Sociological Imagination and Investigation Mixing methods

In this session we will Define ‘mixed methods’ Consider what is lost or gained in mixing methods – ontologically and epistemologically Outline some different rationales for mixing methods  Developing research instruments  Triangulation  Illustration and enhancement Consider a specific example of a mixed method project.

Defining ‘mixed methods’ Some (maybe most?) research projects use more than one ‘method’  Ethnographers might use participant observation AND interviews  Survey researchers might use ‘tick-box’, attitude scale questions and ‘open-ended’ questions In recent years, though, ‘the term mixed methods research is used as a simple short- hand to stand for research that integrates quantitative and qualitative research within a single project’ (Bryman 2008:603)

Quantitative and qualitative distinctions: A reminder… Quantitative methods are generally seen as ideally suited to: 1.Questions to which the answers are quantifiable e.g. ‘How often do you make use of service x: every day, once a month, once a year, never’ ? 2.Questions where only absolute guarantees of anonymity would persuade respondents to answer honestly e.g. questions about income, illegal/’deviant’ activities, voting etc. 3.When you want to be able to say something about ‘the whole population’. Qualitative methods are seen as preferable when: 1.You are interpreting meanings 2.Context is important 3.Research is with vulnerable or ‘hard to reach’ groups

The argument against mixing methods ‘every research tool is inextricably embedded in commitments to particular versions of the world and to knowing that world. To use a questionnaire, to take the role of a participant observer, to select a random sample, to measure rates of population growth etc. is to be involved in conceptions of the world which allow these instruments to be used for the purposes conceived’ (Hughes, The Philosophy of Social Science 1990: 11)

Strategies in Mixing methods - Developing research instruments Survey researchers using qualitative research methods – either interview or focus groups – to refine research questions.  Reduces misinterpretation, cross-cultural confusion and ensures quantitative work is ‘grounded’ in real world experiences  Qualitative interviews might ‘test’ how a survey was understood. Qualitative specialists may also use quantitative work to…  identify interesting cases for study  to statistically test hypotheses thrown up by ethnographic work.

Strategies in Mixing Methods - Triangulation Triangulation refers to the use of more than one perspective to increase confidence in the findings. We can triangulate a the level of data, investigator, theory or method (Denzin) Interviews can ‘check’ the veracity of patterns revealed by surveys Implies ‘the real world’ is accessible by combining perspectives The World [The truth?] Qualitative Methods Quantitative Methods

Strategies in Mixing methods – illustration and enhancement One method off-sets the failings of another Statistical findings can appear ‘detached’, static or ‘dry’ Including qualitative accounts provides flavour, or ‘colour’ ‘Qualify’ the quantitative – add context and meaning to statistical relationships

Random post-code sample survey of taste  survey participants  Questions on music, art, film, TV, food  Socio-economic data (income, occupation, education, age, ethnicity etc.) Qualitative phases  Pre-questionnaire focus groups  Post-questionnaire interviews  Additional ‘elite’ interviews filled gaps in sample Cultural Capital and Social Exclusion

Interviewer: OK if we move on to, we have some questions about places to eat and we asked where you particularly liked to eat out and I don’t know if you remember but you said you particularly liked going to Italian restaurants. Surbhitra: Did I say that! Or Indian. Interviewer: It was Italian, is that not true? I mean this is one of the things that we are here to find out, where would you say? Surbhitra Italian, no. Interviewer: You don’t like Italian food? Surbhitra I haven’t been to Italian restaurant, no. We don’t eat out a lot, we don’t. But if we do eat out, we do go out it will be only Indian restaurant. I mean the last time we ate out was I think two years ago, so we don’t - I think my husband is not very keen on eating out because he is a supervisor at the neighbourhood that’s where he works, that’s where meals are made, he supervises it. Finding mistakes in the survey interview Elleray: Soap operas yeah, I don’t dislike them, they’re just there and I … don’t agree to me. Interviewer: Again on the survey we asked you about types of film you didn’t like and you said you didn’t not like any of them! Elleray: Yeah, see that’s the same thing. I said to the chap that did it, when you don’t watch TV, not TV- controlled, it’s hard to say you don’t dislike something because it’s just not in you to - it’s like with the soap operas, you have to answer, you have to have an answer and that’s why the next question’s the same. It’s because you’re not geared around TV. Its hard to say you dislike something, you don’t sit and watch it and say oh that’s rubbish or oh that’s good or that’s rubbish. It’s off! The survey and lived experience

Conclusion Mixing methods – especially methods from quantitative and qualitative traditions – is increasingly common Research methods are underpinned by ontological, epistemological commitments – the rise of ‘mixed methods’ might challenge these. There are a range of rationales for a mixed method approach Mixed methods might represent an accommodation between the practical requirements of research questions and the philosophical commitments of researchers