A Combinatio n of Two Methods
A Combination of Two Methods Aside from the ongoing debate presented above as to which specific approach is better or which one should be used for an investigation, the following paragraphs provide an interesting summary of views that consider that a combination of both approaches is not only feasible but in fact has been applied for over a century through different groundbreaking applications. Within recent investigations, there is data supporting the notion that Jick (1979) has been among the first authors that have applied this ‘combined’ methodology. However, Teddlie & Tashakkori (2003) stated that if we look even further, traces of earlier applications could be dated back to the 1930’s when Fiske & Campbell have combined observations, interviews along with empirical data in order to produce the well-known Hawthorne studies. Moreover, researchers like Halcomb et al, (2009) have even dated the application to earlier years when in the 1920’s, Thomas & Znaniecki conducted numerous studies on Polish peasants using a combination of methodologies. Regardless of the approach taken, researchers as well as academics should be aware of the suggestion provided by Schulze (2003) who stated that no matter what approach is applied or what particular methodology a researcher decides to follow, each of the frameworks have their inherent flaws that need to be weighted before the commencement of an investigation. Aside from the authors who have focused on a combined approach of both methodologies there are those like the case of Bazeley (2004) who have sternly opposed the application of a combined framework and these so-called new methodological ideas gathered momentum. In addition to Bazeley (2004), another duet of authors that opposed it considerably was Giddings & Grant (2007) who through harsh words considered that the application of a combined methodology is in plain words a ‘bastardization’ of a positivist application. For others such as Morse (2005) the embracement of the combined approaches left a feeling of heresy since the sudden faddishness of this hybrid approach brought up all the flaws and unanswered deficiencies of both methodologies combined under one single framework. It goes without saying that within the statement provided by Morse (2005) there is an undeniable sense of validity, as poor quality research can sometimes be masqueraded through the application of a
combined approach, often bypassing and sometimes violating what is considered as basic assumptions of both methodologies. In summary and regardless of the different suggestions provided above, Kaplan & Duchon (1988) have stated that there is not an approach better than the other one, leaving as a result the application of a combined framework in order to improve the quality of a research and to leverage the inherent weaknesses of each of the approaches. Miles & Huberman (1994) suggested that the application of a combination of two approaches is something valid and that can be added to increase the understanding and implications of the findings produced. Furthermore, more creative combinations are also produced through the application of triangulation methodologies that have the ultimate aim to increase the reliability and validity of the investigation. Throughout his academic investigation, the researcher has looked upon the Hawthorne studies mentioned by Teddlie & Tashakkori (2003) however the philosophical perspective of the researcher stands with the views presented above by Johnson & Christensen (2007) that the two approaches have reached to a point where they are both going in opposite directions rather than aiming for a consolidate and combined framework. n