Microsoft Word doctoral thesis final[1]. doc

4.3    CHOICE OF METHODOLOGY 
 
This section puts forward the rationale for the choice of a combined quantitative and 
qualitative methodology in this study. Certain important factors were considered in the 
choice of this methodology and these are presented in the following discussion.  
 
4.3.1  Technical considerations 
 
A combined quantitative and qualitative methodology was chosen mainly because the 
two methods complement each other. The quantitative method, on the one hand has the 
potential to gather a large amount of standardised information from several informants. 
The standardisation of responses facilitates scoring and analysis and the method can be 
used to obtain factual, less personal information (McMillan & Schumacher 1993:251). 
 
On the other hand, qualitative method gathers in-depth and elaborate information from a 
small purposefully sampled group of people. In this study this group is sampled from 
similar respondents to those who completed the questionnaire thus increasing the 
likelihood of obtaining reliable data. The qualitative method supplements the quantitative 
one as it elicits information of a personal nature and allows the participants to express 
feelings and opinions on issues which the questionnaire items do not allow. The VConf-
FGI was selected as the qualitative method of choice because it creates a social 
environment in which group members are stimulated by each others’ perceptions and 

---

 
112
ideas which increases the quality and richness of data (McMillan & Schumacher1993: 
432). Moreover, the focus group method serves to cross validate data collected by means 
of the questionnaire.  
 
This combination of quantitative and qualitative methods in the design of the study is a 
form of triangulation. The section which follows explains the concept triangulation.  
 
4.3.1.1  Triangulation 
 
According to McMillan and Schumacher (1993:498),  triangulation is the cross validation 
among data sources, data collection strategies, time periods and theoretical schemes. To 
find regularities in the data, different sources, situations and methods are compared to see 
if the same pattern keeps occurring. Flick (2002:227) characterises triangulation as a key 
word used to name the combination of different methods, study groups, local and 
temporal settings as well as different theoretical perspectives in dealing with a 
phenomenon. It can mean combining several qualitative methods, but it can also mean 
combining qualitative and quantitative methods (Flick 2002:265). 
 
Flick (2002:227) explains that triangulation  was first conceptualised as a strategy for 
validating results obtained using individual methods. The focus, has however, shifted 
towards further enriching knowledge and towards transgressing the always limited 
epistemological potentials of the individual method. This way the two methodological 
perspectives balance each other. They operate side by side (Neuman 2000:125), remain 
autonomous and are seen as equal in their role in the project. They can function 
simultaneously too (p125).  
 
Flick (2002:227) refers to the strategy of integrating quantitative and qualitative methods 
in one study as ‘methodological triangulation’. He distinguishes two types: within-
method and between-method. The within-method strategy might use different sub-scales 
for measuring an item in a questionnaire, whereas the between-method strategy combines 
the questionnaire with a semi-structured interview. 
 

---

 
113