Group 28

ABANGAN, Andre Rafael LEGASPI, Juan Alizandro

BASA, Vince Lennon LUI, Edric Brian
DOMALANTA, Jancee Nichole UY, Paul Francis

SGD: MIXED METHODS

1. What are the two mixing strategies used in the two studies?
The two mixing strategies done in the two studies are an “explanatory sequential
mixed method design for Bazrafkan et al., 2019, and a “mixed-method, sequential
exploratory design for Hechanova et al., 2014.”

2. What are the differences in the two mixing strategies employed?

Explanatory Sequential Mixed method Mixed-method, Sequential Exploratory
design design

Quantitative portion is done first Qualitative portion is done first

Qualitative portion is done second Quantitative portion is done second

Quantitative portion drives the research Qualitative portion drives the research
study study

Done to mainly give a qualitative Done to mainly explore and gather

explanation for the quantitative results qualitative data either due to scarcity of
done in the first phase, hence the name data, to form a hypothesis, or to create a
“Explanatory” research framework. Data gathered is then
used to develop quantitative tools.

Allows researchers to gain depth and Quantitative tool created would test the
nuance rationales to quantitative data hypothesis formed in the qualitative
gathered especially for outlying and phase.
unexpected data.

3. What are the similarities between the two studies in terms of mixing methodology?
Clinical teachers as positive and negative Organisational Culture and Workplace
role models: an explanatory sequential Corruption in Government Hospitals
mixed method design

Bazrafkan et al Hechanova et al.

Explanatory Sequential Mixed method Mixed-method, Sequential Exploratory

design design

Both studies use a sequential mixed-method design (albeit not in the same sequence)
 Both studies incorporate quantitative and qualitative methods in two distinct phases.

Both studies emphasize a sequence where one phase informs or builds upon the other.

Both has a two-phase scheme

Both studies aim to explain or explore a phenomenon in more depth using both
quantitative and qualitative data.

Both studies use semi-structured interviews as the primary method for qualitative data
collection. This allows for the researcher to explore the participants' experiences and
perspectives in more detail than would be possible with a closed-ended questionnaire.

Both studies used coding data into themes in order to identify patterns and meaning

4. How did both studies mixed the two phases of their studies? Or in other words, how
did they design the study such that phase 2 builds on phase 1?
In the study by Bazrafkan et al. (2019) on clinical teachers as positive and
negative role models, they conducted the study in an explanatory sequential mixed
method design, which has two phases. The first phase, which is the quantitative phase,
medical students from Shiraz University of Medical Sciences were selected (through
convenience sampling) and were made to answer a 27-item questionnaire (developed
from literature and backgrounds related to role model components). The results of the
27-item questionnaire were subject to factor analysis (or principal components analysis).
Four factors were identified and classified into four groups: (1) individual characteristics,
(2) teaching skills, (3) clinical skills and competence, (4) and professionalism. The
students were then asked to answer a 5-point Likert-scale questionnaire regarding the
mentioned factors. A number of 282 participants completed this process. All 282 data
sets were analyzed.
In the second phase, which is the qualitative part of the study, they used a
qualitative approach to see what the medical students' perceptions and experiences of role
modeling in their clinical teachers were through semi-structured interviews. A total of 26
interviews were conducted and the findings underwent qualitative content analysis as
data analysis. They found that students' views on the characteristics of positive role
models could be grouped into five main components including professionalism, clinical
competence, teaching skills, updated knowledge and information, and individual
characteristics. The qualitative results confirmed the quantitative results during the first
part of the study (phase 1). The components and features of positive and as well as
negative role models as extracted from the interviews were consistent with the results of
the quantitative part of the study.
Basically, the phase 2, or the qualitative phase of the study, confirms and validates
the findings of the first qualitative phase.
 For the other study by Hechanova et al. (2014) on organizational culture and
workplace corruption in government hospitals, the researchers used an exploratory
sequential mixed method design. In this study the first phase is the qualitative phase,
while the second phase is the quantitative phase. In the first phase, semi-structured
interviews were conducted among twelve key informants. The interviews elicited their
definitions of corruption, examples of corrupt acts, and perceived causes of corruption.
The findings underwent axial coding and the beliefs, values, and norms that were pointed
out were classified into major themes. These themes were then used to create the survey
items that were used in the second part of the study, the quantitative phase.
In phase 2, the survey was administered to 357 individuals. This survey had the
respondents answer a 5-point Likert scale which explored the acceptability of corrupt
practices, perceived organizational norms on corruption, organization culture dimensions,
communication of values and standards, and employee modeling among the 357
individuals spanning eight hospitals. Basically, the phase 1 qualitative findings of the
study from the interviews is the important basis for what was to be included/asked in the
questionnaire.

5. Given how the study on role models was conducted, what do you think is the main
point that demarcates sequential approaches to a concurrent mixing?
In comparing sequential approaches to a concurrent mixing research methodology
in the context of the role models research, the timing of data collection for quantitative
and qualitative data is the major factor that distinguishes the former from the latter. In
sequential mixed methods designs, one type of data is collected and analyzed first then
the second type is collected and analyzed. For example, the sequential approach employs
two stages in which the first may focus on one type of data such as a quantitative survey
to obtain preliminary insights to be followed by a second stage which focuses on
analyzing the results from stage 1 via qualitative interviews for a deeper understanding of
the information collected from stage 1. As for a concurrent mixed-method design, this
employs a method in which findings from one type of data simultaneously inform and
complement the other.
For the study, a sequential mixed methods methodology was adopted for the role
model study. They began by conducting a quantitative survey to collect information about
the students' perceptions of role models, including individual attributes, skills, and
behaviors. They then conducted qualitative interviews with a group of participants to
delve deeper into their experiences and thoughts. This enabled the researchers to expand
on the quantitative findings and acquire a more complete understanding of the
complicated phenomena of role modeling.
6. Given your knowledge of sequential and concurrent approaches, what do you think
is the main characteristic that defines a mixed-method research?
Both sequential and concurrent approaches make use of quantitative and
qualitative data. The difference between them lies in how the data are collected. For the
sequential approach, either the quantitative or qualitative data is collected first, followed
by the other. In contrast, for the concurrent approach, both quantitative and qualitative
data collection are done simultaneously. Despite such differences, however, both
approaches compare and integrate the quantitative and qualitative findings in order to
come up with more in-depth results. Given this, the main defining characteristic of a
mixed-method research is the integration and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative
data for a more comprehensive understanding of the given research objective.
In relation to the 2019 journal by Bazrafkan et al., it made use of a mixed method,
sequential explanatory design. Quantitative data were first collected through a 27 item
questionnaire which sought to identify the most important components of role modeling
for the medical students. After this, qualitative data was collected through purposive
sampling and semi-structured interviews. Through this phase, the study aimed to gain a
more in-depth understanding of the students’ perceptions and experiences of role
modeling in their professors. With the use of both methods, the qualitative analysis was
able to confirm the quantitative analysis and give a more comprehensive understanding of
the students’ perceptions.
Moving on to the 2014 journal by Hechanova et al., the study employed a mixed
method, sequential exploratory design. Qualitative data was collected in the first phase of
the study through key informant interviews. In the same phase, secondary data were used
to validate the framework and to elicit beliefs and other factors related to corruption. In
the second phase, surveys were administered to test the study’s hypotheses.

7. Now that you know the defining characteristic of mixed-methods, would you say
that your study is mixed-methods? If yes, how so? If not, how can you revise your
study such that it will reflect the properties of a real mixed-methods study
Given the aforementioned defining characteristics of mixed-methods, we would
say that our study is not a mixed-methods study but rather a qualitative study.
Specifically, an exploratory case study design as our study essentially aims to provide a
detailed and comprehensive understanding of the experiences, factors, and behaviors
influencing the use and misuse of harmful substances among pregnant women. However,
our study can be revised such that it would reflect the properties of a real mixed-methods
study. For one, our study can employ an explanatory sequential mixed-method design
similar to that of the Bazrafkan et al., 2019 study. The quantitative portion shall be done
first through instrument-based data collection via closed-ended surveys in order to gather
descriptive information and convert it into frequency format. With this, a survey of
pregnant women in Pasig City will be conducted regarding their use of harmful
substances during pregnancy. This can include the use of the substance (user vs.
non-user), frequency (i.e., days per month), and quantity (e.g., cigarette sticks per day).
These shall be categorized per substance (i.e., smoking, alcohol, illicit drugs, caffeine,
sugar). Afterward, the qualitative portion shall be done via open-ended, in-depth
interviews to look for explanations to support the quantitative data collected. In this case,
their responses may allow us to understand better why they would use such substances
while pregnant and why the numbers are the way they are. Furthermore, adding
quotations and excerpts from the mothers can emphasize their voices and allow their
contexts and experiences to be depicted through rich stories. Moreover, thematic analysis
(coding data into themes) shall be employed for data analysis.