Mixed Method Study in Relation to Domestic Violence

In the recent developments in research, various groups of researchers have tried to improve validation and understanding of claims that might have arisen in the initial pilot study. Notably, a sociological approach that aims at interacting the traditions of quantitative and qualitative method gives rise to the development of triangulation (Holborn, 2004).The critical elements in any qualitative research include the validity, generalizability, and reliability to demonstrate robustness in research. From several paradigms, triangulation is the limelight to help show completeness and confirmability which ensure acceptability (Tobin & Begley, 2004). Olsen (2010) argues that many researchers are in the scope of not only giving a multidimensional perspective of the phenomenon but also design studies rich, unbiased data that guarantees comfortable acceptance.

In the context of studying domestic violence, quantitative component of mixed studies renders a better understanding and acceptance of the research. Mixed method is somewhat complicated as there exists confusion because it either refers to data collection methods or research design. Simply, application of multiple methods enables the researcher to reduce the deficiencies and biases that arise in single research. The ultimate result, therefore, improves the credibility and acceptance (Testa, Livingston & VanZile-Tamsen, 2012).

Challenges have always arisen in research seeking solutions to domestic violence. To curb the problem, application of mixed method seems to optimize reliability and acceptance of the research (Annansingh & Howell, 2016). The common forms of domestic violence in a social set up include social norms, stigma, sexual identity, violence and sexual behavior. According to Salvo (2018), these forms have led to great deal and debate to research on. However, by nature, from a post-positivist point of view, the phenomenon seems to be subjective rendering impossibility to precisely define a measure in a way that is meaningful to the context. Consideration of methods used in the collection of data and interpretation are key elements that illustrate challenges and possible solutions by applying the mixed method (Burns, 2018).

Methodological triangulation in the case of domestic violence research offers unique differences and meaningful information that could have remained undiscovered if only a single method of approach or data collection technique was used. Moreover, the use of two qualitative techniques, that is, the grounded technique and Heideggerian Hermeneutics in a single study have been of more value. They discussed the ways of data development from each approach where hermeneutics helps in generating basic narratives of the informants' truth, while the grounded technique generate information concerning constructs, concepts and other theories.

Research by Foss & Ellefsen (2004) contradicts the use of mixed methods in curbing research deficiencies. They argue that while researchers are at times hindered to show thoroughness in their study approach, blindly combining mixed methods may lead to vague impressions and instead of increasing robustness, it undermines. Moreover, researchers using triangulation fail to make explicit on how they achieved acceptance and validity. It is depicted clearly in domestic violence whereby researchers fail to choose, disseminate and analyze the core research goals undermining acceptance due to biases in both sample selection and deducing conclusion in the case of qualitative research approach.

In the scope of improving validity, a systematic topic selection is essential to enhance better rapport between the interviewer and the participant. Also, it is significant to go for a topic that provides the opportunity to probe or revisit over the course of the interview. In this case, triangulation primarily recommends the use of systematic sampling technique that draws both quantitative and qualitative survey outcomes. Despite the fact that qualitative research does not generate statistics for analysis, having a systematically sampled representative subsample provides a meaningful check on validation of the quantitative research.

As elaborated by Cutcliffe &McKenna (2005), a difficulty may arise if conformability is viewed as the primary goal of using triangulation among the methods. As stated, confirmation is always necessary to establish the truth. If the way of validating truth measures accuracy of a single assumption, then it epistemologically unacceptable from the qualitative perspective. Researchers have been able to develop theories, assumptions that surround approach to come up with valid choices conducting domestic violence research. The setup, the method of interview and the interviewers should differ from time to time. Given that the various methods might lead to different conclusions is an indication that one of the methods is unreliable or the conclusions represent two separate perceptions of realities.

Furthermore, moving from single data set to another makes a whole greater than the sum of parts resulting into a rise of new hypotheses and new questions that could have gone unnoticed (Barbour & Kitzinger, 2011). From the set-up of researching on domestic violence, different categories of data are collected, classified, analyzed and interpretations made. From the various types, the trend of changes gives a clue on the cause; raise various hypotheses and questions that might not have been noticed by the researcher. The resulting factor, therefore, brings about conformability validating the argument.

In conclusion, mixed method approach is believed to be a technique that aims at assuring validity and confirmation of what researchers do. However, being that the case, there is need to avoid the simplistic view of the concept, advocate for a move from narrow methods in assuring validity. Development of other methods that guarantees a clear view, mainly from positivist tradition to a more pluralist approach as a way to legitimize naturalistic inquiry should be a primary focus of upcoming researchers.

References

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Annansingh, F., & Howell, K. (January 01, 2016). Using phenomenological constructivism (PC) to discuss a mixed method approach in information systems research. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 14, 1, 39-49.

Barbour, R. S., &Kitzinger, J. (2011). Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

Burns, J. R., &Rapee, R. M. (2018). Schoolbased assessment of mental health risk in children: the preliminary development of the Child RADAR. Child and Adolescent Mental Health.

Cutcliffe, J. R., & McKenna, H. P. (2005). The essential concepts of nursing. Edinburgh: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone.

Foss, C., & Ellefsen, B. (October 01, 2002). The value of combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in nursing research by means of method triangulation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40, 2, 242-248.

Hilborn, M., Merki, M. B., &Merki, D. (2004). Glencoe health. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

Olsen, W. (2010). Realist methodology: Knowledge and meta-knowledge in realism. Los Angeles, Calif: SAGE.

Salvo, G. (2018). A Mixed Methods Approach to Identifying Barriers and Supports to Physical Activity in Adults Following Residential Relocation (Master's thesis, Cumming School of Medicine).

Testa, M., Livingston, J. A., & VanZile-Tamsen, C. (February 01, 2011). Advancing the study of violence against women using mixed methods: Integrating qualitative methods into a quantitative research program. Violence against Women, 17, 2, 236-250.

Tobin, G. A., & Begley, C. M. (January 01, 2004). Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48, 4, 388-96.

.