| Abstract: | This article discusses a study of residence and contact disputes in court which utilised a mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods in order to gain a multidimensional picture of these disputes. It is argued that in a study such as this, the different datasets are best viewed as complementary, rather than as a means of validating each other. The data from each stage address a different aspect of these court disputes, thus offering a better understanding of the complexity of what goes on at court. I examine the ways in which the mixed methods approach improved the research team’s ability to interpret the findings. I conclude that the study has highlighted that because there is not just one view of how well the courts work, a variety of criteria needs to be used in evaluating this: when, for whom, for which problems and on which measures. |
