Beyond qualitative and quantitative data linking: An example from a mixed method study of family recreation

Therapeutic Recreation Journal, Second Quarter 2000 by Mactavish, Jennifer B, Schleien, Stuart J

Recalling previous discussion about the strengths of mixed method designs (Green et al., 1989), these approaches may be very useful in a number of areas of therapeutic recreation research. For example, mixed method studies may be particularly appropriate when the aims of therapeutic recreation research include: (a) uncovering convergent results on the efficacy of a specific type of intervention (e.g., leisure education, person-centered planning); (b) enhancing understanding of interrelated and/or distinct factors that affect leisure behavior (e.g., self-determination, constraints) and/or practices (e.g., agency goals, staff training, participant outcomes); (c) examining similarities, differences, and new perspectives in professional preparation (education, certification) and service delivery; and (d) promoting knowledge in areas that are not conducive to single-method approaches to inquiry (e.g., family recreation).

When employing mixed method approaches in therapeutic recreation research it is also essential that we attend to Tashakorri and Teddlie's (1998) call for heightened clarity and coherence in our descriptions of these designs. Failing to connect this type of research to an underlying paradigm-whether it be one of the traditional frameworks (positivistic, naturalistic) or the alternative presented by paradigm relativism-- leaves mixed method research vulnerable to charges that it lacks sound ontological and epistemological grounding, which diminishes the potentially important contributions of these approaches in generating and extending knowledge (Datta, 1994; Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Samdahl, 1999). In conclusion, while it is important to keep these points in mind and to address them in written accounts, therapeutic recreation researchers and professionals should not shy away from mixed method designs, as they are well suited for studying the intricacies that affect practice and knowledge in our field.

1 Ontology refers to the paradigm or worldview; epistemology is about the "science of knowing" (i.e., it describes how research is conducted); and methodology "is the science of finding out" (i.e., the procedures that are used to learn about the issues of interest; Babbie, 1989; Henderson, 1991).

2 While recognizing that dissatisfaction with the axioms of positivism gave rise to postpositivism following World War II (Hanson, 1958; Popper, 1959), and constructivism is the term frequently used in place of naturalistic inquiry (Guba & Lincoln, 1994), a detailed discussion of these shifts is beyond the scope of this research note. The terms "positivist and naturalistic" are used, therefore, for the purpose of discussion and to distinguish between the two approaches to research that have dominated the social sciences (Reichardt & Rallis, 1994).

3 Mixed method research combines qualitative and quantitative approaches in the methodology of a study (e.g., data collection), while mixed model studies combine these two approaches across all phases of the research process (e.g., conceptualization, data collection, data analysis, and inference; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998).