Quality & Quantity

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 585–597 | Cite as

Towards a flexible online mixed method design with a feedback loop

  • Bojana LobeEmail author
  • Vasja Vehovar
Original Paper


The notion of mixed methods design relates to the research studies that combine qualitative and quantitative approaches. However, most of these studies are tailored to specific research problem in a particular study and are typically limited to a fixed sequence of qualitative and quantitative approaches (e.g. qualitative interviews followed by a survey or vice-versa). This limitation historically arises from time, cost and logistic restrictions. As an alternative, we develop an general extension of fixed mixed method design by introducing a flexible feedback-loop so that several phases can be combined in a flexible order. In practice, such designs are now increasingly feasible within an information-communication technology environment, where online respondents are readily available for immediate participation. An online experiment combining interactive series of web surveys and in-depth web interviews was performed to compare this approach with standard two-phase designs involving mixed methods. The costs, timing, quality of finiding and experiences of researchers were systematically evaluated. In summary, the proposed approach proved to be very beneficial.

Qualitative methods Quantitative methods Mixed method design Online interviews Web surveys Information-communication technologies 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beaulieu A. (2004). Mediating ethnography: objectivity and the making of ethnographies of the internet. Soc. Epistemol. 18(2–3): 139–164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bryman, A.: Quantitative and qualitative research: further reflection on their integration. In: Brannen, J. (ed.) Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research, pp. 57–80. Aldershot, Avebury (1992)Google Scholar
  3. Burton, L., Goldsmith, D.: The medium is the message: using online focus groups to study online learning. Meeting paper, prepared by Connecticut Distance Learning Consortium, (Accessed 15 January 2006)
  4. Caracelli V.J. and Greene J.C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs. Edu. Eval. Policy Analysis 15(2): 195–207 Google Scholar
  5. Caracelli, V.J., Greene, J.C.: Crafting mixed-methods evaluation design. In: Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J. (eds.) Advances in Mixed-method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms, pp. 19–32. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1997)Google Scholar
  6. Chen, P., Hinton, S.M.: Realtime interviewing using the world wide web. (1999) Sociological Research Online, 4/3 (Accessed 15 January 2006)
  7. Couper M.P. (2000). Web surveys: a review of issues and approaches. Public Opin. Q. 64(4): 464–494 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Creswell J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks Google Scholar
  9. Creswell, J.W., Plano, C.V.L., Guttman, M., Hanson, W.: Advanced mixed methods research designs. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (ed.) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, pp. 209–240. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2003)Google Scholar
  10. Creswell, J.W., Fetters, M.D., Ivankova, N.V.: Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. Annals of Family Medicine, 2/1 (January/February 2004), 7–12 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. Denzin N.K. (1978). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. McGraw-Hill, New York Google Scholar
  12. Eckert, J.K.: Ethnographic research on aging. In: Reinharz, S., Rowles, G.D. (eds.) Qualitative Gerontology. Springer, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  13. Fielding N.G. and Fielding J.L. (1986). Linking Data. Sage, Beverly Hills Google Scholar
  14. (1997). Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Google Scholar
  15. Greene J.C., Caracelli V.J. and Graham W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Edu. Eval. Policy Analysis 11(3): 255–274 Google Scholar
  16. Groves R.M. (1989). Survey Errors and Survey Costs. Wiley, New York CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hine C. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. Sage, London Google Scholar
  18. (2005). Virtual Methods: Issues in Social Research on the Internet. Berg, Oxford Google Scholar
  19. Jankowski N.W. (1999). In search of methodological innovation in new media research. Communications: Eur. J. Commun. Res. 24(3): 367–374 Google Scholar
  20. Jankowski N.W. and Selm M. (2005). Epilogue: methodological concerns and innovations in internet research. In: Hine, C. (eds) Virtual Methods, pp 199–207. Berg, Oxford Google Scholar
  21. Jick T.D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Admin. Sci. Q. 24(4): 602–611 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Joinson A.N. (2005). Internet behaviour and the design of virtual methods. In: Hine, C. (eds) Virtual Methods: Issues in Social Research on the Internet., pp 21–34. Berg, Oxford Google Scholar
  23. Kiesler S. and Sproull L.S. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opin. Q. 50(Fall): 402–413 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kopinak J.K. (1999). The use of triangulation in a study of refugee well-being. Qual. Quant. 33(2): 169–183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Markham A.N. (1998). Life Online: Researching Real Experience in Virtual Space. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek Google Scholar
  26. Mertens D.M. (2005). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks Google Scholar
  27. Miller D. and Slater D. (2000). The Internet: An Ethnographic Approach. Berg, Oxford Google Scholar
  28. Miller S.M.N., Marie W. and Moore M.T. (1998). Caught in the paradigm gap: qualitative researchers’ lived experience and the politics of Epistemology. Am. Edu. Res. J. 35(3): 377–416 Google Scholar
  29. Morgan D.L. (1998). Practical Strategies for Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Application to Health Research. Qual. Health Res. 8: 362–376 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morse N.M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Res. 40(1): 120–123 Google Scholar
  31. O’Conner H. and Madge C. (2003). Focus groups in cyberspace: using the Internet for qualitative research. Qual. Market Res.: Int. J. 6(2): 133–143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Patton M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage, Newbury Park Google Scholar
  33. Phelan P. (1987). Compatibility of qualitative and quantitative methods: studying child sexual abuse in America. Edu. Urban Soc. 20(1): 35–41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pratesi M., Lozar Manfreda K., Biffingnandi S. and Vehovar V. (2004). List-based web surveys: quality, timeliness, and nonresponse in the steps of the participation flow. J. Off. Stat. 20(3): 451–465 Google Scholar
  35. Selwyn, N., Robson, K.: Using Email as a Research Tool. Social Research Update, /21 (Accessed 15 January 2006)
  36. Tashakkori A. and Teddlie C. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks Google Scholar
  37. (2003). Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks Google Scholar
  38. Vehovar V., Lozar Manfreda K. and Batagelj Z. (2001). Sensitivity of E-commerce measurement to survey instrument. Int. J. Electr. Comm. 6(1): 31–52 Google Scholar
  39. Webb, E.J., Campbell, D.T., Schwartz, R.D., Sechrest, L.B.: Unobtrusive measures: nonreactive research in the social sciences. By Eugene J. Webb, Donald T. Campbell, Richard D. Schwartz, Lee Sechrest (Second printing.). Rand McNally & Co., Chicago (1966)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Informatics and Methodology, Faculty of Social SciencesUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations