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.     

“Paradigms lost”: Some thoughts on choosing methods in evaluation research

Patton agrees with us concerning the need for a catholic approach to method choices in evaluation. However, Patton criticizes us for setting up a straw man when we argued that quantitative and qualitative methods are not inevitably linked to different “paradigms” and that allegiance to a particular paradigm does not force the evaluator into a choice between mutually exclusive qualitative and quantitative methods. The first part of this article shows how some of the past literature creates the impression both of an inevitable method-paradigm linkage and of a forcedchoice between qualitative and quantitative paradigms. It is argued that such impressions could have pernicious consequences for evaluation practice by artificially restricting method choices. In the final section, we consider some of the difficulties of making method choices and suggest that the purposefully developed strengths of different methods should not be completely ignored.     

On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher: The Importance of Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methodologies

The last 100 years have witnessed a fervent debate in the USA about quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. Unfortunately, this has led to a great divide between quantitative and qualitative researchers, who often view themselves as in competition with each other. Clearly, this polarization has promoted purists, namely, researchers who restrict themselves exclusively either to quantitative or to qualitative research methods. Mono‐method research is the biggest threat to the advancement of the social sciences. Indeed, as long as we stay polarized in research, how can we expect stakeholders who rely on our research findings to take our work seriously? Thus, the purpose of this paper is to explore how the debate between quantitative and qualitative is divisive and, hence, counterproductive for advancing the social and behavioural science field. This paper advocates that all graduate students learn to utilize and to appreciate both quantitative and qualitative research. In so doing, students will develop into what we term as pragmatic researchers.     

Bridging the qualitative–quantitative divide: Experiences from conducting a mixed methods evaluation in the RUCAS programme

Quantitative and qualitative approaches to planning and evaluation in education for sustainable development have often been treated by practitioners from a single research paradigm. This paper discusses the utility of mixed method evaluation designs which integrate qualitative and quantitative data through a sequential transformative process. Sequential mixed method data collection strategies involve collecting data in an iterative process whereby data collected in one phase contribute to data collected in the next. This is done through examples from a programme addressing the ‘Reorientation of University Curricula to Address Sustainability (RUCAS): A European Commission Tempus-funded Programme’. It is argued that the two approaches are complementary and that there are significant gains from combining both. Using methods from both research paradigms does not, however, mean that the inherent differences among epistemologies and methodologies should be neglected. Based on this experience, it is recommended that using a sequential transformative mixed method evaluation can produce more robust results than could be accomplished using a single approach in programme planning and evaluation focussed on education for sustainable development.     

Combining qualitative and quantitative data in the longitudinal study of household allocations

The paper examines some of the technical and epistemological questions raised by the debate on linking qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. For illustrative purposes, we discuss a qualitative research project on the distribution of resources within households currently being conducted by the British Household Panel Study at the University of Essex. Initially, we provide a general background to the current research, moving on to examine some of the methodological problems which emerge and the epistemological questions which they raise. These include the general issue of classification; the difficulties of defining the analytical boundaries of households; the particular problems associated with using households as longitudinal units of analysis; and the relationship between actors' accounts and the conceptual categories which we use to describe behaviour. We suggest that the tendency to see qualitative and quantitative methodologies as mutually exclusive and antagonistic paradigms is a misleading representation of the reality of social research practice, and argue for the importance of maintaining a qualitative component in the BHPS in order to understand the complex processes involved in the intra-household distribution of resources.     

Die Integration qualitativer und quantitativer Forschung – theoretische Grundlagen von „Mixed Methods“

Mixed Methods have been used in social research for quite a long time, as can be seen by looking on influential empirical studies from the first half of the 20^th century, where the combined use of qualitative and quantitative methods was justified in most cases only pragmatically (if at all). Unfortunately, the discussions led from the 1970s onwards about theoretical justifications of mixed methods designs often suffered from a focus limited on formal and epistemological issues. This holds true for the debates about the notion of “triangulation” as well as for the controversies about the paradigms presumably underlying quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods research. By contrasting “positivism”, “constructivism” and “pragmatism” outdated frontlines were often preserved and complex philosophical problems oversimplified. Furthermore, the focus on epistemology led to a neglect of substantial issues relating to the research field (which are always critical for the use of methods).The necessity for using (and combining) quantitative and qualitative methods follows from the nature of social structures relevant for the concrete field of investigation which may differ widely according to their stability and flexibility. Thereby structures with limited scope or “contingent structures” create specific problems for qualitative and quantitative methods which can be detected and dealt with by drawing on the strengths of the respective other methodological tradition in mixed methods designs.     

Compelling Evidence: Research Methods,HIV/AIDS,and Politics in Papua,Indonesia

Increasing calls for an evidence-based public health (EBPH) rely on forms of quantitative evidence to decide HIV/AIDS interventions. A major criticism of this method is it downplays the significance of experiential, cultural or political facets of HIV/AIDS. We apply the concept of ‘rendering technical’ to explore the relationship between methods used in HIV/AIDS research in Papua, Indonesia and current socioeconomic conditions. We analysed research methods used in sixty-two HIV/AIDS studies, assessed presentations at an international AIDS conference, and conducted ethnographic research in Papua. Nation-wide EBPH initiatives are implemented in Papua, yet there remains a critical mass of qualitative ethnographic studies carried out by indigenous scholars emphasising experiences of persons and culture, often within a colonial or post-colonial framework. We argue these studies partially counter approaches which render technical complex realities. In political conditions where indigenous minorities suffer inequities, qualitative ethnographic research may yield critical kinds of evidence, potentially contributing to more nuanced decision-making around HIV.     

Making methods choices

This article is a further discussion of methodological paradigms in evaluation research. More specifically, this article is a response to the attacks on paradigmatic perspectives made by Reichardt and Cook in the opening chapter of their edited book Qalitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. They “suggest that part of this current debate over qualitative and quantitative methods is not centered on productive issues and so is not being argued in as logical a fashion as it should be.” For better or worse paradigm debates are, by their nature, only partly subject to logical analysis. Paradigms — methodological or otherwise — involve values, world view, empirical tendencies, and patterned responses. Because their central arguments rest entirely on a logical foundation, Reichardt and Cook may have done precisely what they accuse others of doing: “obscuring issues and unnecessarily creating schisms between the two methodtypes.”     

New materialist social inquiry: designs,methods and the research-assemblage

This paper discusses issues of research design and methods in new materialist social inquiry, an approach that is attracting increasing interest across the social sciences as an alternative to either realist or constructionist ontologies. New materialism de-privileges human agency, focusing instead upon how assemblages of the animate and inanimate together produce the world, with fundamental implications for social inquiry methodology and methods. Key to our exploration is the materialist notion of a ‘research-assemblage’ comprising researcher, data, methods and contexts. We use this understanding first to explore the micropolitics of the research process, and then – along with a review of 30 recent empirical studies – to establish a framework for materialist social inquiry methodology and methods. We discuss the epistemological consequences of adopting a materialist ontology.     

AGENCY, STRUCTURE, AND JEWISH SURVIVAL OF THE HOLOCAUST:

In this article I use a life history of two brothers who survived the Holocaust to bring survivor research into the mainstream of sociological inquiry and to explore one of the central problems of general social theory: the relationship between human agency and social structure. A theory of agency and structure offers a distinctly sociological alternative in a literature that has been dominated by psychological theorizing and that has often characterized Jews in overly negative or overly heroic terms. Survivors' accounts are permeated with "epiphanies," including "crucial moments" involving the ability to make difficult choices and quick decisions that were the difference between life and death. These situations illuminate the relationship between agency and structure in instances where the tension between them is heightened. Survivors' life histories suggest ways in which Jews' ability to exercise agency to survive structural conditions of extremity was influenced by their pre-war exposure to cultural schemas and resources that they were able to transpose to the war-occupation context. Successful agency, however, was in large part a collective accomplishment and dependent on factors beyond individuals' control.     

Mobilizing the Single-Case Study: Doug McAdam's Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970

We apply a set of rules for theorizing developed to expand the rigorous methodology of quantitative research to Doug McAdam's Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970 (1982). We contend that the strength and breadth of McAdam's data and his application of that data to refute extant theories combined with his new flexible—perhaps overly so—concepts allowed political process theory (PPT) to rise to prominence in the field. We find his book to be a good example of how a single-case study, despite its shortcomings, can play a crucial role in the development of theory and the emergence of influential research paradigms.     

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.     

ICONOCLASM VERSUS INNOVATION: BUILDING A SCIENCE OF FAMILY THERAPY-COMMENTS ON MOON, DILLON, AND SPRENKLE

We dispute Moon, Dillon, and Sprenkle's (1990) claims regarding the unique advantages of qualitative methods and inherent limitations of traditional quantitative approaches for addressing the needs of family therapy research. We support the role of qualitative research as a generative phase in theory development and concur that exclusive allegiance to a standard set of research methods may limit our attention to important family therapy processes. However, we also assert the need to document generalizability of informal observations through controlled procedures using appropriate quantitative techniques. Both ethical and practical considerations demand that we document treatment efficacy based on a science of family therapy.     

The Potential Contributions of Quantitative Research to Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is often mischaracterized as a perspective that rejects quantitative research. We argue that the rich conceptual tradition of symbolic interactionism allows for the use of quantitative data and statistical analysis within a pragmatist epistemology and that this is desirable, especially in conjunction with qualitative data. We discuss types of quantitative data and their appropriate uses and then describe types of contemporary multivariate statistical methods and what they offer. To illustrate these data and analytic techniques, we draw from examples in our area of specialization, criminology, and from our own quantitative work. Researchers can use quantitative data and methods in the service of six core symbolic interactionist concerns—meaning, variation, comparisons, situations, contexts, and probability—and we contend that quantification and statistics pose no threat to the interactionist perspective. In fact, the principled, critical use of quantitative research can enhance it.     

A paradigm shift: from disease to health orientation

The history of science has been described as ‘paradigm shifts’ of sequential overthrow, each new paradigm replacing the previous one. A paradigm is an overarching view-point which guides the articulation of theories and other activities in a particular field. In the exploration of health, two different types of approach can be identified. The pathogenic view, which has dominated the orientation of medicine over the last hundred years, focuses on disease states and underlying factors that modify the chances of entering into one of those states. The competing salutogenic view appears to be undergoing a renaissance in the new strategies of public health and health promotion, and producing theories of health based on more holistic approaches and diverse methods. The two paradigms exist side by side, and both are in a constant state of flux. The advocates of the health-oriented paradigm say it is difficult to reach a true, in-depth understanding of human health on the basis of a disease-oriented approach or from the traditional vantage-point of risk-factor epidemiology, whereas opponents point out that health does not lend itself to exact measurements or experimentation in keeping with the Galilean natural science ideal. The importance and utility of health orientation need to be explored and ascertained in further research. The approach seems, however, to have a number of crucial assets that might help avoid the limitations of the established disease and risk-factor epidemiology approaches and promote new directions of pursuit, including a better understanding of the complex relationships between aging and health, and other current challenges in creating healthy public policy.

This paper was presented at the Second International Workshop on the Aging Male, Weimar, Germany, November 1999     

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.     

“In Their Own Voices”

Abstract

Social policy should be informed by scientific research. Yet, the rapport between researchers and policy makers remains poor, and the translation of social research into social policy haphazard. Many researchers follow a positivist paradigm and prepare quantitative reports that are difficult for policy makers to decipher. Good research is “wasted” because policy makers consider it irrelevant to the real-life problems of their constituents. Policy research that are qualitative narratives are more readerfriendly and thus more appealing to policy makers. This article argues for the inclusion of qualitative methods into research conducted to inform social policy and offers several case examples.     

Intersectionality and Social Work: Omissions of Race,Class, and Sexuality in Graduate School Education

In 2008 EPAS Standards on Engaging Diversity and Difference in Practice (2.1.4) added intersectionality (a theory developed by feminist of color) as one aspect to understand diversity, difference, and power in social work curriculum. We consider how intersectionality is omitted in graduate student learning even when class assignments center discussions and theorizations on power. This qualitative study explores student narratives and corresponding metaphorical drawings on power within an assignment charting their role as social workers. The research emerges from data where authors noted omissions of race, class, and sexuality in discussions on professional power. This inquiry is guided by critical feminisms. Constant comparative methods were used in this study and two themes emerged: policing resources and a pretense of harmlessness.