Stephen Mitchell

1. Contribute to an online discussion via the discussion board by providing your reflection of the arguments put forward by the authors surrounding mixed methodology.
2. Indicate how mixing aligns with (or indeed if it doesn’t) your ontology and epistemology and justify your thinking.

Having read part one of this article, I find my self agreeing with the concept that mixed methodology can support a dynamic approach to research. As such, I don’t find myself aligning with the notion of incompatibility across the two forms of research discussed, but I do still hold some tension around the topic. In its simplest form, I can recognise that at work I use both qualitative and qualitative data to draw conclusions on individual interventions for children, for example. I appreciate that this is at a very superficial level, and not to the demands of a piece of research. We do not value one over the other, and in many ways one directly supports the interpretation of the other. It appears that much of the criticism around this topic is based on an individual’s acceptance of the validity of MMR as a method. For me, it adds strength, but I am still working on aligning this to my own ontology.

The phrase ‘soft-relativist’ resonates with me; I can respect and understand different approaches to research and am subsequently open to being flexible with my own thinking. Perhaps this links to my identity as a non-expert researcher (I’m quite interested in the role of ‘non-experts’ more generally)… I wonder if a researcher aligns with a (more) purist form as they become more of an expert within their research field.

In terms of my own ontology, I align with the generalised assumption of a relativist. I believe that multiple interpretations of a phenomena exist alongside the different contexts/groups which interpreted them. For me, this makes the validity aspect of MMR a challenge to fully buy into. Does it leave the researcher with the potential to (subconsciously) seek and find patterns from quantitative data that may not have ordinarily been found in qualitative information. I think what I’m trying to question is does MMR generate opportunities for additional subjectivity than if one used a singular approach.

Not sure that makes sense anywhere other than my reality 😉