However, there is a distinction between repeat research and mixed methods. Repeat research is an ambiguous term. It may refer to the use of a single research method repeatedly, perhaps at different places or even the same place. It may also refer to triangulation of methods, which involves the use of more than one method to address a single research question (Spicer cited in Seale, 2012). There is little room for ambiguity when using mixed method because the method is in itself complex. Questions of methodological rigor arise in the paper. The authors did not actually describe the specific methods that make up their mixed methods research. They clearly described what ‘mixed methods’ are in the context of their research (page 911) but failed to describe the focus group discussion, interviews, visual methods and documentary evidence they used. Meth and McClymont (2011) assume that by using these methods in their research, readers will grasp what they really are. However, in methodological approaches, there is a big difference between describing what methods a researcher chooses to use, and explaining how the chosen methods are used. Also, researchers are obliged to justify their choices of methods. The justification for mixed method is not limited to why a researcher uses a mix of methods, but also how each method is vital in the entire research. The authors focused on justifying ‘mixed methods’ in its entirety and ignored justifying the use of each specific method used. Another point of critique is the sampling of the research participants. Meth and McClymont (2011) make a lot of sampling choices without explaining or justifying those choices. First they selected 20 men in the South African city of Durban but did not reveal the rationale for such selection. Obvious questions in this sampling choice are: why men and not women? Why 20 men and not 5, 50, or 100? Why the South African city of Durban? Apparently, they explained why they selected an informal settlement (Cato Crest) by indicating that the settlement have high incidence of violence (page, 911), and ignored justifying the selection of South African city of Durban. Regarding the research participants, even though the authors claim to use 20 male participants in their research, the entire paper centers on the stories and experiences of a single participant (a man called Sakhile). This raises questions of representation even within the 20 men selected. In discussing the use of visual images, the researches asked Sakhile to take twelve images illustrating his experience of violence (page 916). Again the question that arises is: why 12 images? The methodological error is rooted not in the selections per say, but in the failure to justify such selections. Finally, the ethics of research were not thoroughly considered in the methodology. Any research which deals with participants disclosing sensitive issues to researchers or using visual images require ethical considerations (Ali cited in Seale, 2012). Consent from and anonymity of Sakhile (the research participant) is essential because of the degree of sensitivity associated with disclosing his HIV status, especially in African societies. Meth and McClymont (2011) are rigorous in seeking the consent of the participants by requesting that all participants sign a consent form prior to their participation (page 918). They also provided full information regarding research requirements from participants and issues of anonymity (page 919). However, I know about Sakhile’s sensitive story because the authors failed to live up to the promise of keeping such information secret. With increasing information technology, perhaps people who know Sakhile in Durban city have read this paper. More importantly, the authors failed to highlight ethical issues associated with taking pictures of others and places. Sakhile has no idea the ethical issues involved in taking pictures of places and people when the researchers handed the disposable camera to him. Failure to point out visual ethics involved in using visual methods is a methodological concern. In conclusion, Meth and McClymont (2011) deserve commendation for revealing practical ways of doing mixed method research. They also clarify through their research that mixing method is not always about blending quantitative nd qualitative methods, but can be a pure blend of qualitative methods (page 911). However, paying attention to improving their research focus, revealing sampling rationale, providing detail explanation of specific methods used, and improving ethical considerations are ways of improving their methodological rigor. References Ali, S. (2012) â€Å"Visual Analysis†, in Seale, C. (ed. ) (2012) Research So ciety and Culture 3rd Ed. , London: Sage Publication Mason, J. (2006) Six strategies for mixing methods and linking data in social science research, Working Paper, accessed http://eprints. crm. ac. uk/482/ 12/10/2012 Meth, P. and K. McClymont (2009) Researching men: the politics and possibilities of a qualitative mixed methods approach, Social and Cultural Geography, 10(8) 909-925 Spicer, N. (2012) â€Å"Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods†, in Seale, C. (ed. ) (2012) Research Society and Culture 3rd Ed. , London: Sage Publication Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2010) Putting the human back in human research methodology: The researcher in mixed methods research, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 271-277