Advertisement

Mixed Methods and Causal Analysis

  • David J. HardingEmail author
  • Kristin S. Seefeldt
Chapter
Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)

Abstract

Interest in and use of mixed methods research in the social sciences has grown tremendously in recent years and has the potential to assist in addressing core challenges in causal inference. We discuss ways in which the addition of a qualitative component can serve multiple roles in causal analyses, including understanding treatment definition, concept measurement, selection into treatment, causal effect mechanisms, and effect heterogeneity. We also describe how quantitative and qualitative methodologies can be and have been combined in studies seeking to make causal claims, highlighting some of the key research design decisions in integrating qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Given the ability of qualitative research to greatly enhance quantitative studies concerned with causality, we argue that more causal studies should incorporate mixed methods approaches into their research designs.

Keywords

Causal Inference Mixed Method Study Effect Heterogeneity Causal Claim Child Care Center 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Achen, C. H., & Snidal, D. (1989). Rational deterrence theory and comparative case studies. World Politics, 41, 144–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G., & Rubin, D. B. (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 444–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Axinn, W. G., & Pearce, L. D. (2006). Mixed method data collection strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barber, J., Kusunoki, Y., & Gatny, H. (2011). Design and implementation of an online weekly journal to study unintended pregnancies. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 9, 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brady, H. E., & Collier, D. (Eds.). (2010). Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards (2nd ed.). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  6. Brand, J., & Xie, Y. (2010). Who benefits most from college? Evidence for negative selection in heterogeneous economic returns to higher education. American Sociological Review, 75, 273–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Briggs, X. d. S., Popkin, S. J., & Goering, J. (2010). Moving to opportunity: The story of an American experiment to fight ghetto poverty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burton, L. M., Purvin, D., & Garrett-Peters, R. (2009). Longitudinal ethnography: Uncovering domestic abuse in low-income women’s lives. In G. Elder & J. Z. Giele (Eds.), The craft of life course research (pp. 70–92). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cherlin, A. J., Burton, L. M., Hurt, T. R., & Purvin, D. (2004). The influence of physical and sexual abuse on marriage and cohabitation. American Sociological Review, 69, 768–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clampet-Lundquist, S., Edin, K., Kling, J. R., & Duncan, G. J. (2011). Moving teenagers out of high risk neighborhoods: How girls fare better than boys. The American Journal of Sociology, 116, 1154–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Dion, R. M., Hershey, A. M., Zaveri, H. H., Avellar, S. A., Strong, D. A., Silman, T., & Moore, R. (2008). Implementation of the building strong families program. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.Google Scholar
  14. Durkheim, E. (1982 [1901]). In: S. Lukes (Ed.) The rules of sociological method (W.D. Halls, Trans.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fearon, J. D., & Laitin, D. D. (2008). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods. In J. M. Box-Steffensmeier, H. E. Brady, & C. David (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political methodology (pp. 756–776). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gibson-Davis, C. (2009). Money, marriage, and children: Testing the financial expectations and family formation theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 146–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibson-Davis, C., & Duncan, G. J. (2005). Qualitative/quantitative synergies in a random assignment program. In T. Weisner (Ed.), Discovering successful pathways in children’s development: New methods in the study of childhood and family life (pp. 283–303). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gibson-Davis, C., Edin, K., & McLanahan, S. (2005). High hopes but even higher expectations: The retreat from marriage among low-income couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1301–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1977). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Goering, J., & Feins, J. D. (2003). Choosing a better life: Evaluating the moving to opportunity experiment. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  22. Goertz, G., & Mahoney, J. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting qualitative and quantitative paradigms. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255–274.Google Scholar
  24. Harding, D. J. (2007). Cultural context, sexual behavior, and romantic relationships in disadvantaged neighborhoods. American Sociological Review, 72, 341–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harding, D. J. (2010). Living the drama: Community, conflict, and culture among inner-city boys. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harding, D. J., Fox, C., & Mehta, J. D. (2002). Studying rare events through qualitative case studies: Lessons from a study of rampage school shootings. Sociological Methods and Research, 31, 174–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harding, D. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Herbert, C. (Forthcoming). Home is hard to find: Neighborhoods, institutions, and the residential trajectories of returning prisoners. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.Google Scholar
  28. Harknett, K., & McLanahan, S. (2004). Explaining racial and ethnic differences in marriage among new, unwed parents. American Sociological Review, 69, 790–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson, R. C., & Corcoran, M. (2003, Fall). The road to economic self-sufficiency: Job quality and job transition patterns after welfare reform. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 22(4), 615–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keels, M., Duncan, G. J., DeLuca, S., Mendenhall, R., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2005). Fifteen years later: Can residential mobility programs provide a permanent escape from neighborhood crime and poverty? Demography, 42, 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kling, J. R., Liebman, J. B., & Katz, L. F. (2005). Bullets don’t got no name: Consequences of fear in the ghetto. In T. S. Weisner (Ed.), Discovering successful pathways in children’s development: Mixed methods in the study of childhood and family life (pp. 243–281). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kling, J. R., Liebman, J. B., & Katz, L. F. (2007). Experimental analysis of neighborhood effects. Econometrica, 75, 83–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lichterman, P., & Reed, I. A. (2012, March 8–9). Interpretation and explanation in ethnography: A pragmatist approach. Paper presented at the AJS Conference on Causal Thinking and Ethnographic Research, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  35. Lieberman, E. S. (2005, August). Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 435–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lieberson, S. (1991). Small N’s and big conclusions: An examination of the reasoning in comparative studies based on a small number of cases. Social Forces, 70, 307–320.Google Scholar
  37. Lieberson, S. (1994). More on the uneasy case for using mills-type methods in small-N comparative studies. Social Forces, 72, 1225–1237.Google Scholar
  38. Lin, A. C. (1998). Bridging positivist and interpretivist approaches to qualitative methods. Policy Studies Journal, 26, 162–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  40. Mahoney, J. (1999). Nominal, ordinal, and narrative appraisal in macrocausal analysis. The American Journal of Sociology, 104, 1154–1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mahoney, J. (2000). Strategies of inference in small-N analysis. Sociological Methods and Research, 28, 387–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mahoney, J. (2008). Toward a unified theory of causality. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 412–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting qualitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis, 14, 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Morgan, S. L., & Winship, C. (2007). Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Orr, L., Feins, J. D., Jacob, R., Beecroft, E., Sanbonmatsu, L., Katz, L. F., Liebman, J. B., & Kling, J. R. (2003). Moving to opportunity: Interim impacts evaluation. Washington, DC: Department of Housing and Urban Development.Google Scholar
  47. Plano Clark, V. L., & Creswell, J. W. (Eds.). (2008). The mixed methods reader. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Presser, S., Couper, M., Lessler, J., Martin, E., Martin, J., Rothgeb, J., & Singer, E. (2004). Methods for evaluating and testing survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  50. Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ragin, C. C., & Becker, H. S. (Eds.). (1992). What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Roth, W. D., & Mehta, J. D. (2002). The Rashomon effect: Combining positivist and interpretivist approaches in the analysis of contested events. Sociological Methods and Research, 31, 131–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rubinowitz, L. S., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2000). Crossing the class and color lines: From public housing to white suburbia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. Sampson, R. J., & Sharkey, P. (2008). Neighborhood selection and the social reproduction of concentrated racial inequality. Demography, 45, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sanbonmatsu, L., Kling, J. R., Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2006). Neighborhoods and academic achievement: Results from the moving to opportunity experiment. Journal of Human Resources, 41, 649–691.Google Scholar
  56. Sale, J. E., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and Quantity, 36, 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schaeffer, N. C., & Presser, S. (2003). The science of asking questions. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Seefeldt, K. S. (2008). Working after welfare: How women balance jobs and family in the wake of welfare reform. Kalamazoo: W.E. Upjohn Institute Press.Google Scholar
  59. Sherwood, K. E., & Doolittle, F. (2003). What lies behind the impacts? In M. C. Lennon & T. Corbett (Eds.), Policy into action: Implementation research and welfare reform (pp. 193–234). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  60. Small, M. L. (2009). Unanticipated gains: Origins of network inequality in everyday life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Small, M. L. (2011). How to conduct a mixed methods study: Recent trends in a rapidly growing literature. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Staggenborg, S. (2008). Seeing mechanisms in action. Qualitative Sociology, 31, 341–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  64. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral science. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  65. Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2012, March 8–9). Consequences in action: A pragmatist approach to causality in ethnography. Paper presented at the AJS Conference on Causal Thinking and Ethnographic Research, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  66. Votruba, M. E., & Kling, J. R. (2008). Effects of neighborhood characteristics on the mortality of black male youth: Evidence from Gautreaux (Working Paper No. 08-03). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, National Poverty Center.Google Scholar
  67. Winship, C., & Morgan, S. L. (1999). The estimation of causal effects from observational data. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 659–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sociology and Public PolicyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Social WorkUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations