Mixed Methods Research Approach
A reflective essay
Psychology research, traditionally, tended to be conducted within two distinct
methodological paradigms; either quantitative or qualitative. Purists have argued that this
polarization is necessary, since these approaches embrace fundamentally different
ontological and epistemological positions, which make them mutually exclusive (Johnson &
Onwuegbuzie 2004).
Quantitative purists, generally speaking, follow the philosophical doctrine of positivism,
originally developed by Comte, according to which the highest form of knowledge is the
description of sensory phenomena (Blackburn 2008, p. 283). These researchers are
scientifically-oriented, and maintain that psychological inquiry should be objective. They
embrace the ontological position that there is only one truth, one reality, which is
independent of human perception and interpretation (Sale, Lohfeld & Brazil 2002, p. 44).
Their main aim is to identify general laws and patterns. Quantitative methods have often been
used in cognitive and biopsychology.
Qualitative purists, on the other hand, are of a constructivist and interpretivist persuasion.
These researchers maintain that there is no one objective reality, but multiple realities, which
are socially constructed (Berger & Luckmann 1966/ 1991). Qualitative researchers are mainly
concerned with the meanings that individuals attach to their experiences. Qualitative
methods have been extensively used in cultural and feminist psychology (Gross 2009).
Personally, I do not think that either research approach is inherently more superior than
the other. Both quantitative and qualitative methods are very useful, and depending on the
particular research question one might be more appropriate than the other. However, it
seems that in both qualitative and quantitative methods for every strength, there is -more
often than not- a corresponding weakness. For instance, laboratory experiments are often
used to establish genuine cause-and-effect links between variables. As they usually involve a
very high level of control, they tend to have high internal validity and replicability (Coolican
2014). However, these strengths often come at the price of high artificiality and low external
validity. Similarly, case studies tend to be high on realism, and provide rich, in-depth data like
1
A reflective essay
Psychology research, traditionally, tended to be conducted within two distinct
methodological paradigms; either quantitative or qualitative. Purists have argued that this
polarization is necessary, since these approaches embrace fundamentally different
ontological and epistemological positions, which make them mutually exclusive (Johnson &
Onwuegbuzie 2004).
Quantitative purists, generally speaking, follow the philosophical doctrine of positivism,
originally developed by Comte, according to which the highest form of knowledge is the
description of sensory phenomena (Blackburn 2008, p. 283). These researchers are
scientifically-oriented, and maintain that psychological inquiry should be objective. They
embrace the ontological position that there is only one truth, one reality, which is
independent of human perception and interpretation (Sale, Lohfeld & Brazil 2002, p. 44).
Their main aim is to identify general laws and patterns. Quantitative methods have often been
used in cognitive and biopsychology.
Qualitative purists, on the other hand, are of a constructivist and interpretivist persuasion.
These researchers maintain that there is no one objective reality, but multiple realities, which
are socially constructed (Berger & Luckmann 1966/ 1991). Qualitative researchers are mainly
concerned with the meanings that individuals attach to their experiences. Qualitative
methods have been extensively used in cultural and feminist psychology (Gross 2009).
Personally, I do not think that either research approach is inherently more superior than
the other. Both quantitative and qualitative methods are very useful, and depending on the
particular research question one might be more appropriate than the other. However, it
seems that in both qualitative and quantitative methods for every strength, there is -more
often than not- a corresponding weakness. For instance, laboratory experiments are often
used to establish genuine cause-and-effect links between variables. As they usually involve a
very high level of control, they tend to have high internal validity and replicability (Coolican
2014). However, these strengths often come at the price of high artificiality and low external
validity. Similarly, case studies tend to be high on realism, and provide rich, in-depth data like
1
