Link: https://researchrundowns.

com/mixed/mixed-
methods-research-designs/

Mixed Methods Research Designs

.pdf version of this page

The field of mixed methods has only been widely accepted for the last decade, though
researchers have long been using multiple methods, just not calling them “mixed.” Mixed
methods research takes advantage of using multiple ways to explore a research problem.

Basic Characteristics

 Design can be based on either or both perspectives.

 Research problems can become research questions and/or hypotheses based on prior
literature, knowledge, experience, or the research process.
 Sample sizes vary based on methods used.
 Data collection can involve any technique available to researchers.
 Interpretation is continual and can influence stages in the research process.

Why Use Mixed Methods?

The simple answer is to overcome the limitations of a single design. A detailed answer involves:

 To explain and interpret.

 To explore a phenomenon.
 To develop and test a new instrument.
 To serve a theoretical perspective.
 To complement the strengths of a single design.
 To overcome the weaknesses of a single design.
 To address a question at different levels.
 To address a theoretical perspective at different levels.

What are some strengths?

 Can be easy to describe and to report.

 Can be useful when unexpected results arise from a prior study.
 Can help generalize, to a degree, qualitative data.
 Helpful in designing and validating an instrument.
 Can position research in a transformative framework.
What are some weaknesses?

 Time required.
 Resolving discrepancies between different types of data.
 Some designs generate unequal evidence.
 Can be difficult to decide when to proceed in sequential designs.
 Little guidance on transformative methods.

Methodologist John Creswell suggested a systematic framework for approaching mixed methods
research. His framework involves four decisions to consider and six strategies.

Four Decisions for Mixed Method Designs (Creswell, 2003, p. 211)

1. What is the implementation sequence of data collection?

2. What method takes priority during data collection and analysis?
3. What does the integration stage of finding involve?
4. Will a theoretical perspective be used?

Six Mixed Methods Design Strategies (Creswell, 2003)

1. Sequential Explanatory

 Characterized by: Collection and analysis of quantitative data followed by a collection

and analysis of qualitative data.
 Purpose: To use qualitative results to assist in explaining and interpreting the findings of
a quantitative study.

2. Sequential Exploratory

 Characterized by: An initial phase of qualitative data collection and analysis followed by
a phase of quantitative data collection and analysis.
 Purpose: To explore a phenomenon. This strategy may also be useful when developing
and testing a new instrument

3. Sequential Transformative

 Characterized by: Collection and analysis of either quantitative or qualitative data first.
The results are integrated in the interpretation phase.
 Purpose: To employ the methods that best serve a theoretical perspective.

4. Concurrent Triangulation

 Characterized by: Two or more methods used to confirm, cross-validate, or corroborate

findings within a study. Data collection is concurrent.
  Purpose: Generally, both methods are used to overcome a weakness in using one method
with the strengths of another.

5. Concurrent Nested

 Characterized by: A nested approach that gives priority to one of the methods and guides
the project, while another is embedded or “nested.”
 Purpose: The purpose of the nested method is to address a different question than the
dominant or to seek information from different levels.

6. Concurrent Transformative

 Characterized by: The use of a theoretical perspective reflected in the purpose or research
questions of the study to guide all methodological choices.
 Purpose: To evaluate a theoretical perspective at different levels of analysis.

Link: http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/industrial-organizational-psychology/group-dynamics/input-
process-output-model/

Input-Process-Output Model
Much of the work in organizations is accomplished through teams. It is therefore crucial to
determine the factors that lead to effective as well as ineffective team processes and to better
specify how, why, and when they contribute. Substantial research has been conducted on the
variables that influence team effectiveness, yielding several models of team functioning.
Although these models differ in a number of aspects, they share the commonality of being
grounded in an input-process-output (IPO) framework. Inputs are the conditions that exist prior
to group activity, whereas processes are the interactions among group members. Outputs are the
results of group activity that are valued by the team or the organization.

The input-process-output model has historically been the dominant approach to understanding
and explaining team performance and continues to exert a strong influence on group research
today. The framework is based on classic systems theory, which states that the general structure
of a system is as important in determining how effectively it will function as its individual
components. Similarly, the IPO model has a causal structure, in that outputs are a function of
various group processes, which are in turn influenced by numerous input variables. In its
simplest form, the model is depicted as the following:

Input —> Process —> Output

Inputs
Inputs reflect the resources that groups have at their disposal and are generally divided into three
categories: individual-level factors, group-level factors, and environmental factors. Individual-
level factors are what group members bring to the group, such as motivation, personality,
abilities, experiences, and demographic attributes. Examples of group-level factors are work
structure, team norms, and group size. Environmental factors capture the broader context in
which groups operate, such as reward structure, stress level, task characteristics, and
organizational culture.

Processes
Processes are the mediating mechanisms that convert inputs to outputs. A key aspect of the
definition is that processes represent interactions that take place among team members. Many
different taxonomies of teamwork behaviors have been proposed, but common examples include
coordination, communication, conflict management, and motivation.

In comparison with inputs and outputs, group processes are often more difficult to measure,
because a thorough understanding of what groups are doing and how they complete their work
may require observing members while they actually perform a task. This may lead to a more
accurate reflection of the true group processes, as opposed to relying on members to self-report
their processes retrospectively. In addition, group processes evolve over time, which means that
they cannot be adequately represented through a single observation. These difficult
methodological issues have caused many studies to ignore processes and focus only on inputs
and outputs. Empirical group research has therefore been criticized as treating processes as a
“black box” (loosely specified and unmeasured), despite how prominently featured they are in
the IPO model. Recently, however, a number of researchers have given renewed emphasis to the
importance of capturing team member interactions, emphasizing the need to measure processes
longitudinally and with more sophisticated measures.

Outputs
Indicators of team effectiveness have generally been clustered into two general categories: group
performance and member reactions. Group performance refers to the degree to which the group
achieves the standard set by the users of its output. Examples include quality, quantity,
timeliness, efficiency, and costs. In contrast, member reactions involve perceptions of
satisfaction with group functioning, team viability, and personal development. For example,
although the group may have been able to produce a high-quality product, mutual antagonism
may be so high that members would prefer not to work with one another on future projects. In
addition, some groups contribute to member well-being and growth, whereas others block
individual development and hinder personal needs from being met.

Both categories of outcomes are clearly important, but performance outcomes are especially
valued in the teams literature. This is because they can be measured more objectively (because
they do not rely on team member self-reports) and make a strong case that inputs and processes
affect the bottom line of group effectiveness.
Steiner’s Formula
Consistent with the IPO framework, Ivan Steiner derived the following formula to explain why
teams starting off with a great deal of promise often end up being less than successful:

Actual productivity = potential productivity – process loss

Although potential productivity is the highest level of performance attainable, a group’s actual
productivity often falls short of its potential because of the existence of process loss. Process loss
refers to the suboptimal ways that groups operate, resulting in time and energy spent away from
task performance. Examples of process losses include group conflict, communication
breakdown, coordination difficulty, and social loafing (group members shirking responsibility
and failing to exert adequate individual effort). Consistent with the assumptions of the IPO
model, Steiner’s formula highlights the importance of group processes and reflects the notion
that it is the processes and not the inputs (analogous to group potential) that create the group’s
outputs. In other words, teams are a function of the interaction of team members and not simply
the sum of individuals who perform tasks independently.

Limitations of the IPO Model

The major criticism that has been levied against the IPO model is the assumption that group
functioning is static and follows a linear progression from inputs through outputs. To incorporate
the reality of dynamic change, feedback loops were added to the original IPO model, emanating
primarily from outputs and feeding back to inputs or processes. However, the single-cycle, linear
IPO path has been emphasized in most of the empirical research. Nevertheless, in both theory
and measurement, current team researchers are increasingly invoking the notion of cyclical
causal feedback, as well as nonlinear or conditional relationships.

Although the IPO framework is the dominant way of thinking about group performance in the
teams literature, relatively few empirical studies have been devoted to the validity of the model
itself. In addition, research directly testing the input-process-output links has frequently been
conducted in laboratory settings, an approach that restricts the number of relevant variables that
would realistically occur in an organization. However, although the IPO model assumes that
process fully mediates the association between inputs and outputs, some research has suggested
that a purely mediated model may be too limited. Therefore, alternative models have suggested
that inputs may directly affect both processes and outputs.

Summary
Without question, the IPO model reflects the dominant way of thinking about group performance
in the groups literature. As such, it has played an important role in guiding research design and
encouraging researchers to sample from the input, process, and output categories in variable
selection. Recent research is increasingly moving beyond a strictly linear progression and
incorporating the reality of dynamic change. In addition, alternatives to the traditional IPO model
have been suggested in which processes are not purely mediated.
References:

1. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational
behavior (pp. 315-342). New York: Prentice Hall.
2. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From
input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517-543.
3. Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.