Using mixed methodology to explore complex concepts like nursing morale

Abstract

The complexities associated with a study of nursing morale lend itself to the use of more than one research approach. Although literature exists refuting the wisdom of using multiple approaches, contemporary thinking establishes the appropriateness and strength of combining different approaches. The strength of one approach complements the weaknesses of another. Using a variety of data collection techniques allows the researcher to access a different dimension of the problem being studied. When focussing on a relatively small number or a single concept(s) such as exploring nursing morale it is appropriate to use structured procedures and a formal instrument such as a survey questionnaire. Broadly based, fundamental information or data that can be (re) acquired and replicated in a variety of settings would be the strategy of choice. On the other hand when attempting to understand others' points of view, interpretations and meanings associated with an issue, a formal instrument fails to provide the important and necessary information and qualitative research strategies are more appropriate and fruitful. Rather than wide-ranging, numerical and quantitative information, qualitative research measures provide rich, deep and meaningful data. As evidenced by the previous (abstracts) discussions here, exploring and analysing concepts such as nursing morale are complex and challenging. Combining research methodologies facilitates the acquisition of breadth of data (quantitative) as well as depth of information (qualitative) usually generating well-rounded and compelling data to analyse. Researchers who embark on a research project that employs both research strategies are often confronted with unexpected or difficult issues to resolve in the process of developing a research plan. Exploring deeply (qualitative methods)into an issue to inform a broadly based (quantitative) survey tool or the reverse strategy are only two alternatives to be discussed. Experienced gatekeepers (reviewers, funding bodies) can be unfamiliar or unsympathetic with either quantitative or qualitative research strategies.