Advertisement

Mixed-Methods Designs

Living reference work entry
  • 527 Downloads
Part of the Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften book series (SRS)

Abstract

This chapter focuses on mixed-method designs, an increasingly popular approach to designing research in the social sciences that is used to combine the respective advantages of qualitative and quantitative analytical procedures and to strengthen the empirical analysis. After the introduction, two general principles of mixed designs are discussed, the principle of triangulation and the principle of integration. The former involves the concomitant application of different methods in order to cross-validate their findings. The latter entails the sequential combination of different methods to produce a unified causal inference, whereby one method is used to establish the final inference, and the other one is applied to prepare, test, qualify or refine the analysis generating this inference. Afterwards, the chapter proceeds by presenting three varieties of mixed-method studies: statistics-oriented, case-oriented and QCA-based mixed-methods designs. The last section before concluding discusses several advantages and limitations of mixed-method research.

Keywords

Integration Methodological pluralism Mixed-methods Research design Triangulation 

References

  1. Allison, Graham Tillett. 1971. Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  2. Ayoub, Phillip M, Sophia Wallace, and Chris Zepeda-Millán. 2014. Triangulation in social movement research. In Della Porta, D. (Ed.), Methodological practices in social movement research (pp. 67–96). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, Nathaniel. 2006. Is causal-process observation an oxymoron? Political Analysis 14(3): 347–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett, Andrew, and Jeffrey T Checkel. 2014. Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brady, Henry. E., David Collier, and Jason Seawright. 2006. Toward a pluralistic vision of methodology. Political Analysis 14(3): 353–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryman, Alan. 2006a. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research 6(1): 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryman, Alan. 2006b. Mixed methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Bryman, Alan. 2008. The end of the paradigm wars?, In Alasuutari P, Bickman L and Brannen J eds. The SAGE Handbook of Social Research Methods, Sage, London, pp. 13–25.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, Terry Nichols, and Seymour Martin Lipset, eds. 2001. The breakdown of class politics. A debate on post-industrial stratification. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  10. Coleman, James S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Collier, David, Henry E Brady, and Jason Seawright. 2010. Outdated views of qualitative methods: time to move on. Political Analysis 18(4): 506–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coppedge, Michael. 2005. Explaining democratic deterioration in Venezuela through nested inference. In The third wave of democratization in Latin America, eds. Frances Hagopian and Scott Mainwaring, 289–316. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Creswell, John W. 2013. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Creswell, John W. 2014. A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Creswell, John W, and Vicki L Plano Clark. 2011. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Denzin, Norman K. 1973. The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Piscataway: Transaction publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Denzin, Norman K, and Yvonna S Lincoln. 2011. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Dunning, Thad, and Lauren Harrison. 2010. Cross-cutting cleavages and ethnic voting: An experimental study of cousinage in Mali. American Political Science Review 104(1): 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fearon, James D, and David D Laitin. 2008. Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. In Janet Box-Steffensmeier, Henry Brady, and David Collier, eds. Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 756–76.Google Scholar
  20. Feilzer, Martina Yvonne. 2010. Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 4(1): 6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gerring, John. 2004. What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review 98(02): 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gerring, John. 2017a. Case study research: Principles and practices, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gerring, John. 2017b. Qualitative methods. Annual Review of Political Science 20: 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Giraud, Olivier, and Martino Maggetti. 2015. Methodological pluralism. In Braun, Dietmar and Martino Maggetti (Ed.) Comparative Politics: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges, eds. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 125–153.Google Scholar
  26. Given, Lisa M. 2008. The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Glaser, Barney G. 1998. Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  28. Goertz, Gary. 2017. Multimethod research, causal mechanisms, and case studies: An integrated approach. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greene, Jennifer C, Valerie J Caracelli, and Wendy F Graham. 1989. Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11(3): 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hedström, Peter, and Petri Ylikoski. 2010. Causal mechanisms in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology 36: 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy. 2010. Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  32. Jick, Todd D. 1979. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly 24(4): 602–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jick, Todd D. 2008. Triangulation as the first mixed methods design. In The mixed methods reader, eds. Vicki L. Plano Clark and John W. Cresswell, 105–118. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Johnson, R. Burke, and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie. 2004. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher 33(7): 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson, R. Burke, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, and Lisa A. Turner. 2007. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(2): 112–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kitchenham, Andrew D. 2010. Mixed methods in case study research. In Encyclopedia of case study research, eds. AJ Mills, G Durepos, and E Wiebe, vol. 1, 561–563. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Lebow, Richard N. 2000. What’s so different about a counterfactual? World Politics 52(4): 550–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leech, Nancy L, and Anthony J Onwuegbuzie. 2009. A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity 43(2): 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Levy, Jack S. 2008a. Case studies: Types, designs, and logics of inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science 25(1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Levy, Jack S. 2008b. Counterfactuals and Case Studies. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, ed. Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M, Brady, Henry E and Collier David, 627–44. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Levy, Jack S. 2015. Counterfactuals, causal inference, and historical analysis. Security Studies 24(3): 378–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lieberman, Evan S. 2005. Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review 99(3): 435–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maggetti, Martino, Fabrizio Gilardi, and Claudio M. Radaelli. 2013. Designing research in the social sciences. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Mahoney, James, and Rodrigo Barrenechea. 2016. The logic of counterfactual analysis in case-study explanation. The British Journal of Sociology.Google Scholar
  45. Mahoney, James, and Gary Goertz. 2006. A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis 14(3): 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Malina, Mary A, Hanne SO Nørreklit, and Frank H Selto. 2011. Lessons learned: Advantages and disadvantages of mixed method research. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 8(1): 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moran-Ellis, Jo, Victoria D Alexander, Ann Cronin, Mary Dickinson, Jane Fielding, Judith Sleney, and Hilary Thomas. 2006. Triangulation and integration: Processes, claims and implications. Qualitative Research 6(1): 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morgan, David L. 2007. Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(1): 48–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Olsen, Wendy. 2004. Triangulation in social research: Qualitative and quantitative methods can really be mixed. Developments in sociology 20: 103–118.Google Scholar
  50. Plano Clark, Vicki L, and Nataliya V Ivankova. 2015. Mixed methods research: A guide to the field. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The comparative method : Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  52. Ragin, Charles C. 2008. Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rihoux, Benoit. 2006. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related systematic comparative methods: Recent advances and remaining challenges for social science research. International Sociology 21(5): 679–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rihoux, Benoit, and Charles C. Ragin. 2008. Configurational comparative methods. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Thousand Oaks/London: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Rohlfing, Ingo. 2008. What you see and what you get: Pitfalls and principles of nested analysis in comparative research. Comparative Political Studies 41(11): 1492–1514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rohlfing, Ingo, and Carsten Q. Schneider. 2013. Improving research on necessary conditions: Formalized case selection for process tracing after QCA. Political Research Quarterly 66(1): 220–235.Google Scholar
  57. Sartori, Giovanni. 1993. Totalitarianism, model mania and learning from error. Journal of Theoretical Politics 5(1): 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sawyer, R. Keith. 2003. Artificial societies: Multiagent systems and the micro-macro link in sociological theory. Sociological Methods & Research 31(3): 325–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schneider, Carsten Q., and Ingo Rohlfing. 2013. Combining QCA and process tracing in set-theoretic multi-method research. Sociological Methods & Research 42(4): 559–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schneider, Carsten Q., and Ingo Rohlfing. 2016. Case studies nested in fuzzy-set QCA on sufficiency: formalizing case selection and causal inference. Sociological Methods & Research 45(3): 526–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schneider, Carsten Q., and C Wagemann. 2010. Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-s. Comparative Sociology 9(3): 397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schneider, Carsten Q., and Claudius Wagemann. 2012. Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Schram, Sanford F., Bent Flyvbjerg, and Todd Landman. 2013. Political political science: A phronetic approach. New Political Science 35(3): 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Seawright, Jason. 2016. Multi-method social science: Combining qualitative and quantitative tools, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Seawright, Jason, and John Gerring. 2008. Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly 61(2): 294–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sil, Rudra. 2004. Problems chasing methods or methods chasing problems? Research communities, constrained pluralism, and the role of eclecticism. In Problems and methods in the study of politics, eds. Ian Shapiro, Roger M. Smith and Tarek E. Masoud. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet M Corbin. 1997. Grounded theory in practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  68. Tashakkori, Abbas, and John W Creswell. 2007. The new era of mixed methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  69. Tashakkori, Abbas, and Charles Teddlie. 2010. Handbook of mixed method research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  70. Teddlie, Charles, and Abbas Tashakkori. 2003. Major issues and controveries inthe use of mixed methods in the social and behvioral sciences. In Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, eds. Abbas Tashakkori and Charles Teddlie, 3–50. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  71. Teddlie, Charles, and Abbas Tashakkori. 2006. A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools 13(1): 12–28.Google Scholar
  72. Teddlie, Charles, and Fen Yu. 2007. Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(1): 77–100.Google Scholar
  73. Tetlock, Philip E., and Aaron Belkin. 1996. Counterfactual thought experiments in world politics: Logical, methodological, and psychological perspectives. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Thiem, Alrik, and Adrian Dusa. 2013. Qualitative comparative analysis with R: A user’s guide, Vol. 5. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Webb, Eugene J., Donald Thomas Campbell, Richard D. Schwartz, and Lee Sechrest. 1966. Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences, Vol. 111. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  76. Woodward, James, and Christopher Hitchcock. 2003. Explanatory generalizations, part I: A counterfactual account. Noûs 37(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Political, Historical and International StudiesUniversity of LausanneLausanneSchweiz

Personalised recommendations