A comparative study on Italian new communities abroad: the cases of Tunisia and South Africa1

This paper presents two case studies about Italian new communities abroad: one Tunisian and one South African. These case studies were conducted – in a larger international research project on 14 countries – with different types of interview: focus interviews, in-depth interviews, focus groups, etc. The mixed interview modes brought to light how – with a different research strategy (methodological triangulation): quantitative and qualitative data – our complex social experience can be inquired into, in particular migration processes. The authors decided to utilise semi-standardised and non-standardised techniques. This paper discusses how the mixed research logic – utilised in both of these cases – is very productive in terms of knowledge. It seems that focus group interviewing techniques (and others) have been used progressively more and more over the past years as both a self-contained method for conducting qualitative research and in combination with other research methods. In the authors’ opinion, mixed-methods research (or multiple research strategies) represents a smaller corpus of literature that is getting increased attention. The essays in our paper are grouped along four themes: (a) economic development and globalisation; (b) perceptions and discourses; (c) the new migration phenomenon; and (d) fragmentation of identity. The authors believe that rebuilding a morceau de vie of Italian emigration helps to better analyse the role of the communities of immigrants in the construction of national processes. As a result of this, their survey introduces reflections on theoretical—methodological logic and concurs with placing such aspects in a global and social structural dimension. However, the universal and social structural dimension can be extended to the specific case. Its contribution in the first part investigates a variety of linkages of migration with broader processes of social–economic development and social globalisation. That global patterns of migration and the processes of globalisation are linked in various ways has long been recognised. The second part of the paper stresses the meaning of perceptions and discourses linked with the migration phenomenon and underlines the importance of an accurate methodological approach in order to provide new sociological points of view and appropriate research strategies.     

混合研究方法的方法论、研究策略及应用——以消费模式研究为例

近年来,定量定性相结合的研究方法在社会科学中广泛应用,但鲜有研究注意到其方法论含义并科学地选取研究策略。事实上,学术界对于定量定性方法的结合仍有争议,而且不同的结合方法背后的本体论和认识论的含义也不同,对于研究结论的意义和作用也不同。本文以中产阶级消费模式的研究为例,详细阐述了该研究使用混合研究方法的原因、目的、方法论、具体研究策略及其应用。文章使用定量和定性的研究发现说明了混合研究方法如何丰富和深化了研究结论,如何以具有代表性的样本为背景挖掘了消费生活的复杂性和多面性。     

Making Research Count: What Australian Social Work Researchers Think

A central question in the research utilisation literature is what happens to research evidence once it is produced. In social work, this has frequently translated to questions of whether and how social workers use research in practice. Despite these questions, relatively little is known about the ways in which research comes to be used in social work practice. This paper reports on a study of research utilisation in social work, which examined researchers’ perceptions of the factors impacting on research use in social work. The specific focus of this study was on the impact of interaction between researchers and practitioners on research use in practice. The study replicated a scale used in prior studies on knowledge utilisation to collect data from 60 Australian researchers publishing in social work journals, all of whom reported some level of research use by practitioners. Key variables were coproduction, engagement, and research utilisation. Implications for future use of the survey instrument for the measurement and implementation of research use in social work are discussed.     

A Study on Technical and Cultural Differences in Survey Methodology Between Japan and the United States

Abstract: At present, Japanese researchers conducting social surveys encounter several difficulties such as restricted access to official registers and a decrease in current response rates. These researchers may expect these difficulties to be solved by the survey techniques or methods developed outside Japan, such as computer-assisted interviews (CAI) and Internet surveys. It is unclear whether the numerous technical differences between survey methodologies developed in Japan and elsewhere imply the backward-ness of Japan or cultural differences. This paper discusses the potential of various recent survey methods, focusing on the culture and paradigms in Japan and the UnitedStates. First, this paper presents an overview of survey techniques, such as computer-assisted personal interviewing, Internet surveys, and mixed modes. Second, it points out the fact that the existence of the registers and different survey concepts might have created the different survey paradigms. In addition, reference is made to the linguisticdifferences between the US and Japan. The results indicate that survey research is more dispersed in Japan than in the US and that survey research adapted to the uniqueness of Japanese culture is not accumulated sufficiently, although such an accumulation is required. Finally, it is stated that not only surveys, but also the concept of methodology, is not very popular in Japan. Furthermore, the development of survey research in the US is likely to be related to pragmatism.     

Aligning theory and methodology in mixed methods research: Before Design Theoretical Placement

When a theoretical framework (and its components) is not clearly linked to research methods, researchers risk designing flawed studies, wherein the stated research question is inconsistent with the research design. Explicitly identifying one’s theoretical orientation can provide an orderly schematic for linking observations from separate investigations (i.e. qualitative, quantitative) thereby facilitating understandings and guiding research designs particularly in fields of social and health sciences where complex phenomena are an aspect of the subject of inquiry. Although this has been established, how researchers might position their research theoretically to guide mixed methods research is less clear. In this paper, we propose the Before Design Theoretical Placement as a general guide for specifying and locating studies in a broader theoretical grounding, and discuss how it may inform overall study considerations. We then use this approach to illustrate how theories and methods can work together to facilitate professional knowledge development from a relational perspective.     

Time matters: the potential and pitfalls of using mixed methods approaches in longitudinal program evaluation

While social programs are often assessed using short-term impact studies, longitudinal designs allow evaluators to capture change over time, identify longer-term outcomes, adapt instruments, and better understand participants in transition. A mixed methods design can be critical in understanding these dynamics; yet there is a lack of literature exploring the practical considerations of planning and conducting qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis within longitudinal studies. This paper examines two different mixed methods frameworks used in a 5-year evaluation of three youth entrepreneurship programs in East Africa. We show how the evaluation team dealt with unique challenges across methods and over time, and how the design ultimately facilitated a richer understanding of program impacts and processes. Considerations for conducting this type of study are explored, related to the impact of longevity on analysis and research staff. Successfully using a longitudinal mixed methods approach requires researchers to be strategic and reflexive, and work in close collaboration.     

The use of participant observation in evaluation research

In the last several years considerable interest has developed in the use of qualitative methods in evaluation research. Recent works indicate that the tradition of qualitative research has much that will be useful to evaluation researchers. This paper does not seek to cover the range of qualitative methods available to the evaluation researcher but rather is concerned with one methodology in that tradition, participant observation. The paper describes the methodology of participant observation for those who are interested in its characteristics and for those who would like to consider it for evaluation or other types of research. Examples are given of how it has been used and references to additional sources of information are included as well. The paper is organized into three sections: characteristics of participant observation, when it is appropriate to use it, and specific techniques of the method.     

Mixed Methods Research in Marriage and Family Therapy: A Content Analysis

Considering mixed methods research is gaining reputability in the marriage and family therapy field (Research methods in family therapy, Guilford, 2005), we conducted a mixed methods content analysis to examine the prevalence and quality of published mixed and multimethod research during the past 10 years in eight prominent MFT journals (N = 32). Our purpose was to determine the characteristics of studies that utilized both qualitative and quantitative methods, the themes of the rationales for combining methods, and their respective topics of study. We found 16 mixed methods articles, many of which used surveys and interviews, focused on the process of therapy, and did not discuss their methodology as mixed. We encourage authors of mixed methods studies to explicitly define design types, to establish a clear rationale for the combination of methods, to state how qualitative and quantitative methods and data were mixed, and to use theory effectively.     

Understanding the philosophical positions of classical and neopragmatists for mixed methods research

Pragmatism is the most popular philosophy/paradigm in the international field of mixed methods research (MMR). This article therefore introduces, describes, and contrasts the philosophies of the most well known pragmatists, including the three most important classical pragmatists (Charles Sanders Peirce, William James and John Dewey) and two neopragmatists (Richard Rorty and Susan Haack). It is shown that Rorty and James fit well with qualitatively driven MMR (i.?e., MMR where the qualitative component of the study is primary); Peirce fits well with quantitatively driven MMR (i.?e., MMR where the quantitative component is primary); and Dewey fits well with MMR that attempts to treat qualitative and quantitative research/philosophy equally (i.?e., equal-status mixed methods research). Importantly, it is shown here that pragmatism offers a way out of many philosophy of science quagmires facing social researchers and it offers a promising philosophy for mixed methods research practice.     

How to Construct a Mixed Methods Research Design

This article provides researchers with knowledge of how to design a high quality mixed methods research study. To design a mixed study, researchers must understand and carefully consider each of the dimensions of mixed methods design, and always keep an eye on the issue of validity. We explain the seven major design dimensions: purpose, theoretical drive, timing (simultaneity and dependency), point of integration, typological versus interactive design approaches, planned versus emergent design, and design complexity. There also are multiple secondary dimensions that need to be considered during the design process. We explain ten secondary dimensions of design to be considered for each research study. We also provide two case studies showing how the mixed designs were constructed.     

Evaluating the Quality of Online Survey Data Collected in 2018 in the USA: Univariate,Bivariate, and Multivariate Analyses

Collecting survey data in Japan and the USA is difficult for many reasons, including the difficulty of creating complete sampling frames and low response rates. Online surveys, which collect data through online access panels and recruit members using nonprobability sampling, is becoming a popular alternative to traditional survey techniques, both in market and social science research. However, sociological researchers are hesitant to adopt online survey data collection techniques as it is unclear how representative such data are. This article examines the quality of online survey data by comparing online surveys with the two datasets collected using probability sampling, the American Community Survey and the General Social Survey. We conducted univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analyses and investigated whether similarities improve from the univariate analyses to bivariate relationships, and to bivariate relationships with controls. The results show that similarities improved from univariate to bivariate and multivariate analyses, but the results of bivariate and multivariate analyses did not differ. We concluded that data collected via volunteer‐based access panels yielded similar results to the benchmark data, especially when the relationships among variables are examined. We argue that automatically discrediting the data collected via volunteer‐based access panels is not good practice. With careful considerations of data quality, online survey data with nonprobability sampling could advance sociological research by giving researchers more freedom to ask questions at a relatively low cost, with a quick turnaround time, and more opportunities to conduct cross‐national research.     

Quantifizierung

The challenge in data analysis often lies in taking account of the multi-dimensionality and complexity of the data and at the same time discovering patterns, which requires reduction and simplification. Quantitizing qualitative data can serve as an additional step during data analysis to broaden the perspective and collect complementary views. Examples from research illustrate how information gathered during one data collection can generate different types of data or how qualitative data can be transformed to be analysed statistically. Practicalities of integrating qualitative and quantitative analyses are illustrated to offer good-practice examples for transformation designs (QUAL → QUAN). With the methodological reflection of research practice I evaluate consequences for the field of mixed methods research, in which the statistical analysis of codes created during an interpretive phase plays a minor role.     

Beyond the Core: The Hot Topic(al) Alternative to the Survey-Based Introduction to Sociology Course

In the following paper we argue that the conventional “Introduction to Sociology” survey course should be restructured because such courses try to survey an unsurveyable body of knowledge and they do not teach the application of sociological research. The conventional intro course should be replaced with an intro course that surveys the types of social dynamics that sociologists typically research and the methods they use to do so. We propose a semester-long intro course with four case study learning-units that are chosen for their coverage of the underlying sociological dynamics, methods, and core concepts. We contend that case study learning-units which concentrate on topical issues and core sociological concepts are better suited for an introduction course.     

The Role of Sampling in Mixed Methods-Research

The purpose of this article is to emphasize the importance of sampling in all mixed methods research studies. Effective meaning making in mixed methods research studies is very much dependent on the quality of inferences that emerge, which, in turn, is dependent on the quality of the underlying sampling design. Further, these inferences are only of a quality nature if interpretive consistency occurs, which represents the justifiableness of the type of generalization made, given the sampling design. In an earlier work, we identified six sampling-based considerations that all mixed methods researchers should make at the four broad stages (i.?e., research conceptualization, research planning, research implementation, and research dissemination stages) of the mixed methods research process: emtic orientation, probabilistic orientation, abductive orientation, intrinsic versus instrumental orientation, particularistic versus universalistic orientation, and philosophical clarity. Building on this six-element framework, we outline how focusing on sampling considerations at the four stages of the mixed methods research process, which includes the dissemination stage of reporting the mixed methods research findings to stakeholders, enhances significantly the process of meaning making. We believe that addressing these sampling considerations at each of these stages will increase the likelihood that the mixed methods researcher will uphold interpretive consistency during the meaning-making process.     

General and specific measures of alienation: Is there a difference?

Nisbet and Perrin (1977) suggest that of the two types of alienation, general and specific, the latter is more prevalent. This paper examines differences between general and specific measures of alienation by breaking each into three component parts: powerlessness, self‐estrangement, and anomia. Results of tests to determine whether specific and general alienation are novel traits are mixed; the general and specific powerlessness measures are found to be more different from each other than are the measures of self‐estrangement and anomia. When the reported extent of general alienation and specific alienation is compared, all specific types are significantly greater. Finally, general measures of alienation correlate more strongly with measures of general phenomena than with specific phenomena, while specific measures of alienation correlate more strongly with measures of specific phenomena than with general phenomena.     

A Survey of Common Practices in Infancy Research: Description of Policies,Consistency Across and Within Labs,and Suggestions for Improvements

Psychology is currently in a period of unprecedented self‐reflection, with particular attention being paid to research practices and policies. Although infancy researchers have a history of attending to research practice in the form of papers outlining how to best implement various methods and paradigms, less is known about the particular practices currently being used by researchers in the field, making it difficult to identify areas for improvement. To address this issue, we developed an online survey for measuring methodological practices in infancy laboratories around the world. Our results suggest that infancy researchers adopt a range of a priori research practices. Individuals earlier in their training (particularly within the first year) were more likely to report not knowing their lab's policies, especially regarding issues that arise late in the research process. Members of the same lab agreed on lab policies at above‐chance levels; however, improvements could be made. The use of clearly problematic research practices was relatively rare; however, several “risk‐permeable” practices were identified that may, under select circumstances, threaten data integrity. We discuss how our results could be used to improve practice in infant research.     

Rethinking integration in mixed methods research using data from different eras: lessons from a project about teenage vocational behaviour

Mixed methods research requires integration of qualitative and quantitative data. However, there is debate about how to define integration and what is required for integration to occur. This paper describes a mixed methods research project which revisits datasets from different eras, which were originally instigated for different purposes and had different theoretical frameworks. Using selected results about the relationship between teenagers’ vocational aspirations and adult occupations we show how the research topic and question integrated the projects within a constructivist theoretical position. We argue that reanalysing and comparing historical datasets can provide new insights into a topic even with minimal integration of the data. We recommend a broad definition of integration and reflexive research practice to encourage innovation and diversity in mixed methods research, particularly with regard to reanalysis of datasets from different eras.     

Survey research with preliterate adult populations in post conflict situations using researcher-assisted self-completion questionnaires

This paper presents an innovative and effective approach for conducting surveys with preliterate adults in a context of limited infrastructure in post conflict Burundi, Africa. We conducted surveys with parents/carers of children with a disability and community members, as a component of mixed methods research with children and adults to provide baseline data for Handicap International in developing programs to prevent sexual abuse among children with a disability. To meet the challenges of conducting surveys on the sensitive topic in such field conditions, we developed specifically adapted researcher-assisted self-completion questionnaires (RASCQ) using images and verbal guidance. RASCQ allowed researchers to provide respondents with supports needed to complete surveys and the privacy and confidentiality needed to encourage honest answers. This paper discusses the development process, details of survey implementation, and quality of data obtained. RASCQ proposed in the current study can be used in various studies with marginalised groups and people in developing countries.     

Standard Bearers: Qualitative Sociologists’ Experiences with IRB Regulation

In response to the system for regulating research with human subjects, researchers have raised two apparently contradictory concerns: that IRBs are excessively inconsistent (often raised by biomedical researchers), and that they are excessively standardizing (often raised by qualitative interview researchers). Why does standardization appear as the dominant theme in qualitative researchers’ experiences with their IRBs? And how do qualitative researchers experience standardization in their IRB encounters? We focus on IRBs role as regulatory bureaucracies, which typically rely heavily on standardized communication and decisions to process information and make large numbers of decisions in a timely manner. We explore the role of standardization in IRB regulation of qualitative research in an analysis of semi-structured interviews with 26 qualitative sociologists from six research universities and three liberal arts colleges in the Northeastern United States. In a regulatory regime oriented toward the norms of experimental research, these frictions resulted partly from a lack of appropriate standardized language and decision-templates, but also from the inherent difficulties of applying standardized decisions to work that is unpredictable, unique, and difficult to routinize.