Mixed Methods

Lecturer: Prof. Dr. Giampietro Gobo, University of Milano, Italy

Main disciplines: Methodology, Sociology, Political Science, Psychology, Economics, Geography.

Dates: 6-17 June – 2016

1. Introduction

The course covers different designs and research strategies for integrating qualitative and quantitative

approaches or methods in a single study (multimethod and mixed methods) or in a single method

(“merged methods”).

The first week of the course is more basic and devoted to homogenize participants’ methodological

knowledge and skills about survey, ethnography, interview and focus group, in order to fully deal with

the second week, more advanced and addressed to specific problems of mixing and merging these

methods.

Students should just have interest in learning about qualitative and quantitative research methods, and

the way they can complement with each other.

Specific requirements There are no prerequisites needed.

2. Objectives

From the 1990s, mixed methods – the integration of “qualitative and quantitative approaches or

methods in a single study or a program of inquiry” (Tashakkori and Creswell 2007: 4) – are an important

aspect of contemporary social research.

However, their presence is not new in the methodological landscape. Historically, mixed methods were

a common practice for almost one century, since the making of social research until the late 1930s.

Examples are: the seminal work of the French Frédéric Le Play in the late 1840s; the inquiries directed

by the Englishmen Charles Booth in 1886 and B. Seebohm Rowntree in 1899; the golden age of the

Chicago School in the 1920s; the studies conducted by the Austrian P.F. Lazarsfeld from the 1930s; the

work of the American Rensis Likert in the same period, and so on.

Therefore, the current trend of mixed methods did not emerge unexpectedly, but it is rooted in important

experiences and practices of the past, without which the philosophy and epistemological foundations of

contemporary mixed methods research cannot be fully understood.

After a historically introduction on the making of mixed methods and their renaissance in the 1990s, the

course will give an overview about current debates and the most important issues in the field.

The course will first propose an alternative classification (of the main methodologies currently used in

social sciences), aiming to overcome the outdated dichotomy qualitative-quantitative. Then, the

(apparently obsolete) language of social research (shaped by terms such as 'measurement', 'concepts',

'hypothesis', ‘indicators’, ‘variable', ‘sampling’, ‘generalization’ and so on) will be revisited in the light of a

new epistemological framework; that will serve as a basis for re-joining qualitative and quantitative

approaches on a new methodological ground, which was called by someone “third paradigm”

(Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998, Greene and Caracelli 2003, Morgan 2007, Creswell and Plano Clark

2011).

As a result, course participants will acquire skills and competencies in order to design a mixed methods study and develop an appropriate strategy to answer specific research questions. In this regard, some little-known techniques (“inter-vey”, calendar interviewing, Delphi method, mystery shopper) will be showed. They are particularly interesting because could represent an overshooting of the qualitative and quantitative divide, by the fact they embody in one single method the advantages of either approaches or methods. Finally, it will be argued how mixed methods are useful for decolonizing contemporary methodology and why they are particularly suitable for studying multicultural societies. During the course, participants (if they wish) will have the chance to share own ideas and plans regarding a mixed methods design (e.g. a PhD project, a fieldwork problem and so on) and receive comments, suggestions and advices emerging from the collective debate.

COURSE SCHEDULE

FIRST WEEK: REFRESHING METHODS

Morning (4 hours)

Morning contents

Afternoon (2 hours)

Afternoon (2 hours)

Lecture 1: survey (4) ! Behaviorist versus interactional approaches

! The interviewer-centered questionnaire ! Some cognitive and communicative

aspects of questions and response alternatives

2

Exercises on institutional questionnaires

Lecture 2: ethnography (4) ! Designing research ! Observing ! What to observe: social structures, talks,

and contexts ! Crafting ethnographic records

2

Designing an ethnographic project + collecting observational notes

Lecture 3: ethnography (4) ! Analyzing ethnographic records ! Managing the project ! Entering the field

2

Analyzing ethnographic materials and presenting findings

Lecture 4: Discursive Interview (4)

! Constructing the interview outline ! Conducting the interview ! Analyzing textual data

2 Analyzing videos of real discursive interviews

Lecture 5: Focus group (4) ! Sociological grounds for the use of focus group

! Uses of focus group and applied research

! The research design ! Sampling

Managing the discussion ! Crafting the environment ! The role of moderator ! The observer ! The role of questions ! The interactions among participants ! Types of participants

2

Analyzing videos of real focus groups

Readings Lecture 1: Gobo, G. and Mauceri, S., (2014), Constructing Survey Data. An interactional approach,

London: Sage (chaps. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8) Lecture 2: Gobo, G. (2008), Doing ethnography, London: Sage (chaps. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13). Lecture 3: Gobo, G. (2011), Ethnographic methods, in Badie B., Berg-Schlosser D. e Morlino L.,

Encyclopedia of Political Science, Thousand Oaks: Sage (for International Political Science Association) vol. 3, pp. 832-7.

Lecture 4: Brinkmann, S. and Kvale, S. (2015), InterViews. Learning the craft of qualitative research

interviewing, London: Sage (third edition). Lecture 5: Krueger R.A. and Casey, M.A. (2015), Focus Groups. A Practical Guide for Applied

Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage (fifth edition).

SECOND WEEK: MIXING APPROACHES AND METHODS

Lecture 1: An alternative classification of research methods: overcoming the dichotomy qualitative-quantitative The most common classification of current research methods is the dichotomy qualitative-quantitative. However, besides being outdated, it does not reflect the plurality and complexity of the contemporary research practices. In order to improve the understanding of such complexity, the first lecture will discuss three important issues: 1) what is a classification, 2) what is a methodology, and 3) what is a method. The answer to these three questions will lead us to formulate a new classification proposal, which assumes sixth main methodologies in social sciences Readings:

! Bryman, A. (2008a), 'Of methods and methodology', in Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 3, 2: 159-68

! Gobo, Giampietro (2008), Method or methodology? Locating ethnography in the methodological landscape, in Gobo, G., Doing Ethnography, London: Sage, chap. 2, pp. 15-31.

! Marradi, Alberto (1990), Classification, Typology, Taxonomy, "Quality and Quantity", XXIV, 2: 129-57.

Lecture 2: Revitalizing the (apparently obsolete) traditional language of social research Terms such as 'measurement', 'concepts', 'hypothesis', ‘indicators’, ‘model’, ‘variable', ‘sampling’, ‘generalization’ seem old-fashioned. However they are, unawarely and tacitly, performed by social scientists in every single research act; because they are properties of both common—sense and scientist reasoning. Hence what we need is not to abandon them but to revitalize within a new agenda. Whereby they will be shortly revisited in the light of a new epistemological framework, which will serve firstly to understand that measuring, counting and documenting are three different ways of assembling data; secondly as a basis for re-joining qualitative and quantitative approaches on a new methodological ground.

Readings:

! Gobo, Giampietro (2008), Designing research, in Gobo, G., Doing Ethnography, London: Sage, chap. 5, pp. 69-96.

! Hammersley, Martyn (2010). Is Social Measurement Possible, and is it Necessary? In: Walford, Geoffrey; Tucker, Eric and Viswanathan, Madhu eds. Sage Handbook of Measurement. London, UK: Sage, pp. 409–426.

Lecture 3: Mixed methods: a historical view. Current mixed methods did not emerge unexpectedly in the late 1980s. They have their roots in several “ancestral” tradition and practices: the European making of social surveys, the Chicago School heritage, and the legacy of Weber, Lazarsfeld and Likert. Recovering these experiences, enable us to better understand the philosophy and epistemological foundations of contemporary mixed methods research. In addition an historical viewpoint immunizes us against the ingenuousness (increasingly commonplace among contemporary social scientists) of presenting as novel theories and methods which were proposed seventy or eighty years ago. Knowledge of history saves us from having constantly to reinvent the wheel… Readings:

! Bryman, A. (2008b), 'The end of the paradigm wars?', in P. Alasuutari, J. Brannen and L.

Bickman (eds) Handbook of Social Research, London: Sage, pp. 13-25. ! Gobo, Giampietro (2005) The Renaissance of qualitative methods, in «Forum Qualitative Social

Research», 6(3), http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-05/05-3-42-e.htm ! Gobo, Giampietro (2014), Surveying the survey: back to the past, Gobo, G. and Mauceri, S.,

Constructing Survey Data. An interactional approach, London: Sage, chap. 1, pp. 3-14 ! Johnson, Burke; Gray, Robert (2010): A history of philosophical and theoretical issues for mixed

methods research. In: Tashakkori, Abbas; Teddlie, Charles (eds.): Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage, pp. 69 – 94.

! Lazarsfeld, P.F., & Oberschall, A.R. (1965). Max Weber and empirical social research. American Sociological Review, 30(2), 185–99.

! Sieber, S.D. (1973). The integration of fieldwork and survey methods. American Journal of Sociology, 6, 1335–59.

Lecture 4: What are mixed methods? Many definitions of mixed methods are available in the literature (e.g. see Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner, 2007). Sometimes they are in competition; also, there are doubts about their substance. Whether Morgan (2007) sees mixed methods as a ‘third paradigm’, with the potential to open a new era in social sciences, others suggest to discard the term ‘methods’ because it conveys the idea that qualitative and quantitative methods are independent and in some ways mutually exclusive. For this reason, they prefer to speak of ‘mixed approaches’ (Johnson and Christensen 2010), ‘mixed research’ (Onwuegbuzie 2007) or ‘mixed methodology’ (Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998). The lecture will try to unravel this skein. Readings:

! Creswell, John W. and Plano Clark, Vicki L. (2011): Choosing a Mixed Methods Design in …………… Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Chapter 3:, pp. 53 – 106.

! Johnson, R. Burke., Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J., & Turner, L.A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–33.

! Kelle, Udo (2006): Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Research Practice – Purposes and Advantages. In: Gürtler, Leo; Huber, Günter L. (ed.). Special Guest Issue on Mixed Methods. Qualitative Research in Psychology,Vol. 3 (4), pp. 293-311.

! Leech, N.L., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43, 265–75.

! Mauceri, Sergio (2014), Back to the ‘golden age’: towards a Multilevel Integrated Survey Approach, in Gobo, G. and Mauceri, S., Constructing Survey Data. An interactional approach, London: Sage, chap. 2, pp. 20-48

! Morgan, D.L. (2007). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 48–76.

! Newman, I., Ridenour, C.S., Newman, C., & DeMarco, G.M.P., Jr. (2003). A typology of research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (eds), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 167–88). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

! Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2007). Mixed Methods Research in Sociology and Beyond. In G. Ritzer (ed.), Encyclopedia of Sociology, Vol. VI (pp. 2978–81). Oxford: Blackwell.

! Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 207–11.

! Tashakkori, Abbas and Teddlie, Charles (1998), Introduction to mixed methods and mixed model studies in the social and behavioral sciences, in Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C., Mixed

methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage, Chap. 1, pp. 3 – 19.

Lecture 5: Beyond mixed methods I: two techniques An alternative to mixed methods could be represented by some little-known techniques, which embody in one single method the advantages of either approaches or methods. Such techniques could be an overpassing of the qualitative and quantitative divide. The lecture discusses the first two: the “inter-vey” (survey) and the “calendar interviewing” (life course, life history, autobiographical research, time diary). Readings:

! Belli, Robert F. and Callegaro, Mario (2009), The emergence of calendar interviewing: A theoretical and empirical rationale, in R. F. Belli, F. P. Stafford, & D. F. Alwin (Eds.), Calendar and time diary methods in life course research (pp. 31-52). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

! Gobo, G (2011), Back to Likert. Towards a conversational survey, in Williams, Malcolm and Vogt, Paul (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Innovation in Social Research Methods, London, Sage, pp. 228-248.

Lecture 6: Beyond mixed methods II: two other techniques Other integrated techniques are the “Delphi method” (policy studies) and the” mystery shopper” (market research and business). Readings:

! Fletcher Amber J. and Marchildon Gregory P. (2014). Using the Delphi method for qualitative, participatory action research in health leadership. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13(1): pp.1-18.

! Wiele, A. van der, Hesselink, M.G. & Iwaarden, J.D. van (2005). Mystery shopping: A tool to develop insight into customer service provision, in Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 16(4), 529-541.

Lecture 7: Sampling: outlines of a ideographic theory of samples An important step in the mixed methods design is sampling. The lecture explores the different concepts of sampling, offering an alternative vision that reconciles quantitative requests and qualitative needs.

Readings:

! Lieberson, Stanley (1992): Small N´s and big conclusions: an examination of the reasoning in comparative studies based on a small number of cases, reprinted in Gomm, R., Hammersley, M. and Foster, P. (eds.): Case Study Method. Key Issues, Key Texts. London: Sage. S. 208-222.

Lecture 8: Generalizing: a dissent view As for sampling, also the generalization of the research findings is an important step. On this issue there are different divergent positions, which will be described and discussed. The lecture will end up with an alternative proposal. Readings:

! Gobo, Giampietro (2008): Re-conceptualizing generalization: old issues in a new frame. In: Alasuutari, Pertti, Bickman, Leonard, Brannen, Julia (eds.): The Sage handbook of social research methods. London: Sage, pp. 193 – 227.

! Williams, Malcolm (2000), 'Interpretivism and generalisation', Sociology 34(2), pp. 209–24. Lecture 9: Decolonizing and glocalizing methodology In order to become a “third paradigm” or (simply) fully overcame the qualitative/quantitative divide, mixed methods need to discharge the colonial components still present in either approaches or methods. Critics and opponents of globalization advocate the ambition of “decolonizing methodologies” (Tuhiwai Smith 1999) and aim to invent a multicultural and glocal methodology, where the global and local can cohabit. Readings:

! Fielding, Nigel G. (2014), Qualitative Research and Our Digital Futures, in Qualitative Inquiry November 2014 20(9): 1064-1073.

! Flick, Uwe and Röhnsch, Gundula (2014), Migrating Diseases: Triangulating Approaches—Applying Qualitative Inquiry as a Global Endeavor, in Qualitative Inquiry November 20(9): 1096-1109,

! Gobo, G. (2011) Glocalizing methodology? The encounter between local methodologies, in International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(6): pp. 417-437.

Lecture 10: Controversies The final lecture revises the main contents considered in the course, focusing the main controversies: should we talk about mixed methods or mixed strategies? About integration or complementarity? Do mixed methods really collect better data and improve theory? Participants will end up getting their own opinion, which will guide their future research.

! Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A.Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 3–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

! Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., & Onghena, P. (2013). Mixed methods research synthesis: Definition, framework, and potential. Quality & Quantity, 47, 659–76.

! John W. Creswell (2011), Controversies in Mixed Methods Research, in Denzin The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, chapt. 15, pp. 269-83.

! Symonds, J., & Gorard, S. (2010, September). The death of mixed methods: Research labels and their casualties. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland

! Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22.

Recommendations for additional reading There is a variety of voluminous sources about mixed methods. The current edition of the “Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral sciences” (edited by Abbas Tashakkori and Charles Teddlie, 2010) contains 31 articles about different aspects of mixed methods and gives a good and overview about the whole field. Vicki Plano-Clark and John Creswell published a collection of 23 important classical papers about mixed methods written between 1979 and 2007 (“The mixed methods reader, 2008, Thousand Oaks: Sage.) A further good course book is:

! Greene, Jennifer C. (2007): Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey Bass. ! Jahoda, M., Lazarsfeld, P.F., & Zeisel, H. (1933). Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal. Leipzig:

Hitzel, transl. Marienthal. Sociography of an Unemployed Community. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2002.

! Varma (Ed.), Mystery Shopping - An Introduction. Hyderabad, India : Icfai University Press, 2008.

! Johnson, R. Burke., & Christensen, L.B. (2010). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

! Merton, Robert K., Coleman, James S. and Rossi, Peter H. (1976) (eds.), Qualitative and Quantitative Social Research: Papers in Honor of Paul F. Lazarsfeld,, New York: THE FREE PRESS.

! Greene JC and Caracelli VJ. 2003. Making paradigmatic sense of mixed methods practice. In Tashakkori A and Teddlie C. (eds.) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research :91-110.

! Tuhiwai Smith, Linda (1999), Decolonizing methodologies. Research and indigenous peoples, London and New York: Zed Books.