Advertisement

Integrated Designs

  • Oddbjørn Bukve
Chapter

Abstract

Integrated designs use different strategies for data construction in the same project. It is a complex field, and a number of different designs and methods are proposed and used. “Mixed methods”, “nested analysis”, “multimethod approach”, “comparative method”, and “qualitative comparative analysis” (QCA) are terms for variants of integrated designs that are quite different yet have in common that they use more than one strategy for data construction. I begin with a discussion of triangulation, a concept that paved the way for integrated designs by proposing the use of different data sets and analytical strategies to make analyses more robust. Triangulation focuses on arriving at the same result using different methods. Another purpose that gives reasons for the choice of an integrated design is the ambition of integrating theory development and theory testing in the same project. I discuss nested analysis as the most thorough example of a strategy that explicitly departs from this purpose. A third purpose of integrated designs deals with the development of strategies to uncover and test theories about social mechanisms. A focus on social mechanisms is typical of the literature on the multimethod approach. A main point in this literature is that the uncovering of social mechanisms requires detailed studies of one or more cases, whereas testing across cases can be made through statistical methods, by experiments, or by structured comparisons.

References

  1. Beach, D., & Brun Pedersen, R. (2016). Causal case study methods: Foundations and guidelines for comparing, matching and tracing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bukve, O. (1991). Ingen kommer undan politiken…. In O. Bukve & T. P. Hagen (Eds.), Nye styringsmodellar i kommunane (pp. 55–66). Oslo, Norway: Kommuneforl.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
  5. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gobo, G. (2008). Doing ethnography. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goertz, G. (2017). Multimethod research, causal mechanisms, and case studies: An integrated approach. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goggin, M. L. (1986). The “too few cases/too many variables” problem in implementation research. The Western Political Quarterly, 39, 328–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lieberman, E. S. (2005). Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 435–452.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Östlund, U., Kidd, L., Wengström, Y., & Rowa-Dewar, N. (2011). Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: A methodological review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48(3), 369–383.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.10.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Rohlfing, I. (2008). What you see and what you get: Pitfalls and principles of nested analysis in comparative research. Comparative Political Studies, 41(11), 1492–1514.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414007308019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rohlfing, I., & Starke, P. (2013). Building on solid ground: Robust case selection in multi-method research. Swiss Political Science Review, 19(4), 492–512.  https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Seawright, J. (2016a). Better multimethod design: The promise of integrative multimethod research. Security Studies, 25(1), 42–49.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2016.1134187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Seawright, J. (2016b). The case for selecting cases that are deviant or extreme on the independent variable. Sociological Methods & Research, 45(3), 493–525.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124116643556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Seawright, J. (2016c). Multi-method social science. Combining qualitative and quantitative tools. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Webb, E., Campbell, D., Schwartz, R., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures. Chicago: RandMcNally.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oddbjørn Bukve
    • 1
  1. 1.Western Norway University of Applied SciencesSogndalNorway

Personalised recommendations