A note on choosing research philosoph(ies) to use in a mixed methods research dissertation project (also covering the topic of mono method, multi method and mixed method): for Housing Studies students (information from perplexity.ai)
My question 1: "In the context of a part-time 4-month Housing Studies dissertation projects, many students like to employ the research approach of mixed methods research. The usual practice is to consider using either pragmatism or critical realism as the research philosophy choice. Is it feasible to use more than two research philosophies, e.g. positivism and interpretivism, in one dissertation project in this case?"
The reply: "Yes, it is theoretically feasible to work with more than one research philosophy in a single mixed methods dissertation, but in a 4‑month part‑time Housing Studies project it is usually safer to articulate one overarching stance (e.g. pragmatism or critical realism) and then carefully explain any limited, pragmatic “borrowing” from others.
Paradigms and mixed methods
- Mixed methods emerged partly to move beyond the “paradigm wars” by focusing on how different methods can be combined coherently.
- Pragmatism is often used in mixed methods because it explicitly prioritizes what works in answering the research question and is relatively tolerant of mixing quantitative and qualitative logics.
- Critical realism can also structure mixed methods by accepting both observable regularities (often studied quantitatively) and deeper, unobservable mechanisms (often explored qualitatively).
Using positivism and interpretivism together
- Positivism emphasizes measurable variables, statistical analysis and generalization, typically aligning with quantitative methods.
- Interpretivism emphasizes meaning, context and subjective experience, typically aligning with qualitative methods.
- Multi‑paradigm work that combines positivist and interpretive phases (often sequentially) is increasingly discussed in the literature, showing that combining them is conceptually possible if the rationale and boundaries are clearly justified.
Key feasibility issues for a 4‑month Housing Studies dissertation
- The main risk of explicitly naming several paradigms (e.g. positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism, critical realism) in a short dissertation is argumentative coherence: examiners may see “philosophical shopping” rather than a clear, defensible position.
- Authors warn that when mixed methods researchers “conjoin methods … coupled with divergent epistemologies and ontologies,” they must deal carefully with coherence, or the work becomes conceptually muddled.
- Given tight time and word limits, articulating and defending more than one full philosophy (with ontological, epistemological and methodological implications) can consume space better spent on methods, analysis and housing‑policy discussion.
Pragmatic options you could adopt
- Choose one explicit overarching philosophy (e.g. pragmatism or critical realism) for the whole mixed methods design, and discuss how it permits both variable‑based (positivist‑type) and meaning‑oriented (interpretivist‑type) strands.
- Alternatively, frame the study as broadly critical realist or pragmatic, while acknowledging that the quantitative strand draws on a more positivist logic (testing relationships, seeking patterns) and the qualitative strand uses an interpretivist logic (exploring meanings), without claiming you fully inhabit four distinct paradigms.
- Reserve genuine multi‑paradigm positioning (e.g. explicitly “positivist + interpretivist + critical realist”) for cases where you can devote space to explaining the relationships among them; this is more common in extensive methodological papers than in short professional dissertations.
Practical recommendation for your context
- For a part‑time, 4‑month Housing Studies dissertation, the most defensible route is usually to select one clearly explained overarching philosophy (pragmatism or critical realism) and then briefly show how it legitimately accommodates both quantitative (positivist‑style) and qualitative (interpretivist‑style) components.
Explicitly claiming multiple full philosophies (positivism, interpretivism, plus perhaps pragmatism or critical realism) is conceptually possible, but it raises the bar for philosophical justification and may be unnecessarily demanding given the project’s scope and assessment expectations."
Definitions
Mono-method uses one primary method, such as surveys alone (quantitative) or interviews alone (qualitative), prioritizing depth within a single approach but risking limited perspectives on complex housing policy issues.
Multi-method employs several methods within the same tradition, like combining surveys and experiments (both quantitative) or ethnography and phenomenology (both qualitative), to enhance comprehensiveness without crossing paradigms.
Mixed-method deliberately combines quantitative (e.g., statistical data on housing affordability) and qualitative (e.g., resident interviews) methods, often under pragmatism, to triangulate findings and address multifaceted phenomena like urban housing challenges.
Recommended Videos
Two clear YouTube videos explain these concepts effectively for research students:
"Mixed Methods Research: Mono-method vs Multi-methods vs MMR" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRn3ZCwv23g) contrasts the approaches with examples.
"Mono, Multi & Mixed Method Research Design" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxtClJBxJdM) outlines designs and challenges, ideal for dissertation planning.
Video Highlights
The first video clarifies that mono-method sticks to one technique and paradigm, multi-method adds tools within one paradigm (e.g., quantitative surveys plus experiments under positivism), and mixed-methods merges qualitative and quantitative under a unifying paradigm like pragmatism for integrated interpretations.
The second video emphasizes decision points in designs, noting mono-method's simplicity for tight timelines, multi-method's paradigm consistency for depth, and mixed-method's value in validation but added complexity—relevant for your part-time Housing Studies constraints."
No comments:
Post a Comment