Advertisement

Integrated Methods in Research

Living reference work entry

Abstract

The process of integration of methods in research is not without its difficulties. In some cases, the literature does not specify the differences between triangulation, mixed methods, and integrated methods. The integration of methods in research springs from triangulation, as far as the validation process of the completed research is concerned, and converges in the use of mixed methods as a strategy to complement and expand the combination of the quantitative and qualitative methods. This chapter aims to promote integration based on the notion that it can be achieved if the researcher thinks in a holistic way from the outset of the research process. An integrated methods study first requires the researcher to consider quantitative and qualitative methods in a way that does not result in contradictions, as both methods should collaborate with and complement each other in pursuit of a common aim. This is only possible where the researcher adopts an open and creative stance and avoids extreme positions. Finally, these considerations allow us to conclude that the integration of methods in research is a form of innovation.

Keywords

Research methods Integration Innovation Triangulation Mixed methods 

References

  1. Bazeley P. The evolution of a project involving an integrated analysis of structured qualitative and quantitative data: from N3 to NVivo. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2002;5(3):229–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bazeley P. Analysing mixed methods data. In: Andrew S, Halcomb EJ, editors. Mixed methods research for nursing and the health sciences. Oxford: Blackwell; 2009. p. 84–118.Google Scholar
  3. Bazeley P, Kemp L. Mosaics, triangles, and DNA: metaphors for integrated analysis in mixed methods research. J Mixed Methods Res. 2012;6(1):55–72.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689811419514. Retrieved from http://jmmr.sagepub.com. 5 Dec 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benner P. From novice to expert. Manlo Park: Addison-Wesley; 1984.Google Scholar
  5. Bergman M. The straw men of the qualitative-quantitative divide and their influence on mixed method research. In: Bergman M, editor. Advances in mixed method research. London: Sage; 2008. p. 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brannen J. Research note. The study of sensitive topics. Sociol Rev. 1988;36:552–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryman A. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qual Res. 2006;6(1):97–113. London: SageCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bryman A. Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. J Mixed Methods Res. 2007;1(1):8–22.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906290531. Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://jmmr.sagepub.com. 5 Dec 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bryman A. Social research methods. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminate validation by multitrait multidimensional matrix. Psychol Bull. 1956;56:81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cipriani R. Sociologia cualitativa. Las historias de vida como metodología científica. Buenos Aires: Editorial Biblos; 2013.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen Orantes I. El concepto de integración, Revista de la CEPAL n° 15. Chile: ONU- Santiago; 1981. p. 149–59. Retrieved from http://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/10232/015149159_es.pdf?sequence=1. 7 Nov 2017Google Scholar
  13. Comisión Europea. Libro Verde de la Innovación. Luxembourg; 1995. Retrieved from http://sid.usal.es/idocs/F8/FDO11925/libroverde.pdf. 24 Nov 2017.
  14. Creswell J. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approach. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2018.Google Scholar
  15. Creswell J, Felters M, Ivankova N. Designing a mix-methods study in primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(1):7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Denzin N. The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: Praeger; 1978.Google Scholar
  17. Denzin N, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage; 2005.Google Scholar
  18. Dogan M, Pahre R. Las nuevas ciencias sociales. La imaginación creadora. México: Grijalbo; 1993.Google Scholar
  19. Fetters M, Curry L, Creswell JW. Achieving integration in mixed methods designs – principles and practices. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(6 Pt 2):2134–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fielding N. Triangulation and mixed methods designs: data integration with new research technologies. J Mixed Methods Res. 2012;6:124–36.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437101. Published online 30 Mar 2012. Retrieved from http://mmr.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/28/1558689812437101. 5 Nov 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fielding N, Fielding JL. Linking data: the articulation of qualitative and quantitative methods in social research. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fielding J, Fielding N. Synergy and synthesis: integrating qualitative and quantitative data. In: Alasuutari P, Bickma L, Brannen J, editors. The sage handbook of social research methods. London: Sage; 2008. p. 1–30. Retrieved from http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/231711/3/Brannen%20handbook%20chapter%2033%20for%20OA%20.pdf. 6 Dec 2017.Google Scholar
  23. Fielding N, Schreier M. On the compatibility between qualitative and quantitative research methods. Forum Qual Soc Res. 2001;2(1):1–13. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/%20view/965/2106, Retrieved 5 Feb 2018.
  24. Giorgi A. Psychology as a human science. New York: Harper & Row; 1970.Google Scholar
  25. Glaser BG. Theoretical sensitivity. Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley: Sociology Press; 1978.Google Scholar
  26. Grbich C. Integrated methods in health research. In: Liamputtong P, editor. Research methods in health: foundations for evidence-based practices. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 361–74.Google Scholar
  27. Green S. What do you mean “What’s wrong with her?”: stigma and the lives of families of children with disabilities. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(8):1361–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Greene J. Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2007.Google Scholar
  29. Hubbard G, Backett-Milburn K, Kemmer D. Working with emotion: issues for the researcher in fieldwork and teamwork. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2001;4(2):119–37.  https://doi.org/10.1080/136455701750158886. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gill_Hubbard/publication/248988604_Working_with_emotion_Issues_for_the_researcher_in_fieldwork_and_teamwork/links/53ce90b80cf24377a65dcd94.pdf. 6 Dec 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Husserl E. Idéia de fenomenologia. Lisboa: Edições; 2001, p. 70.Google Scholar
  31. Huston AC. Mixed methods in studies of social experiments for parents in poverty. In: Weisner TS, editor. Discovering successful pathways in children’s development: mixed methods in the study of childhood and family life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2005. p. 305–15.Google Scholar
  32. Ivankova N, Kawamura Y. Emerging trends in the utilization of integration designs in the social, behavioral and health sciences. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. The sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2010. p. 581–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jick TD. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Adm Sci Q. 1979;24:602–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie A. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Res. 2004;33(7):14–26. Published by: American Educational Research Association. Retrieved from http://mintlinz.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/83256376/Johnson%20Mixed%20methods%202004.pdf. 6 Nov 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie A, Turner L. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J Mixed Methods Res. 2007;1(2):112–33. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/R_Johnson3/publication/235413072_Toward_a_Definition_of_Mixed_Methods_Research_Journal_of_Mixed_Methods_Research_1_112-133/links/55d0cd5308ae6a881385e669.pdf. 6 Nov 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones N, Summer A. Does mixed methods research matter to understanding childhood well-being?. WeD Working Paper 40. ESRC. Research Group on Wellbeing in Developing Countries. December. Bath: University of Bath-UK; 2007. p. 1–36. Retrieved from http://www.bath.ac.uk/soc-pol/welldev/research/workingpaperpdf/wed40.pdf. 12 Oct 2017.
  37. Kelle U. Sociological explanations between micro and macro and the integration of qualitative and quantitative methods. Forum Qual Soc Res. 2001;2:1–22. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/966/2109, Retrieved 5 Feb 2018.Google Scholar
  38. Kwan M-P. Is GIS for women? Reflections on the critical discourse in the 1990s. Gend Place Cult. 2002;9:271–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1985.Google Scholar
  40. Maxwell J. Using numbers in qualitative research. Qual Inq. 2010;16:475–82. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1077800410364740. 5 Nov 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. May K. Conocimiento abstracto: un caso a favor de la magia en el método. In: En Morse J, editor. Asuntos críticos en los métodos de investigación cualitativa. Medellín: Editorial Universidad de Antioquia; 2006. p. 14–27.Google Scholar
  42. Moran-Ellis J, Alexander VD, Cronin A, Dickinson M, Fielding J, Sleney J, Thomas H. Following a thread – an approach to integrating multi-method data sets, paper given at ESRC Research Methods Program, Methods Festival Conference, Oxford. 2004 July.Google Scholar
  43. Moran-Ellis J, Alexander VD, Cronin A, Dickinson M, Fielding J, Sleney J, Thomas H. Triangulation and integration: processes, claims and implications. Qual Res. 2006;6(1):45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Morse J, editor. Asuntos críticos en los métodos de investigación cualitativa. Colombia: Editorial Universidad de Antioquia; 2003.Google Scholar
  45. Morse J, Field P. Qualitative research methods health professionals 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage; 1995.Google Scholar
  46. Pawson R. Quality and quantity, agency and structure, mechanism and context, dons and cons. BMS Bull Methodologie Sociol. 1995;47:5–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Punch K. Introduction to social research quantitative and qualitative approaches. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2005.Google Scholar
  48. Ray M. La riqueza de la fenomenología: preocupaciones filosóficas, teóricas y metodológicas. In: En Morse J, editor. Asuntos críticos en los métodos de investigación cualitativa. Colombia: Editorial Universidad de Antioquia; 2003. p. 140–57.Google Scholar
  49. Rodríguez Herrera A, Alvarado Uriarte H. Claves de la innovación social en América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago de Chile: CEPAL; 2008. Retrieved from http://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/2536/S0800540.pdf?sequence=1. 24 Nov 2017Google Scholar
  50. Sandelowski M, Voils CI, Knafl G. On quantitizing. J Mixed Method Res. 2009;3:208–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shih F. Triangulation in nursing research. J Adv Nurs. 1998;28:631–41. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00716.x/full. 5 Nov 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith J, Hershusius L. Closing down the conversation: the end of the quantitative–qualitative debate among educational enquirers. Educ Res. 1986;15:4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sotolongo Codina P, Delgado Díaz C. La revolución contemporánea del saber y a complejidad social. Buenos Aires: CLACSO; 2006.Google Scholar
  54. de Souza Minayo MC. Los conceptos estructurantes de la investigación cualitativa. Salud colectiva. 2010;6 (3, sep./dic.):251–261. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.org.ar/pdf/sc/v6n3/v6n3a02.pdf. 7 Dec 2017.
  55. Tonon G. Qualitative studies in quality of life methodology and practice. Social Indicators Research Series, vol. 55. Dordretch; 2015.Google Scholar
  56. Webb EJ, Campbell DT, Schwartz RD, Secherst L. Unobtrusive measures: non-reactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1966.Google Scholar
  57. Wolcott HF. Transforming qualitative data: description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1994.Google Scholar
  58. Wright Mills C. La imaginación Sociológica. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica; 1961.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Director Master Program in Social Sciences and CICS-UPUniversidad de Palermo, ArgentinaCiudad Autónoma de Buenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations