Oslo Summer School in Comparative Social Science Studies 2017

Mixed Methods: Towards a Methodological Pluralism

Professor Giampietro Gobo
Department of Social and Political Studies
University of Milan, Italy

Main disciplines: Research Methodology, Sociology,
Political Science, Psychology, Economics, Geography

Dates: 24 - 28 July 2017
Course Credits: 10 pts (ECTS)
Limitation: PhD students only. 30 participants


Objectives
From the 1990s, mixed methods – the integration of “qualitative and quantitative approaches or methods in a single study or a program of inquiry” (Tashakkori and Creswell 2007: 4) – are an important aspect of contemporary social research.

However, their presence is not new in the methodological landscape. Historically, mixed methods were a common practice for almost one century, since the making of social research until the late 1930s. Examples are: the seminal work of the French Frédéric Le Play in the late 1840s; the inquiries directed by the Englishmen Charles Booth in 1886 and B. Seebohm Rowntree in 1899; the golden age of the Chicago School in the 1920s; the studies conducted by the Austrian P.F. Lazarsfeld from the 1930s; the work of the American Rensis Likert in the same period, and so on.

Therefore, the current trend of mixed methods did not emerge unexpectedly, but it is rooted in important experiences and practices of the past, without which the philosophy and epistemological foundations of contemporary mixed methods research cannot be fully understood.

After a historically introduction on the making of mixed methods and their renaissance in the 1990s, the course will give an overview about current debates and the most important issues in the field.

The course will first propose an alternative classification (of the main methodologies currently used in social sciences), aiming to overcome the outdated dichotomy qualitative-quantitative. Then, the (apparently obsolete) language of social research (shaped by terms such as 'measurement', 'concepts', 'hypothesis', ‘indicators’, ‘variable', ‘sampling’, ‘generalization’ and so on) will be revisited in the light of a new epistemological framework; that will serve as a basis for re-joining qualitative and quantitative approaches on a new methodological ground, which was called by someone “third paradigm” (Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998, Greene and Caracelli 2003, Morgan 2007, Creswell and Plano Clark 2011).

As a result, course participants will acquire skills and competencies in order to design a mixed methods study and develop an appropriate strategy to answer specific research questions. In this regard, some little-known techniques (“inter-vey”, calendar interviewing, Delphi method, mystery shopper) will be showed. They are particularly interesting because could represent an overshooting of the qualitative and quantitative divide, by the fact they embody in one single method the advantages of either approaches or methods.

Finally, it will be argued how mixed methods are useful for decolonizing contemporary methodology and why they are particularly suitable for studying multicultural societies.
During the course, participants (if they wish) will have the chance to share own ideas and plans regarding a mixed methods design (e.g. a PhD project, a fieldwork problem and so on) and receive comments, suggestions and advices emerging from the collective debate.


Reseach designs/assignments
Students have 2 options in terms of submitting a research design/paper in order to receive ECTS credits:

  • In particular, students have the option of presenting a 2.500 word research project in the concluding Friday session of the course week for constructive critiques by course participants as well as the lecturer. Presumably, students will choose to present the research design for their PhD thesis, though students could also present a research design for a separate project, article, or edited volume. Research designs should be crafted according to the guidelines offered, in advance and in a separate e-mail sent to you, by the lecturer/summer school administration.
  • It is also possible to earn a course certificate together with 10 ECTS credits points for a PhD program by submitting a short essay (3.000 – 4.000 words) within two months after the course.
     

Specific requirements
Since the focus of the course is not on qualitative and quantitative methods itself (although short summarizing overviews about essentials of qualitative and quantitative methodology and methods will be given) it is expected that course participants have at least basic knowledge about qualitative and quantitative research methods.


COURSE OUTLINE

Lecture 1: Part A
An alternative classification of research methods: overcoming the dichotomy qualitative-quantitative
The most common classification of current research methods is the dichotomy qualitative-quantitative. However, besides being outdated, it does not reflect the plurality and complexity of the contemporary research practices. In order to improve the understanding of such complexity, the first lecture will discuss three important issues: 1) what is a classification, 2) what is a methodology, and 3) what is a method. The answer to these three questions will lead us to formulate a new classification proposal, which assumes sixth main methodologies in social sciences.

Readings:

  • Bryman, Alan. (2008), 'Of methods and methodology', in Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 3(2), pp. 159-68
  • Gobo, Giampietro (2008), Method or methodology? Locating ethnography in the methodological landscape, in Gobo, G., Doing Ethnography, London: Sage, chap. 2, pp. 15-31.
  • Marradi, Alberto (1990), Classification, Typology, Taxonomy, "Quality and Quantity", XXIV, 2: 129-57.


Lecture 1: Part B
Revitalizing the (apparently obsolete) traditional language of social research
Terms such as 'measurement', 'concepts', 'hypothesis', ‘indicators’, ‘model’, ‘variable', ‘sampling’, ‘generalization’ seem old-fashioned. However, they are, unaware and tacitly, performed by social scientists in every single research act; because they are properties of both common—sense and scientist reasoning. Hence, what we need is not to abandon them but to revitalize within a new agenda. Whereby they will be shortly revisited in the light of a new epistemological framework, which will serve firstly to understand that measuring, counting and documenting are three different ways of assembling data; secondly as a basis for re-joining qualitative and quantitative approaches on a new methodological ground.

Readings:

  • Gobo, Giampietro (2008), Designing research, in Gobo, G., Doing Ethnography, London: Sage, chap. 5, pp. 69-96.
  • Hammersley, Martyn (2010), Is Social Measurement Possible, and is it Necessary? in Walford, Geoffrey; Tucker, Eric and Viswanathan, Madhu (eds.), Sage Handbook of Measurement, London, Sage, pp. 409–426.


Lecture 2: Part A
Mixed methods: a historical view
Current mixed methods did not emerge unexpectedly in the late 1980s. They have their roots in several “ancestral” tradition and practices: the European making of social surveys, the Chicago School heritage, and the legacy of Weber, Lazarsfeld and Likert. Recovering these experiences, enable us to better understand the philosophy and epistemological foundations of contemporary mixed methods research. In addition an historical viewpoint immunizes us against the ingenuousness (increasingly commonplace among contemporary social scientists) of presenting as novel theories and methods which were proposed seventy or eighty years ago. Knowledge of history saves us from having constantly to reinvent the wheel…

Readings:

  • Bryman, A. (2008), The end of the paradigm war?, in P. Alasuutari, J. Brannen and L. Bickman (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Social Research Methods, London: Sage, pp. 13-25.
  • Gobo, Giampietro (2005) The Renaissance of qualitative methods, in «Forum Qualitative Social Research», 6(3), http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-05/05-3-42-e.htm
  • Gobo, Giampietro (2014), Surveying the survey: back to the past, in Gobo, G. and Mauceri, S., Constructing Survey Data. An interactional approach, London: Sage, chap. 1, pp. 3-14
  • Johnson, Burke and Gray, Robert (2010), A history of philosophical and theoretical issues for mixed methods research, in: Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (eds.): The SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA., Sage, pp. 69 – 94.
  • Lazarsfeld, P.F. and Oberschall, A.R. (1965). Max Weber and empirical social research, in American Sociological Review, 30(2), 185–99.
  • Sieber, S.D. (1973). The integration of fieldwork and survey methods, in American Journal of Sociology, 6, 1335–59.


Lecture 2: Part B
What are mixed methods?
Many definitions of mixed methods are available in the literature (e.g. see Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner, 2007). Sometimes they are in competition; also, there are doubts about their substance. Whether Morgan (2007) sees mixed methods as a ‘third paradigm’, with the potential to open a new era in social sciences, others suggest to discard the term ‘methods’ because it conveys the idea that qualitative and quantitative methods are independent and in some ways mutually exclusive. For this reason, they prefer to speak of ‘mixed approaches’ (Johnson and Christensen 2010), ‘mixed research’ (Onwuegbuzie 2007) or ‘mixed methodology’ (Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998). The lecture will try to unravel this skein.

Readings:

  • Creswell, John W. and Plano Clark, Vicki L. (2011), Choosing a Mixed Methods Design, in Creswell, J.W. and Plano Clark, V.L, Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage, Chap. 3, pp. 53 – 106, second edition.
  • Greene JC and Caracelli VJ. 2003. Making paradigmatic sense of mixed methods practice. In Tashakkori A and Teddlie C. (eds.) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research :91-110.
  • Johnson, R. Burke, Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J., & Turner, L.A. (2007), Toward a definition of mixed methods research, in Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–33.
  • Johnson, R. B. (2015). Toward an inclusive multi and mixed science. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson, The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 
  • Kelle, Udo (2006): Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Research Practice – Purposes and Advantages. In: Gürtler, Leo; Huber, Günter L. (ed.). Special Guest Issue on Mixed Methods. Qualitative Research in Psychology,  3(4), pp. 293-311.
  • Leech, N.L., and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43, 265–75.
  • Mauceri, Sergio (2014), Back to the ‘golden age’: towards a Multilevel Integrated Survey Approach, in Gobo, G. and Mauceri, S., Constructing Survey Data. An interactional approach, London: Sage, chap. 2, pp. 20-48
  • Morgan, D.L. (2007). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods paradigms lost and pragma­tism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 48–76.
  • Newman, I., Ridenour, C.S., Newman, C., & DeMarco, G.M.P., Jr. (2003). A typology of research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (eds), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 167–88). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2007). Mixed Methods Research in Sociology and Beyond. In G. Ritzer (ed.), Encyclopedia of Sociology, Vol. VI (pp. 2978–81). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 207–11.
  • Tashakkori, Abbas and Teddlie, Charles (1998), Introduction to mixed methods and mixed model studies in the social and behavioral sciences, in Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C., Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage, Chap. 1, pp. 3 – 19.


Lecture 3: Beyond mixed methods I: two techniques
The future step in mixed methods research could be “merged methods”, represented by some little-known techniques, which embody in one single method the advantages of either approaches or methods (Gobo 2015). Such techniques could be an overpassing of the qualitative and quantitative divide. The lecture discusses the first two: the “inter-vey” (survey) and the “calendar interviewing” (life course, life history, autobiographical research, time diary).

Readings:

  • Belli, Robert F. and Callegaro, Mario (2009), The emergence of calendar interviewing: A theoretical and empirical rationale, in R. F. Belli, F. P. Stafford and D. F. Alwin (Eds.), Calendar and time diary methods in life course research (pp. 31-52). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Gobo, G (2011), Back to Likert. Towards a conversational survey, in Williams, Malcolm and Vogt, Paul (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Innovation in Social Research Methods, London, Sage, pp. 228-248.
  • Gobo, G. (2015), "The next challenge: from mixed to merged methods", in Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 10: 4, pp. 329-31.


Lecture 4: Beyond mixed methods II: two other techniques
Other integrated techniques are the “Delphi method” (policy studies) and the” mystery shopper” (market research and business).

Readings:

  • Fletcher Amber J. and Marchildon Gregory P. (2014). Using the Delphi method for qualitative, participatory action research in health leadership. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13(1): pp.1-18.
  • Wiele, A. van der, Hesselink, M.G. & Iwaarden, J.D. van (2005). Mystery shopping: A tool to develop insight into customer service provision, in Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 16(4), 529-541.


Lecture 5: Sampling: outlines of a ideographic theory of samples
An important step in the mixed methods design is sampling. The lecture explores the different concepts of sampling, offering an alternative vision that reconciles quantitative requests and qualitative needs.

Readings:

  • Lieberson, Stanley (1992): Small N´s and big conclusions: an examination of the reasoning in comparative studies based on a small number of cases, reprinted in Gomm, R., Hammersley, M. and Foster, P. (eds.): Case Study Method. Key Issues, Key Texts. London: Sage. S. 208-222.
  • Onwuegbuzie, Anthony and Collins, Kathleen (2007), A Typology of Mixed Methods Sampling Designs in Social Science Research, in The Qualitative Report, 12 (2), pp.281-316.


Lecture 6: Generalizing: a dissent view
As for sampling, also the generalization of the research findings is an important step. On this issue there are different divergent positions, which will be described and discussed. The lecture will end up with an alternative proposal.

Readings:

  • Connolly, P. (1998), “Dancing to the wrong tune: Ethnography, Generalization, and research on racism in schools", in P. Connolly and B. Troyna (eds.) Researching Racism in Education, Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 122-39.
  • Edwards P. & Bélanger J. (2008): Generalizing from Workplace Ethnographies: From Induction to Theory. in Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 37 (2008);291-313.
  • Gobo, Giampietro (2008): Re-conceptualizing generalization: old issues in a new frame. In: Alasuutari, Pertti, Bickman, Leonard, Brannen, Julia (eds.): The SAGE handbook of social research methods. London: Sage, pp. 193 – 227.
  • Haliker B. 2011: Methodological Practicalities in Analytical Generalization. Qualitative Inquiry 17 (9):787-797
  • Payne, Geoff and Williams, Malcolm (2005), Generalization in Qualitative Research, Sociology, Vol. 39, No. 2, 295-314
  • Schofield Janet Ward (1990), Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research, in E.W. Eisner and A. Peshkin (eds.), Qualitative Inquiry in Education: The Continuing Debate, New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Williams, Malcolm (2000), 'Interpretivism and generalisation', Sociology 34(2), pp. 209–24.


Lecture 7: Decolonizing and glocalizing methodology
In order to become a “third paradigm” or (simply) fully overcame the qualitative/quantitative divide, mixed methods need to discharge the colonial elements still present in either approaches or methods. Critics and opponents of globalization advocate the ambition of “decolonizing methodologies” (Tuhiwai Smith 1999, see also http://www.rangahau.co.nz/method/), designing indigenous methodologies (IM), implementing a participatory action research (PAR), and inventing a multicultural and creole methodology, where the global and local can cohabit.

Readings:

  • Fielding, Nigel G. (2014), Qualitative Research and Our Digital Futures, in Qualitative Inquiry, 20(9): 1064-1073.
  • Flick, Uwe and Röhnsch, Gundula (2014), Migrating Diseases: Triangulating Approaches—Applying Qualitative Inquiry as a Global Endeavor, in Qualitative Inquiry, 20(9): 1096-1109
  • Gobo, G. (2011) Glocalizing methodology? The encounter between local methodologies, in International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(6): pp. 417-437.
  • Evans, M., Hole, R., Berg, L.D., Hutchinson, P., and Sookraj, D. (2009). "Common insights, differing methodologies. Toward a fusion of indigenous methodologies, participatory action research, and white studies in an urban aboriginal research agenda", Qualitative Research, 15(5), 893–910.
  • Weaver, Lesley Jo and Kaiser, Bonnie N. (2015), "Developing and Testing Locally Derived Mental Health Scales: Examples from North India and Haiti", in Field Methods 2015: 27(2):115-130 


Lecture 8: Controversies
The final lecture revises the main contents considered in the course, focusing the main controversies: should we talk about mixed methods or mixed strategies? About integration or complementarity? Do mixed methods really collect better data and improve theory? Participants will end up getting their own opinion, which will guide their future research.

Readings:

  • Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A.Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 3–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., & Onghena, P. (2013). Mixed methods research synthesis: Definition, frame­work, and potential. Quality & Quantity, 47, 659–76.
  • John W. Creswell (2011), Controversies in Mixed Methods Research, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln Y.S., The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, chap. 15, pp. 269-83, forth edition.
  • Symonds, J., and Gorard, S. (2010). The death of mixed methods: Research labels and their casualties. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland, September, 3-6.
  • Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22.


Lecture 9 and 10: Student research design presentations and critique
See introduction for details
 

Complete reading list:

  • Belli, Robert F. and Callegaro, Mario (2009), The emergence of calendar interviewing: A theoretical and empirical rationale, in R. F. Belli, F. P. Stafford and D. F. Alwin (Eds.), Calendar and time diary methods in life course research (pp. 31-52). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22.
  • Bryman, A. (2008), The end of the paradigm war?, in P. Alasuutari, J. Brannen and L. Bickman (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Social Research Methods, London: Sage, pp. 13-25.
  • Bryman, Alan (2008), 'Of methods and methodology', in Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 3(2), pp. 159-68
  • Creswell John W. (2011), Controversies in Mixed Methods Research, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln Y.S., The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, chap. 15, pp. 269-83, forth edition.
  • Connolly, P. (1998), “Dancing to the wrong tune: Ethnography, Generalization, and research on racism in schools", in P. Connolly and B. Troyna (eds.) Researching Racism in Education, Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 122-39.
  • Creswell, John W. and Plano Clark, Vicki L. (2011), Choosing a Mixed Methods Design, in Creswell, J.W. and Plano Clark, V.L, Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage, Chap. 3, pp. 53 – 106, second edition.
  • Edwards P. & Bélanger J. (2008): "Generalizing from Workplace Ethnographies: From Induction to Theory". Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 37 (2008);291-313.
  • Evans, M., Hole, R., Berg, L.D., Hutchinson, P., and Sookraj, D. (2009). "Common insights, differing methodologies. Toward a fusion of indigenous methodologies, participatory action research, and white studies in an urban aboriginal research agenda", Qualitative Research, 15(5), 893–910.
  • Fielding, Nigel G. (2014), Qualitative Research and Our Digital Futures, in Qualitative Inquiry, 20(9): 1064-1073.
  • Fletcher Amber J. and Marchildon Gregory P. (2014). Using the Delphi method for qualitative, participatory action research in health leadership. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13(1): pp.1-18.
  • Flick, Uwe and Röhnsch, Gundula (2014), Migrating Diseases: Triangulating Approaches—Applying Qualitative Inquiry as a Global Endeavor, in Qualitative Inquiry, 20(9): 1096-1109
  • Gobo, Giampietro (2005) "The Renaissance of qualitative methods", in Forum Qualitative Social Research, 6(3), http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-05/05-3-42-e.htm
  • Gobo, Giampietro (2008), Designing research, in Gobo, G., Doing Ethnography, London: Sage, chap. 5, pp. 69-96.
  • Gobo, Giampietro (2008), Method or methodology? Locating ethnography in the methodological landscape, in Gobo, G., Doing Ethnography, London: Sage, chap. 2, pp. 15-31.
  • Gobo, Giampietro (2008): Re-conceptualizing generalization: old issues in a new frame. In: Alasuutari, Pertti, Bickman, Leonard, Brannen, Julia (eds.): The SAGE Handbook of Social Research Methods. London: Sage, pp. 193 – 227.
  • Gobo, Giampietro (2011) Glocalizing methodology? The encounter between local methodologies, in International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(6): pp. 417-437.
  • Gobo, Giampietro (2011), Back to Likert. Towards a conversational survey, in Williams, Malcolm and Vogt, Paul (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Innovation in Social Research Methods, London, Sage, pp. 228-248.
  • Gobo, Giampietro (2014), Surveying the survey: back to the past, in Gobo, G. and Mauceri, S., Constructing Survey Data. An interactional approach, London: Sage, chap. 1, pp. 3-14
  • Gobo, G. (2015), "The next challenge: from mixed to merged methods", in Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 10: 4, pp. 329-31.
  • Greene JC and Caracelli VJ. 2003. "Making paradigmatic sense of mixed methods practice". In Tashakkori A and Teddlie C. (eds.) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research: 91-110.
  • Haliker B. 2011: "Methodological Practicalities in Analytical Generalization". Qualitative Inquiry 17 (9):787-797
  • Hammersley, Martyn (2010), Is Social Measurement Possible, and is it Necessary? in Walford, Geoffrey; Tucker, Eric and Viswanathan, Madhu (eds.), Sage Handbook of Measurement, London, Sage, pp. 409–426.
  • Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., & Onghena, P. (2013). Mixed methods research synthesis: Definition, frame­work, and potential. Quality & Quantity, 47, 659–76.
  • Johnson, Burke and Gray, Robert (2010), A history of philosophical and theoretical issues for mixed methods research, in: Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (eds.): The SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA., Sage, pp. 69 – 94.
  • Johnson, R. Burke, Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J., & Turner, L.A. (2007), Toward a definition of mixed methods research, in Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–33.
  • Johnson, R. B. (2015). "Toward an inclusive multi and mixed science". In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson, The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 
  • Kelle, Udo (2006): Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Research Practice – Purposes and Advantages. In: Gürtler, Leo; Huber, Günter L. (ed.). Special Guest Issue on Mixed Methods. Qualitative Research in Psychology,  3(4), pp. 293-311.
  • Lazarsfeld, P.F. and Oberschall, A.R. (1965). Max Weber and empirical social research, in American Sociological Review, 30(2), 185–99.
  • Leech, N.L., and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43, 265–75.
  • Lieberson, Stanley (1992): Small N´s and big conclusions: an examination of the reasoning in comparative studies based on a small number of cases, reprinted in Gomm, R., Hammersley, M. and Foster, P. (eds.): Case Study Method. Key Issues, Key Texts. London: Sage. S. 208-222.
  • Marradi, Alberto (1990), "Classification, Typology, Taxonomy", Quality and Quantity, XXIV, 2: 129-57.
  • Mauceri, Sergio (2014), Back to the ‘golden age’: towards a Multilevel Integrated Survey Approach, in Gobo, G. and Mauceri, S., Constructing Survey Data. An interactional approach, London: Sage, chap. 2, pp. 20-48
  • Morgan, D.L. (2007). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods paradigms lost and pragma­tism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 48–76.
  • Newman, I., Ridenour, C.S., Newman, C., & DeMarco, G.M.P., Jr. (2003). A typology of research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (eds), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 167–88). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2007). Mixed Methods Research in Sociology and Beyond. In G. Ritzer (ed.), Encyclopedia of Sociology, Vol. VI (pp. 2978–81). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Onwuegbuzie, Anthony and Collins, Kathleen (2007), A Typology of Mixed Methods Sampling Designs in Social Science Research, in The Qualitative Report, 12 (2), pp.281-316.
  • Payne, Geoff and Williams, Malcolm (2005), "Generalization in Qualitative Research", Sociology, Vol. 39, No. 2, 295-314
  • Schofield Janet Ward (1990), "Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research", in E.W. Eisner and A. Peshkin (eds.), Qualitative Inquiry in Education: The Continuing Debate, New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Sieber, S.D. (1973). The integration of fieldwork and survey methods, in American Journal of Sociology, 6, 1335–59.
  • Symonds, J., and Gorard, S. (2010). The death of mixed methods: Research labels and their casualties. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland, September, 3-6.
  • Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 207–11.
  • Tashakkori, Abbas and Teddlie, Charles (1998), Introduction to mixed methods and mixed model studies in the social and behavioral sciences, in Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C., Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage, Chap. 1, pp. 3 – 19.
  • Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A.Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 3–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Weaver, Lesley Jo and Kaiser, Bonnie N. (2015), "Developing and Testing Locally Derived Mental Health Scales: Examples from North India and Haiti", in Field Methods 2015: 27(2):115-130 
  • Wiele, A. van der, Hesselink, M.G. & Iwaarden, J.D. van (2005). Mystery shopping: A tool to develop insight into customer service provision, in Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 16(4), 529-541.
  • Williams, Malcolm (2000), 'Interpretivism and generalisation', Sociology 34(2), pp. 209–24.


Recommendations for additional reading
The literature on mixed methods is huge and growing. Among the many good books, three significant collections are:

  • Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Johnson, R. B. (Eds.) (2015). Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
  • Johnson, R. Burke and Christensen, Larry B. (2014). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, Fifth edition, pp. 744
  • Plano-Clark, Vicki L. and Creswell, John (2008) (eds.) The mixed methods reader, Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 640 (a collection of classical contributions on mixed methods).
  • Tashakkori, Abbas and Teddlie, Charles (2010) (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Sciences, Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage, second edition, pp. 912.

Other books related to the topics of the course are:

  • Greene, Jennifer C. (2007): Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey Bass.
  • Jahoda, M., Lazarsfeld, P.F., & Zeisel, H. (1933). Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal. Leipzig: Hitzel, transl. Marienthal. Sociography of an Unemployed Community. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2002.
  • Merton, Robert K., Coleman, James S. and Rossi, Peter H. (1976) (eds.), Qualitative and Quantitative Social Research: Papers in Honor of Paul F. Lazarsfeld, New York: The Free Press.
  • Tuhiwai Smith, Linda (1999), Decolonizing Methodologies. Research and Indigenous Peoples, London, Zed Books.
  • Varma (Ed.), Mystery Shopping - An Introduction. Hyderabad, India : Icfai University Press, 2008.


The lecturer
Dr. Giampietro Gobo is Professor of Social Research Methods and Evaluation Methods at the Faculty for Political Sciences at the University of Milano. He holds degrees in Sociology (Master) and in Methodology and Social Research (Ph.D.). For many years, he served as Director of the centre ICONA (Innovation and Organizational Change in the Public Administration) at the University of Milan. He has taught research methods, Evaluation research, Ethnography and Applied Ethnography on the undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate level at various universities in Italy, Germany, Norway, Spain and US.

Areas of specialization: Epistemology, Qualitative methods, Quantitative methods, Marketing research, Organization studies, Management studies, Computer supported cooperative work, Ergonomics.


Selected publications:

Quantitative methods

2001     Best practices: rituals and rhetorical strategies in the “initial telephone contact”, in «Forum Qualitative Social Research», vol. 2(1), http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-01/1-01gobo-e.htm

2006     Set them free. Improving data quality by broadening interviewer’s task, in «International Journal of Social Research Methodology. Theory & Practice», 9(4), pp. 279–301

2011     Back to Likert. Towards a conversational survey, in Williams, Malcolm and Vogt, Paul (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Innovation in Social Research Methods London, Sage, pp. 228-248 ,

2014     (with Mauceri, S.), Constructing Survey Data. An interactional approach, London: Sage.

Qualitative methods

2004     Sampling, representativeness and generalizability, in Seale C., Gobo G, Gubrium J.F, Silverman D., (eds.), Qualitative Research Practice, London, Sage.

2005     The Renaissance of qualitative methods, in «Forum Qualitative Social Research», 6(3), http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-05/05-3-42-e.htm

2008     Re-conceptualizing generalization. Old issues in a new frame, in Alasuutari Pertti, Brannen Julia and Bickman Leonard (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Social Research Methods, London, Sage, pp. 193-213.

2008     Doing Ethnography, London: Sage (transl. in Arabic)

2011     Ethnography, in Silverman, David (ed.), Qualitative Research, (third edition), London, Sage, pp. 15-34.

2011     Ethnographic methods, in Badie Bertrand, Berg-Schlosser Dirk e Morlino Leonardo, Encyclopedia of Political Science, London, Sage (on behalf of International Political Science Association - IPSA ).

2011     Glocalizing methodology? The encounter between local methodologies, in International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(6): pp. 417-437.

Epistemology and Social Theory

1993     Class: stories of concepts. From ordinary language to scientific language, in “Social Science Information”, 32 (3), pp. 467-89.

1995     Class as metaphor. On the unreflexive transformation of a concept in an object, in “Philosophy of the Social Sciences”, 25 (4), pp. 442-67.

Organization studies

2008     Crafting blindness: Its organizational construction in a first grade school, in Qualitative Sociology Review, 4(1), pp. 92-108 http://www.qualitativesociologyreview.org/ENG/Volume9/QSR_4_1_Gobo.pdf (transl. in Polish)

2010     Garzone G., Catino M., Gobo, G., Bait M., Catenaccio P., Degano C. and Rozzi S. Towards an Integrated Model for the Understanding of Communication Failures in Aviation Accidents: Tenuous Identities under Pressure, in Giuliana Garzone and James Archibald (eds.), Discourse, Identities and Roles in Specialized Communication, Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 209-44.

Did you find what you were looking for?
Tags: Research Methods, Sociology, Methodology, Summer School, PhD, Political Science, Ethnography, Quantitative methods, Qualitative Methods
Published Nov. 7, 2016 9:36 AM - Last modified Aug. 14, 2017 1:01 PM