Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using mixed methods for the analysis of individuals: a review of necessary and sufficient conditions and an application to welfare state attitudes

  • Published:
Quality & Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When studying individuals, when is the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods better than just one method alone? Whereas the debate in macro-level research, such as in political science about comparing nations, has made progress in identifying meaningful logics for a combination of methods, it is yet unclear how these logics can be applied to the study of individuals. Individual-level dynamics are in tendency less inert than those of nations or organisations. Therefore, a combination of methods is more difficult to justify in individual-level analysis since differences in measurement results could be due to changes in the dynamics rather than due to the application of different techniques. In contrast, the assumption of unit homogeneity seems to be more easily met for individuals than for countries or other higher-level aggregates, facilitating a comparison of like and like. First, this article presents a compilation of conditions scattered across the literature for the analysis of individuals, according to which a mixed-method is preferable to a single-method approach. Second, the application of these conditions is illustrated with an analysis of the impact of intergenerational relationships on welfare state attitudes in Germany on the basis of survey and focus group data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adcock R., Collier D.: Measurement validity: a shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 95, 529–546 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • Almond, G.A., Verba, S.: The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1989 [1963])

  • Andreß H.-J., Heien T.: Four worlds of welfare state attitudes? A comparison of Germany, Norway, and the United States. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 17, 337–356 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreß H.-J., Heien T., Hofäcker D.: Wozu brauchen wir noch den Sozialstaat?. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengtson V.L., Roberts R.E.L.: Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: an example of formal theory construction. J. Marriage Fam. 53, 856–870 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busemeyer M.R., Goerres A., Weschle S.: Demands for redistributive policies in an era of demographic aging: the rival pressures from age and income in 14 OECD countries. J. Eur. Soc. Policy 19, 195–212 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell A., Converse P.E., Miller W.E., Stokes D.: The American Voter. Wiley, New York/London (1960)

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell A.L.: How Policies Make Citizens. Princeton University Press, Princeton/Oxford (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell D.T., Fiske D.W.: Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol. Bull. 56, 81–105 (1959)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppedge M.: Thickening thin concepts and theories: combining large N and small in comparative politics. Comp. Politics 31, 465–476 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daatland S.O., Lowenstein A.: Intergenerational solidarity and the family-welfare state balance. Eur. J. Ageing 2, 174–182 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebbinghaus B.: When less is more: selection problems in large- N and small- N cross-national comparisons. Int. Sociol. 20, 133–152 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen G.: The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Polity, Cambridge (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  • Faletti T.G., Lynch J.F.: Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis. Comp. Political Stud. 42, 1143–1166 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goerres A., Tepe M.: Age-based self-interest, intergenerational solidarity and the welfare state: a comparative analysis of older people’s attitudes towards public childcare in 12 OECD countries. Eur. J. Political Res. 49, 818–851 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves R.M., Fowler F.J., Couper M.P., Lepkowski J.M., Singer E., Tourangeau R.: Survey Methodology. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson B.: Wither qualitative/quantitative? Grounds for methodological convergence. Qual. Quant. 42, 97–111 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iversen T., Soskice D.: An asset theory of social policy preferences. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 95, 875–893 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelle U.: Die Integration qualitativer und quantitativer Methoden in der empirischen Sozialforschung. Theoretische Grundlagen und methodologische Konzepte. VS, Wiesbaden (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelle U., Erzberger C.: Integration qualitativer und quantitativer Methoden. Methodologische Modelle und ihre Bedeutung für die Forschungspraxis. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 51, 509–531 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • King G., Keohane R.O., Verba S.: Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittel B.: A crazy methodology?: On the limits of macro-quantitative social science research. Int. Sociol. 21, 647–677 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli M.: Private and public transfers between generations: linking the family and the state. Eur. Soc. 1, 81–104 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • Künemund H., Rein M.: There is more to receiving than needing: theoretical arguments and empirical explorations of crowding in and crowding out. Ageing Soc. 19, 93–121 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau R.R.: Models of decision-making. In: Sears, D.O., Huddy, L., Jervis, R. (eds) Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Leahey E.: Convergence and confidentiality? Limits to the implementation of mixed methodology. Soc. Sci. Res. 36, 149–158 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leech N.L., Onwuegbuzie A.J.: A typology of mixed methods research designs. Qual. Quant. 43, 265–275 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman E.S.: Race and Regionalism in the Politics of Taxation in Brazil and South Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman E.S.: Nested analysis as mixed-method strategy for comparative research. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 99, 435–452 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin A.C.: Bridging positivist and interpretivist approaches to qualitative methods. Policy Stud. J. 26, 162 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, A.C., Loftis, K.: Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods in political science: a primer. In: APSA Annual Conference. Washington, DC (2005)

  • Lipset S.M., Trow M.A., Coleman J.S.: Union Democracy: The Internal Politics of the International Typographical Union. Free Press, Glencoe (1956)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobe B., Vehovar V.: Towards a flexible online mixed method design with a feedback loop. Qual. Quant. 43, 585–597 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney J.: Toward a unified theory of causality. Comp. Political Stud. 41, 412–436 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijer P.C., Verloop N., Beijaard D.: Multi-method triangulation in a qualitative study on teachers’ practical knowledge: an attempt to increase internal validity. Qual. Quant. 36, 145–167 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller S.I., Gatta J.L.: The use of mixed methods models and designs in the human sciences: problems and prospects. Qual. Quant. 40, 595–610 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munck G.L., Snyder R.: Debating the direction of comparative politics: an analysis of leading journals. Comp. Political Stud. 40, 5–31 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ong B.N., Dunn K.M., Croft P.R.: “Since You’re Asking . . .”: Free Text Commentaries in an Epidemiological Study of Low Back Pain Consulters in Primary Care. Qual. Quant. 40, 651–659 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pappi, F.U., Shikano, S.: Die gesundheitspolitischen Präferenzen der deutschen Wählerschaft. MZES Working Papers 87 (2005)

  • Rohlfing I.: What you see and what you get. Comp. Political Stud. 41, 1492–1514 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roller E.: Einstellungen der Bürger zum Wohlfahrtsstaat der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sale J.E.M., Brazil K.: A strategy to identify critical appraisal criteria for primary mixed-method studies. Qual. Quant. 38, 351–365 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sale J.E.M., Lohfeld L.H., Brazil K.: Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: implications for mixed-methods research. Qual. Quant. 36, 43–53 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sieber S.D.: The integration of fieldwork and survey methods. Am. J. Sociol. 78, 1335–1359 (1973)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith G., Hirst A.: Strategic political segmentation: a new approach for a new era of political marketing. Eur. J. Mark. 35, 1058–1073 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhuysse, P., Goerres, A. (eds.): Generational Politics and Policies: Comparative Studies of Aging Postindustrial Democracies. Routledge, London (2011) (forthcoming)

  • Verba S., Nie N.H., Kim J.-o.: Participation and political equality. A seven-nation comparison. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  • Verba S., Schlozman K.L., Brady H.E.: Voice and equality: civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams R.: Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables. Stata J. 6, 58–82 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Achim Goerres & Katrin Prinzen

Authors
  1. Achim Goerres
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katrin Prinzen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Achim Goerres.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goerres, A., Prinzen, K. Using mixed methods for the analysis of individuals: a review of necessary and sufficient conditions and an application to welfare state attitudes. Qual Quant 46, 415–450 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-010-9379-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-010-9379-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation