I define mixed methods and show that systematic mixed methods can be well organised, with transparent data coding and case-wise data held carefully for hypothesis testing. I list the relevant textbooks. I challenge the schism idea that qualitative methods are intrinsically opposed to what is usually done with quantitative methods. I show how an integrated approach can be begun, giving examples. Suitable to professional researchers, those doing focus groups, and those wanting more background for their qualitative research to come from quantitative data.

1. Summer School 2014
Integrated Mixed-Methods
Research Including QCA
Wendy Olsen and Steph Thomson
Reader in Socio-Economic Research; Research Associate in Education
wendy.olsen@manchester.ac.uk; stephanie.thomson@manchester.ac.uk
1

2. Systematic Mixed Methods
Research session (by
Wendy Olsen)
Closely related to a Masters level 15-
credit course taught in the University of
Manchester
2

3. Welcome to Systematic
Mixed Methods Research
 Systematic Mixed Methods research has
advantages over traditional frequentist
statistics and ALSO over qual+qual mixed
methods.
 I will:
 Define SMMR;
 Note that SMMR acknowledges social structure;
 Raise some ontological issues;
 Suggest some good software.
3

4. A ‘systems’ approach?
 Defining SMMR requires definitions of open
systems and closed systems
 an OPEN SYSTEM has permeability, organic
capacity to change itself, and/or multiple causes
 a CLOSED SYSTEM (e.g. a set of equations) has
routinised workings, has parameters
 The study of systems requires that we realise
that social systems are open systems.
 This creates a rationale for trans-disciplinarity.
It is also sociological. But water
and farming are also open systems! (Lemon)
4

5. SMMR is the study of open systems using
a mixture of methods of social research
which recognise patterns but also
acknowledging the tendency of patterns to
change at different rates.
 The rates of change and the nature of change depend
on what factors are causing change and what can cause
new changes.
 See Sayer 1992 on durable structures
 See Fay 1987 on embodied habits and rates
of change
5

6. Retroduction – how to ask ‘why’
 See Downward, Mearman, Dow on mixing
methods by doing retroduction = asking
why....
 Ask why the data look the way they do.
 Ask why the culture accepts as ‘normal’ what
is thought to be normal
 Ask why something has happened which
seems deviant;
 to some agent, this is ethical or right action?
6

7. Read about Retroduction, Causal Analysis,
Causality, and Causes
 Olsen, 2012, Key Concepts in Data
Collection.
 Section on retroduction from Danermark, et
al., 2009.
 Crotty’s book offers an overview of different
philosophies of science. It reflects the
current consensus about realism.
 Non-consensus area: critical realism.
 Non-consensus area: phenomenology.
7

8. Traditional Approaches to Mixed Methods
 1. Triangulation
 2. Pluralism and especially methodological
pluralism
 3. Integrated mixed methods vs. sequenced
mixed methods
 4. The schism approach
8

9. 1. Triangulation Creative Commons!
You may cite these slides as Olsen, W. (2014) mimeo on Mixed Methods
Basics, University of Manchester, Methods@Manchester, Manchester UK.
 Data triangulation
 Methods triangulation
 Methods not the same as methodology
 Runs into deep problem if schism exists
 If schism is accepted, but does not exist, then a
schism is created by methods triangulation!
 Perpetuates the schism concept
 Methodological triangulation
 Theory triangulation
9

10. Examples
 HIV studies in third world contexts
 epidemiology WITH focus groups
 Education studies
 Classroom visits and focus group
 Pluralism in economics is theory
triangulation.
10

11. 2. Pluralism
 Pluralism of points of view is sometimes
thought of as relativism. Be careful:
viewpoints make the world seem relatively
different, but this can be deceptive.
 Pluralism of standpoints is real. Read about
standpoints in feminist literature, or Longino.
 Methodological pluralism –
 Roth 1987 argues for a democratic forum for
debate; this will encourage various types of
evidence as well as argument
11

12. Examples
 The study of discourse AND alongside that,
the study of how the world actually works.
 discourse is the set of rules and norms that
generally structure how we communicate in a
locality or specific organisation/time/group
 how the world works depends on the dominant
discourse as well as creative and exceptional
agency, and on extra-discursive elements.
 The best Foucaultians do this.
12

13. 3. Integrated mixed methods
 The best methods authors argue that you can
integrate your methodological assumptions to make
the whole project coherent.
 This does not imply a deductivist approach and
doing hypothesis testing.
 It also does not excuse a pretence of a purely
inductivist approach.
 Deduction is a mode of logic for smaller parcels of work.
 Induction is a mode of logic for small moments on insight or
description.
 Retroduction is a mode of logic too.
13

14. 3. cont’d Sequencing
 Qual + quant
 Quant then qual
 Qual and another Qual
 Quant and another Quant
 Exploratory vs. confirmatory statistics offers an
interesting contrast: This literature introduces the
schism concept within statistics! (surprisingly
incoherent)
 Exploratory then confirmatory stats is a
sequenced mixed methods approach
14

15. You need a warranted argument not just a
series of facts. Is sequencing enough?
 my view about sequencing is that it makes good
science for a person to be a mixed-methods person,
and for larger projects to combine methods
 however the sequencing argument and pragmatism
do not resolve the ontological issues about whether
something can exist even if someone denies that it
exists
 it is important to realise that some respondents can
be wrong, too
 I would question empirical data, not take it as fact
15

16. 4. The Schism Concept
 Debate about the schism in social science
 Anglo-saxon empiricism vs. french social theory
 Positivist vs. post-modernism, or
 empiricist hypothetico-deductive methods vs. post-structuralism
 The data types accepted as interesting by one
side are not considered ‘epistemically coherent’
by the other side, hence a schism of
epistemology.
 The analysis method of the one side is not
acceptable to the other, either.
16

17. Schisms Across Scientific Disciplines
 Exper. Psychology vs. Anthropology
 Neoclassical Economics vs. Political Econ.
 And within the disciplines:
 Qualitative Education Research vs. Quantitative Education
Research
 The methods debate within sociology! 3 poles?
 Management schools
 example of what is the lowest acceptable response rate
17

18. an illustration about social class
 A Structure Example: CLASS
Authors Type of
Ontology
Assumes Class
is...
Statistical
Patterns are
Seen As . . .
Giddens, Third
Way
Descriptive
Holistic
In a duality with
agency
To be described
Realists, e.g.
Danermark,
Olsen
Depth Ontology
Complex
Open Sys.
Dynamic
relationships
To be used in
arguments
Social Mobility
Studies & Wage
Studies
Atomistic An inst’n that
mediates with
markets
To be described
Foucault Interpretive Biopower Too general
18

19.  A Structure Example: CLASS
Authors KNOWLEDGE is usually construed as: Statistical Patterns
are Seen As . . .
Giddens, Third
Way
Factual To be described
Realists, e.g.
Danermark,
Olsen
Transformative
Progressive, empowering
To be used in
arguments
Social Mobility
Studies
Factual To be described
Foucault Transformative, progressive, in-depth,
political
Too general
19

20. Your Tasks as a Mixed-Methods
Expert:
 You must resolve the tensions:
 a) between atomistic and holistic assumptions
 -- that’s the ontological bit
 b) and between factual versus empowering discourses
 or assumptions about knowledge – that’s the epistemological bit
 I advise a critical stance
 But this can still be a scientific stance with recourse to empirical data and to
experience
 For the class example, I advise Crompton and Brockmann as excellent mixed-methods
authors who take a critical social science stance.
20

21. A Simple Example
 The logic of interpreting some non-parametric
bivariate tests.
 a. consider the findings fallible.
 b. condition the findings on the data and where
they came from.
 c. if not a random sample then don’t claim that
the inference to population is ‘true’.
 d. if the sample is just of one type of case, pay
attention to the macro and meso environments!
 e. consider the ethics of deriving findings from
this. HOW WILL YOU WORD YOUR FINDINGS!
21

22. A Study Task
 Pick a very scientific subject, such as:
 medical tests of dementia subjects’ cognitive skills or
 how likely is HIV to cause death and what are the
pathways of causality?
 what tests are best advised for breast lumps? in order to
avoid later death from breast cancer.
 Do a quick literature review using Web of
Science. Be sure to include both Social
Sciences and Sciences, and get 3 papers.
 Decide whether mixed methods is advisable!
22

23. The Textbooks
 Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and
Mixed-Methods Approaches London, Sage.
 Tashakkori A and Teddlie C. (1998) Mixed Methodology. Combining
Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
 Bryman, A. (1996 (orig. 1988)). Quantity and Quality in Social Research.
London, Routledge.
 Also Useful
 Fisher, A. (1988). The Logic of Real Arguments. Cambridge, NY and Sydney,
Cambridge Univ. Press.
 Fisher, A. (2001). Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
 Flick, U. (1992). "Triangulation Revisited: Strategy of Validation or
Alternative?" Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 22(2): 169-197.
 Singer, P., Ed. (1994). Ethics. Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press.
 Vaughn, L. (2006). Writing Philosophy: A Student's Guide to Writing Philosophy
Essays. NY, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
 Weston, A. (2006). A Practical Companion to Ethics. Oxford, NY, Oxford
University Press.
23

24. Some Readings
 Olsen, W.K. (2006), “Pluralism, Poverty and Sharecropping: Cultivating
Open-Mindedness in Development Studies”, Journal of Development
Studies, 42:7, pgs. 1130-1157.
 Dow, JournEconMeth, 2004 “Structured Pluralism”. Vol. 11 no. 3.
 Olsen, W.K., and J. Morgan (2005) “A Critical Epistemology Of
Analytical Statistics”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 35:3,
255-284.
 Olsen, W.K. (2007), “Pluralist Methodology for Development
Economics”, Journal of Economic Methodology, 14:1, 57-82, March.
On ethical values embedded in measurement practices
24

25. Good Software for SMMR
 NVIVO
 MaxQDA
 Excel
 SPSS
 Word
 STATA
 STAT-Transfer
 QCA (qualitative comparative analysis)
 fs-QCA (fuzzy set)
 TOSMANA (good for crisp sets and Multi-valued QCA)
25

26. Web Sites and Links
 www.compasss.org
 A Network of Small-N and Medium-N Comparative Researchers
 www.jiscmail.ac.uk
 QUAL-COMPARE
 This is a JISC List with Archive and a File Storage area online
 A web area and shared email list for those who want to get the workshop
followup
 Special workshop on 15 June 2010, see www.ccsr.ac.uk/events
26

27. Books by Mixed-Methods Authors
 Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-Set Social Science.
Chicago ; London, University of Chicago Press.
 Byrne, D., (2002) Interpreting Quantitative Data. Sage.
 Dale A., Wathan, J. and Higgins, V (2008) “Secondary
Analysis of Quantitative Data Sources”, Ch. in
Alasuutari, P. Bickman, L, Brannen, J. eds., Sage
Handbook of Social Research Methods SAGE
 De Vaus, D. A. (2001). Research Design in Social
Research. London, Sage.
27