Convergent Parallel Design Mixed Methods Case Study in Problem-

Based Learning
Yvonne Delaney, John McCarthy and Sarah Beecham
University of Limerick, Ireland
Yvonne.Delaney@ul.ie
John.McCarthy@ul.ie
Sarah.Beecham@ul.ie

Abstract: This convergent parallel design mixed methods case study was conducted at the Kemmy Business School,
University of Limerick in a Problem-based Learning (PBL) Certificate in Management (CIM) programme consisting of ten
managers. This empirical research aimed to investigate and evaluate the development of ten management skills and four
PBL roles in a tutorial process using a multi-phase convergent parallel design. This paper argues that mixed methods research
is an accepted addition to conventional qualitative and quantitative research. It considers pragmatism a desirable
philosophical companion for mixed methods and provides a framework for designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Finally, it outlines how this mixed methods design contributes to high quality research and aids the answering of
research questions. This paper is a work in progress; the researcher is currently working on mixed methods data analysis,
interpretation and validation.

Keywords: convergent parallel design, mixed methods, problem-based learning, PBL

1. Introduction
This research considers A Framework for Design: The interconnection of Worldview, Strategies of Inquiry and
Research Methods (Creswell 2009)p5. This framework contains three elements: Philosophical Worldview,
Strategies of Inquiry and Research Methods. The researcher has investigated Creswell’s (2009) framework and
has selected sub-elements that fit this research. Each sub element is highlighted: e.g., Pragmatic (Philosophical
Worldview); Case Study and Mixed Methods Convergent Parallel Design (Strategies of Inquiries); and Data
Collection Methods (Research Methods). Each sub element in Creswell’s Framework (2009) will be discussed in
terms of its influence on mixed methods multiphase convergent parallel design.

2. Research questions
I asked confirmatory and exploratory research questions, which were:
ƒ RQ1 (a) and (b): What are the participants’ evaluations and perceptions of their 10 management skills pre-
Phase 1 and post-Phase 3? This is a self-administered questionnaire by the managers capturing descriptive
statistics plus Focus Group 1 and 3 capturing exploratory statistics: in essence, the qualitative results
confirm the quantitative results (Creswell 2015).
ƒ RQ2: How does undertaking the four different PBL tutorial roles of Discussion Leader, Observer, Recorder
and Team Member change the management skills level of the participants? The researcher captures
descriptive statistics using video evidence of PBL tutorials, an observation schedule and an anchor-rated
scale evaluating participants’ skills development. In addition, this uses the same video evidence and
exploratory data from Focus Group 2 and the reflective learning journal to confirm key interoperations of
the research question.
ƒ RQ3: What are the participant’s perceptions while rotating through the four different PBL tutorial roles?
Uses Focus Group 3.

3. Mixed methods research design

Mixed methods research has been categorised as the “third methodology movement”, which offers an
alternative to the traditional qualitative and quantitative approaches (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004). Some
definition of mixed methods focused on the separation of methods and the philological stance. There was a
focus on models that required the inclusion of at least one quantitative and qualitative approach: this approach
lacked the linkage to a model of inquiry (Greene et al. 1989).

Creswell et al (2011), Tashakkori & Teddlie (2003) and Johnson & Onwuegbuzi (2004) offer a holistic approach
to mixed methods. Mixed methods has its own philosophical ideas in addition to methods of investigation. They

408
 Yvonne Delaney, John McCarthy and Sarah Beecham

contend that it is these philosophical concepts that influence the methods used in the collection and analysis of
data. This supports a more pragmatic approach to research and argues that combining qualitative and
quantitative methods provides a more comprehensive view of the research problem than a single method
(Creswell and Plano Clark 2011, Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003, Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004) This inclusive
approach reflects Creswell’s (2009) Framework.

Figure 1: A framework for design: The interconnection of worldview, strategies of inquiry and research methods

3.1 Philosophical worldviews and pragmatism

This research does not focus on dualism; the truth for this researcher concerns what works right now. Pragmatic
research embraces social interaction (Cherryholmes 1994, Murphy and Rorty 1990, Tashakkori and Teddlie
2003). The researcher observes social integration as managers interact with each other to solve problems
(Barrows 1996, Creswell 2013a).

A range of approaches are used in this mixed methods case study to make evaluations and get a comprehensive
understanding of the managers developments while operating in the PBL tutorial. Three focus groups are
planned to get closer to the managers and understand their thinking on their ten management skills and four
role developments. Managers were required to maintain a reflective learning journal (RLJ), documenting their
journey in the CIM programme through the lens of the Gibb (1988) reflective learning cycle. Both approaches
take a more interpretivist stance. Coupled with this, the managers are required to complete pre- and post-
surveys in terms of their development of ten management skills identified by (Whetten and Cameron 2011). This
is in addition to using a structured observation schedule and anchor rated scale, where a more positivist stance
is adopted.

3.2 Strategies of inquiries: Case study in mixed methods multiphase convergent parallel design
Strategies of inquiries focus on the framing of this case study within a mixed methods multiphase convergent
parallel design. They are like a roadmap that provides direction to the researcher on the procedures to follow.
Yin (2009) argues that a case study takes place within a real life setting. He advocates the use of both qualitative
and quantitative methods in case study research. Stake (2010) argues that a case study represents more of a
“bounded system”, constrained by time and location. He argues that it is not a methodology but more a selection
of what is to be studied (Creswell 2013a). Merriam (1998), Ying (2009) agree that a case study represent a

409
 Yvonne Delaney, John McCarthy and Sarah Beecham

strategy of inquiry or methodology (Creswell 2013a). Creswell (2013) agrees with Lincoln and Guba (1985) when
they argue there is little agreement in the literature regarding the definition of a case study.

Gaining access to a rich source of data in a PBL management tutorial determined the selection of the case study
method. Firstly, it enabled 800 observations of ten management skills while the 10 participants solved a range
of problems; (this assumed 4 PBL roles giving the 800 observations as 10x10x4x2). Secondly, it could empirically
expose the true potential of the Problem-based Learning tutorial process in skills and role development. These
were the identified gaps from the literature review. This level of granularity in the data facilitates a depth and
breadth to testing the skills and role development while performing the PBL tutorial (Morville 2007).

Creswell (2015) has identified three basic designs and three advances mixed methods strategies. He argues
simplicity is the best policy: researchers complicate the entire process. He is not opposed to changes in strategies
as the research progress. He argues that researchers should start simple and if the research leads to change, so
be it.

The sub-element of the framework selected is the convergent parallel design. This research uses a modified
version of the design developed by Creswell et al (2011) as it includes a multiphase element. It is planned to
merge and connect the data at each phase. This strategy provides a clear framework to show how the research
questions can be answered.

The researcher plans to collect both quantitative and qualitative data at the same time over the different phases.
Qualitative and quantitative approaches carry equal weight; the data will be retained separately during the
analysis, and only merges at the interpretation stage.

The researcher takes the view that interrogation of the data from a number of perspectives aids the answering
of research questions. The quantitative approach may show developments of the skills and roles, whereas the
qualitative data may expose a more in-depth picture relating to personal development in relation to skills and
preferences in tutorial roles. Overall, the multiphase convergent parallel design approach does not just collect
more data but also validates one data bank with another. The pre- and post-surveys validate the structured
observation approach. The RLJ supports the triangulation of data to events in the PBL tutorial (Cameron 2011,
Creswell 2013b, Creswell 2015).

The quantitative and qualitative research must mirror each other: this is often overlooked in mixed methods. It
may be difficult to merge both of the databases. Therefore, the researcher would need to be familiar with the
methods of displaying both qualitative and quantitative data side by side.

4. Research methods
This section relates to collecting data, data analysis, interpretation and validation. However as already pointed
out, the data analysis, interpretation and validation are a work in progress. Brymen and Bell (2011) argue that
research methods are “free-floating” especially in the case of business management research where mixed
methods case studies are widely used. Data collection in a multiphase design can be complex, leading to the
identification of a solitary track of investigation that spans the different phases (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011,
Bryman and Bell 2011)

Creswell (1998) encourages researchers to use sources of data collection not normally used, such as observation
using videotapes (Creswell 1998,p.120). Denzin and Lincoln (2003) argue that video recording can define the
sense of complexity and facilitate multiple views. Consequently, video observation was incorporated into this
study to complement the other methods of data collection (Denzin & Lincoln 2003).

410
Yvonne Delaney, John McCarthy and Sarah Beecham

411
 Yvonne Delaney, John McCarthy and Sarah Beecham

Figure 2: Design for research study that uses multiphase convergent parallel design

412
 Yvonne Delaney, John McCarthy and Sarah Beecham

4.1 Data collection

The research questions and the data collection process used in this research appear in Figure 2, consisting of
four phases. In this convergent parallel design, data is collected and analysed separately at each phase.

In Phase 1, quantitative data (pre) is collected. Participants are asked to self-evaluate their overall profile in
respect of ten-management skills. They are requested to reply to 84 statements using a rating scale: 1 Strongly
disagree; 2 Disagree; 3 Slightly disagree; 4 Slightly agree; 5 Agree; 6 Strongly agree. This produces descriptive
statistics for each participant over 10 skills.

At the same time, Focus Group, 1 is conducted concentrating on the same skillset producing exploratory
statistics. Both databases are analysed separately and only merged at the end of phase 1. In essence, the
exploratory statistics confirm the descriptive statistics. The finding from this Phase 1 will be held and integrated
later in Phase 4 (RQ1 (a) and (b)).

In Phase 2, quantitative data is collected by the researcher using video evidence, a structured observation
schedule and an anchor-rated scale of 1 (bad) to 5 (very good) to rate participants skills development in PBL
roles while operating in the PBL tutorial video. This process generates 800 observations (10 skills x 10
participants x 4 roles x 2 observations). These descriptive statistics are collected and analysed separately. At the
same time, qualitative data is gathered using the same tutorial video evidence, reflective learning journal and
Focus Group 2. This exploratory data should confirm the findings from the descriptive data (RQ2, RQ3). The
findings from this Phase 2 will be held and integrated later in Phase 4.

Phase 3 quantitative data (post) is collected as the participants are asked to self-evaluate again giving their
overall profile in respect of the same ten-management skills (one year later). The very same process is followed,
as was outlined in Phase 1.

The findings from this Phase 3 will be held and integrated later in Phase 4 (RQ1 (a) and (b)).

Phase 4 merges and analyses the overall results from the three previous phases. Creswell (2015) argues that the
merging process provides deeper insight and a more complete understanding of the research problem than a
single database alone.

5. Conclusion
This paper extracts a specific framework from Creswell (2009)’s Framework. It illustrates how mixed methods is
an accepted addition to qualitative and quantitative research. It presents pragmatism as contributing a
philosophical companion for mixed methods research.

It provides a framework for designing and conducting mixed methods research through the introduction of a
specific multiphase Convergent Parallel Design. This framework shows the critical nature of mixed methods and
the importance that the researcher uses robust processes in design to address the research questions.

Specifically, this paper concludes that the multiphase Convergent Parallel Design used to collect data in the CIM
PBL case study is a robust approach. While the researcher accepts the sample size is small, the depth and breadth
of testing results in 800 structured observations and 84 variables from questionnaires. This data is currently
being analysed, to answer the research questions.

References
Barrows, H. S. (1996) 'Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview', New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 1996(68), 3-12.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2011) Business research methods, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Cameron, R. (2011) 'Mixed Methods Research: The Five Ps Framework', Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods,
9(2), 96-108.
Cherryholmes, C. H. (1994) 'More Notes on Pragmatism', Educational Researcher, 23(1), 16-18.
Creswell, J. W. (2009) Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Los Angeles: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2013a) Qualitative inquiry & research design : choosing among five approaches, Los Angeles: SAGE
Publications.

413
 Yvonne Delaney, John McCarthy and Sarah Beecham

Creswell, J. W. (2013b) 'Steps in Conducting a Scholarly Mixed Methods Study', University of Nebraska - Lincoln
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln, DBER Speaker Series. Paper 48.
Creswell, J. W. (2015) A concise introduction to mixed methods research.
Creswell, J. W. and Plano Clark, V. L. (2011) Designing and conducting mixed methods research, Los Angeles: SAGE
Publications.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J. and Graham, W. F. (1989) 'Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation
Designs', Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.
Johnson, R. B. and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004) 'Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come',
Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Morville, P. a. R. (2007) 'Information Architecture for the World Wide Web, 3rd ed., Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media Inc.'.
Murphy, J. P. and Rorty, R. (1990) Pragmatism : from Peirce to Davidson, Boulder: Westview Press.
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2003) Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, Thousand Oaks, Calif.:
SAGE Publications.
Whetten, D. A. and Cameron, K. S. (2011) Developing Management Skills, 8th ed., Pearson Education London.

414
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.