Quality & Quantity

, Volume 45, Issue 6, pp 1233–1251 | Cite as

Mixing process-generated data in market sociology

Article

Abstract

Mixed methods researchers often neglect the methodological discussion on data in general and process-generated data specifically. Assuming that the advantages and disadvantages of surveys, interviews and observations are well-known, the author discusses when and why researchers should prefer process-generated data to research-elicited data in market sociology. The author then compares four different types of process-generated data (aggregated statistical data, business directories, newspaper articles, engineering literature). For each data type, the author (a) describes the data type, (b) illustrates what kind of information researchers can gain from this data type and (c) discusses the draw-backs and limits of the data. The article concludes with a discussion of what one can learn for mixing methods and market sociology from this example and why primary data might be useful as an alternative data source after all.

Keywords

Market sociology Process-produced data Process-generated data Mixed methods research Quantitative and qualitative data Social bookkeeping data 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arthur W.B.: Competing technologies and lock-in by historical events. Econ. J. 99, 116–131 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aspers P.: Sociology of markets. In: Beckert, J., Zafirovski, M. (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology, pp. 427–432. Routledge, London/New York (2006)Google Scholar
  3. Baur N., Lahusen C.: Sampling process-generated data in order to trace social change: The case of ewspapers. In: Van Dijkum, C., Blasius, J., Durand, C. Recent Developments and Applications in Social Research Methodology, Budrich, Opladen (2005)Google Scholar
  4. Baur N., Lamnek S.: Einzelfallanalyse. In: Mikos, L., Wegener, C. (eds) Qualitative Medienforschung, pp. 241–252. UVK, Konstanz (2005)Google Scholar
  5. Baur, N., Wenzel, M.: Branchenwandel in der Milchwirtschaft. Codebook (2004)Google Scholar
  6. Baur, N.: Wandel der Branchenstruktur in Deutschland: Problemstellung. Unpublished Paper (2003a)Google Scholar
  7. Baur, N.: Wandel der Branchenstruktur in Deutschland: Arbeitsanweisungen für die Dateneingabe und Dokumentation. Unpublished Paper (2003b)Google Scholar
  8. Baur N.: Wo liegen die Grenzen quantitativer Längsschnittsanalysen? In: Schulze, G., Akremi, L. Series: Bamberger Beiträge zur empirischen Sozialforschung 23, Otto-Friedrich-Universität, Bamberg (2004)Google Scholar
  9. Baur N.: Verlaufsmusteranalyse. VS-Verlag, Wiesbaden (2005)Google Scholar
  10. Baur N.: Ausfallgründe bei zufallsgenerierten Telefonstichproben am Beispiel des Gabler-Häder-Designs. In: Faulbaum, F., Wolf, C. (eds) Stichprobenqualität in Bevölkerungsstichproben, pp. 159–184. IZ, Bonn (2006)Google Scholar
  11. Baur, N.: Markt. In: Baur, N., Korte, H., Löw, M., Schroer, M. (eds.) Handbuch Soziologie. pp. 273–394. VS-Verlag, Wiesbaden (2008)Google Scholar
  12. Baur N.: Problems of linking theory and data in historical sociology and longitudinal research. HSR 34(1), 7–21 (2009a)Google Scholar
  13. Baur N.: Measurement and selection bias in longitudinal data. HSR 34(3), 9–50 (2009b)Google Scholar
  14. Baur N.: Von der Quali-/Quanti-Debatte zum Methoden-Mix. In: Aulenbacher, B., Riegraf, B. (eds) Erkenntnis und Methode, pp. 119–144. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden (2009c)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Baur, N. (ed.): Linking theory and data. HSR 34(1), (2009d)Google Scholar
  16. Baur, N. (ed.): Social bookkeeping data. HSR 34(3), (2009e)Google Scholar
  17. Baur, N. (ed.): Characteristics of Mass Data. Selected References on Data Lore and Measurement Quality of Social Bookkeeping Data. HSR-Transition 22. Zentrum für Historische Sozialforschung, Cologne. URL:http://hsr-trans.zhsf.uni-koeln.de/volumes/vol22/HSRtrans_vol22.pdf (2009f)
  18. Beckert J.: Economic sociology and embeddedness. J. Econ. Issues 37, 769–787 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. Behnke J., Baur N., Behnke N.: Empirische Methoden der Politikwissenschaft. Schöningh, Paderborn (2010)Google Scholar
  20. BEHR’s, Verlag (eds): Wer und Was—Milchwirtschaft: Firmen, Fakten und Personen. Behr, Hamburg (1993)Google Scholar
  21. BEHR’s Verlag (ed.): Wer und Was—Milchwirtschaft: Firmen, Fakten und Personen. Behr, Hamburg (2001)Google Scholar
  22. Bick W., Müller P.J.: Sozialwissenschaftliche Datenkunde für prozeßproduzierte Daten. HSR 27(2/3), 227–252 (1984)Google Scholar
  23. Braudel F.: Geschichte und Sozialwissenschaften. In: Wehler, H.U. (eds) Geschichte und Soziologie, pp. 189–215. Kiepenheuer und Witsch, Köln (1972)Google Scholar
  24. Bryman A.: Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. J. Mix. Methods Res. 1, 8–22 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Carroll G.: Ecological Models of Organizations. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA (1988)Google Scholar
  26. Carroll G., Dobrev S., Swaminathan A.: Theorie der Ressourcenteilung in der Organisationsökologie. In: Allmendinger, J., Hinz, T. (eds) Organisationssoziologie, pp. 381–413. Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden (2003)Google Scholar
  27. Carruthers B.G.: Why is the past also the present and future of economic sociology? Econ. Sociol. 7(2), 3–6 (2006)Google Scholar
  28. Crouch, C., Farrell, H.: Breaking the path of institutional development? In: European University Institute (Eds.): EUI Working Paper SPS No. 2002/4. EUI, Florence (2002)Google Scholar
  29. Currall S.C., Towler A.J.: Research methods in management and organizational research. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 513–526. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2003)Google Scholar
  30. Degele N.: Einführung in die Techniksoziologie. Fink, München (2002)Google Scholar
  31. Deutschmann, C.: Dynamische Konzepte institutioneller Einbettung. Paper presented at the Conference ,, The institutional embeddedness of markets“, Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung (Cologne, Germany), February 1st–3rd (2007)Google Scholar
  32. Elias N.: Zur Grundlegung einer Theorie sozialer Prozesse. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 6(2), 127–149 (1977)Google Scholar
  33. Elias N.: Figuration. In: Schäfers, B. (eds) Grundbegriffe der Soziologie, pp. 75–78. Leske + Budrich, Opladen (1995)Google Scholar
  34. Erzberger C., Kelle U.: Integration qualitativer und quantitativer Methoden. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 51(3), 509–531 (1999)Google Scholar
  35. Erzberger C., Kelle U.: Making inferences in mixed methods. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 457–490. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2003)Google Scholar
  36. Flick U.: Triangulation. VS-Verlag, Wiesbaden (2006)Google Scholar
  37. Fligstein N., Dauter L.: The sociology of markets. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 33, 105–128 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fligstein N.: The Architecture of Markets. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2001a)Google Scholar
  39. Fligstein N.: Theoretical debates and the scope of organizational theory. In: Calhoun, C. (eds) Handbook of Sociology, pp. 1–42. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2001b)Google Scholar
  40. Fligstein N.: Myths of the market. Econ. Sociol. Eur. Econ. Sociol. Newsl. 4(3), 2–18 (2003)Google Scholar
  41. Freeman J., Hannan M.T.: Organizational Ecology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass (1989)Google Scholar
  42. Fromm, S.: Clusteranalyse. In: Fromm S. (Ed.): Datenanalyse mit SPSS für Fortgeschrittene: multivariate Verfahren für Querschnittsdaten. VS-Verlag, Wiesbaden (In Print, 2010)Google Scholar
  43. Fuchs-Heinritz W.: Biographische Forschung. Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden (2000)Google Scholar
  44. Granovetter M.: Economic action and social structure. Am. J. Sociol. 91, 481–510 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hocke P.: Determining the selection bias in local and national newspaper reports on protest events. In: Rucht, D. (eds) Acts of Dissent, Edition Sigma, Berlin (1998)Google Scholar
  46. Hollingsworth J.R., Boyer R.: Coordination of economic actors and social systems of production. In: Hollingsworth, J.R., Boyer, R. (eds) Contemporary Capitalism, pp. 1–47. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  47. Hunter A., Brewer J.: Multimethod research in sociology. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 577–594. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2003)Google Scholar
  48. Johnson R.B., Turner L.A.: Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 297–320. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2003)Google Scholar
  49. Johnson R.B., Onwuegbuzie A.J., Turner L.A.: Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J. Mix. Methods Res. 1(2), 112–133 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jürgens U.: Industriegovernance und Produktionskonzepte. In: Canzler, W., Schmidt, G. (eds) Das zweite Jahrhundert des Automobils, pp. 15–41. Edition Sigma, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  51. Kemper E.A., Stringfield S., Teddlie C.: Mixed methods sampling strategies in social science research. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 273–296. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2003)Google Scholar
  52. Koselleck, R.: Zeitschichten. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M. (2000)Google Scholar
  53. Larson E.: Creating markets, leaving legacies. Econ. Sociol. 8(1), 23–27 (2006)Google Scholar
  54. Lie J.: Sociology of markets. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 23, 341–360 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. March J., Olsen J.P.: Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo (1994)Google Scholar
  56. McCarthy J.D., McPhail C., Smith J.: Images of protest. Am. J. Roentgenol. 61, 478–499 (1996)Google Scholar
  57. Meyer U., Schubert C.: Integrating path dependency and path creation in a general under-standing of path constitution. Sci. Technol. Innov. Stud. 3, 23–44 (2007)Google Scholar
  58. Newman I., Ridenour C.S., Newman C., De Marco G.M.P. Jr.: A typology of research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 167–187. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2003)Google Scholar
  59. North D.C.: Institutionen, institutioneller Wandel und Wirtschaftsleistung. Mohr, Tübingen (1992)Google Scholar
  60. Oliver P.E., Maney G.M.: political processes and local newspaper coverage of protest events. Am. J. Sociol. 106(2), 463–505 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Onwuegbuzie A.J.: Mixed methods. In: Ritzer, G. (eds) The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, pp. 2978–2981. Blackwell, Oxford (2007)Google Scholar
  62. Rip, A., Robinson, D.: Socio-technical paths as a multi-level phenomenon. Paper presented at the EASM-Workshop ,,organizing paths-paths of organizing“, Free University Berlin (Germany), November 3rd–4th (2006)Google Scholar
  63. Rokkan S.: Comparative Cross-National Research. In: Merritt, R.L., Rokkan, S. (eds) Comparing Nations, pp. 3–25. Yale University Press, New Haven/London (1969)Google Scholar
  64. Scheuch E.K.: Die wechselnde Datenbasis der Soziologie. HSR Supplement 18, 24–46 (1977)Google Scholar
  65. Schubert, C., Windeler, A., Sydow, J.: Managing momentum of technological innovations in networks. Paper presented at the EASM-Workshop ,,organizing paths-paths of organizing“, Free University Berlin (Germany), November 3rd–4th (2006)Google Scholar
  66. Scott W.R.: Organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (N.J.) (1992)Google Scholar
  67. Seale C.: The Quality of Qualitative Research. Sage, London (1999)Google Scholar
  68. Swedberg R.: On the present state of economic sociology (1990s). Econ. Sociol. 5(2), 2–17 (2004)Google Scholar
  69. Tashakkori A., Teddlie C.: The past and future of mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 671–701. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2003)Google Scholar
  70. Teddlie C., Tashakkori A.: Mixed Methodology. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1998)Google Scholar
  71. Teddlie C., Tashakkori A.: Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In: Teddlie, C., Tashakkori, A. (eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 3–50. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2003)Google Scholar
  72. Teddlie C., Yu F.: Mixed methods sampling. J. Mix. Methods Res. 1(1), 77–100 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wenzel, M.: Branchenwandel in der Milchwirtschaft. Dokumentation der Erstellung und Auswertung der Datensätze ,,BrM 1993_enddaten.sav“ und ,,BrM 2001_enddaten.sav“. Unpublished Paper (2004)Google Scholar
  74. Windeler A.: Structuration theory. In: Beckert, J., Zafirovski, M. (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology, pp. 656–660. Routledge, London/New York (2006)Google Scholar
  75. Yin R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, London (1994)Google Scholar
  76. Zentrale Markt- und Preisberichtsstelle GmbH (ZMP): Milch. In: ZMP (Ed.): ZMP-Marktbilanz: Deutschland, Europäische Union, Weltmarkt. CD-Rom. ZMP, Bonn (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Methods of Social Research, Department of SociologyTechnical University BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations