Social Indicators Research

, Volume 85, Issue 1, pp 145–158 | Cite as

A Mixed Method Approach to Quality of Life Research: A Case Study Approach

  • Heather DunningEmail author
  • Allison Williams
  • Sylvia Abonyi
  • Valorie Crooks


Increased use of qualitative and quantitative methods in quality of life projects necessitates an examination of how to effectively work within a mixed method framework. The research objectives of this paper are to (1) operationalize the two goals of mixed method research (confirmation and comprehension) and (2) develop a strategy for using mixed methods in quality of life research. Face-to-face interview (qualitative) and telephone survey (quantitative) data from the Community–University Institute for Social Research Quality of Life (CUISR QoL) project in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan were used for operationalization. Overall, confirmation and comprehension were challenging concepts to operationalize. Seven benefits and four guidelines were developed and are presented as dynamic, rather than definitive, structures.


Quality of life Mixed methods Confirmation Comprehension 


  1. Andrews, C. (2001). Analyzing quality-of-place. Environment and Planning B, 28, 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 509–35). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Craglia, M., Leontidou, L., Nuvolati, G., & Schweikart, J. (2004). Towards the development of quality of life indicators in the ‘digital’ city. Environment and Planning B, 31, 51–64.Google Scholar
  5. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutman, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Cummins, R. A. (2000). Objective and subjective quality of life: An interactive model. Social Indicators Research, 52, 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Day, G. S., & Weitz, B. A. (1977). Comparative urban social indicators: Problem and prospects. Policy Sciences, 8(4), 423–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deacon, D., Bryman, A., & Fenton, N. (1998). Collision or collusion? A discussion and case study of unplanned triangulation of quantitative and qualitative research methods. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1(1), 47–63.Google Scholar
  9. de Leeuw, E. D., & van der Zouwen, J. (1988). Data quality in telephone and face to face surveys: A comparative meta-analysis. R. M Groves, P. P. Biemer, L. E. Lyberg, J. T. Massey, W. L. Nicholls II, & J. Wakesberg. (Eds.), Telephone survey methodology (pp. 283–299). New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Delucchi, K. L. (1983). The use and misuse of chi-square: Lewis and Burke revisited. Psychological Bulletin, 94(1), 166–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Graham, E. (1999). Breaking out: The opportunities and challenges of multi-method research in population geography. Professional Geographer, 52(1), 76–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hugentobler, M. K., Israel, B., & Schurman, S. J. (1992). An action research approach to workplace health: Integrating methods. Health Education Quarterly, 19, 55–76.Google Scholar
  13. Kwan, M. (2004). Beyond difference: From canonical geography to hybrid geographies. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94(4), 756–763.Google Scholar
  14. Lawson, V. (1995). The politics of difference: Examining the quantitative/qualitative dualism in post-structuralist feminist research. Professional Geographer, 47(4), 449–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Levin, J., & Fox, J. A. (1994). Elementary statistics in social research. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Liu, B. C. (1976). Quality of life indicators in U.S. metropolitan areas. New York: Prager Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Maclaren, A. (1981). Area-based positive discrimination and the distribution of well-being. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. (New Series), 6, 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Madsen, L. M., & Adriansen, H. K. (2004). Understanding the use of rural space: The need for multi-methods. Journal of Rural Studies, 20, 485–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McKendrick, J. H. (1999). Multi-method research: An introduction to its application in population geography. The Professional Geographer, 51(1), 40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitchell, E. S. (1986). Multiple triangulation: A methodology for nursing science. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(3), 18–26.Google Scholar
  21. Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 189–208). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Newman, I., Ridenour, C. S., Newman, C., & DeMarco, G. M. P. Jr (2003). A typology of research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 167–188). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Pacione, M. (2003). Quality-of-life research in urban geography. Urban Geography, 24(4), 314–339.Google Scholar
  24. Perlesz, A., & Lindsay, J. (2003). Methodological triangulation in researching families: Making sense of dissonant Data. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(1), 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Randall, J. E., & Morton, P. H. (2003). Quality of life in Saskatoon 1991 and 1996: A geographical perspective. Urban Geography, 24(8), 691–722.Google Scholar
  26. Rogerson, R. J. (1995). Environmental and health-related quality of life: Conceptual and methodological similarities. Social Science and Medicine, 41(10), 1373–1382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sawicki, D. S., & Flynn, P. (1996). Neighbourhood indicators: A review of the literature and an assessment of conceptual and methodological Issues. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(2), 165–183.Google Scholar
  28. Shih, F. J. (1998). Triangulation in nursing research: Issues of conceptual clarity and purpose. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(3), 631–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Thurmond, V. A. (2001). The point of triangulation. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(3), 253–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Williams, A. M., Kitchen, P., Holden, B., Muhajarine, N., & Vu, L. (2006). Quality of Life Module: Quality of Life in Saskatoon, SK: Achieving a Healthy, Sustainable Community Summary of Research 2004 Iteration. Community-University Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  33. Yeung, H. W. (2003). Practicing new economic geographies: A methodological examination. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(2), 442–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heather Dunning
    • 1
    Email author
  • Allison Williams
    • 2
  • Sylvia Abonyi
    • 3
  • Valorie Crooks
    • 4
  1. 1.City Planning Branch, City of SaskatoonSaskatoonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Geography and Earth SciencesMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  3. 3.Saskatchewan Population Health and Evaluation Research UnitUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  4. 4.Department of GeographySimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations