The next challenge: from mixed to merged methods

Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal The next challenge: from mixed to merged methods Giampietro Gobo

Article information:

Downloaded by giampietro gobo At 01:07 21 November 2015 (PT)

To cite this document: Giampietro Gobo , (2015),"The next challenge: from mixed to merged methods", Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 Iss 4 pp. 329 - 331 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QROM-07-2015-1309 see below for the full article

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5648.htm

The next challenge: from mixed to merged methods

Mixed to merged methods

Giampietro Gobo University of Milan, Milan, Italy

329

Downloaded by giampietro gobo At 01:07 21 November 2015 (PT)

Abstract Purpose – In social sciences, after having witnessed several “turns” (cognitive, linguistic, pragmatic, interactional), the authors observe the rise of the “qualitative turn”. Therefore quantitative research methods are not mainstream anymore. One effect of this rebalance between quality and quantity is the recent “resurgence” of mixed methods. However, a new challenge presses social research: creating new methods, which could combine both qualitative and quantitative approaches in a single instrument, squeezing the advantages of both in a single technique. With the benefit of lowering the costs and making more consistent the findings. Some “merged” methods already exist and QROM could be a visionary laboratory. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – An overview of recent research on the spread and use of social research methods in different countries. Findings – In social sciences quantitative methods are not mainstream anymore. Research limitations/implications – The time has come for a further step in the direction of a full integration of qualitative and quantitative methods. Practical implications – Envisioning the future needs for creating new methods, which could combine both qualitative and quantitative approaches in a single instrument, squeezing the advantages of both in a single technique. With the benefit of lowering the costs and making more consistent the research findings. Some “merged” methods already exist and QROM could be a visionary laboratory. Social implications – The rise of “qualitative turn” in social sciences will change the power relations in academy and in the market research. New generations of researchers will bring social research back to the times of Chicago School, where qualitative research was dominated. Only posterity will know if this will be good or not. Originality/value – This brief paper envisions the need to go beyond the current “mixed” methods fashion in favour of full “merged” methods research. Keywords Qualitative research, Quantitative research, Mixed methods, Merged methods Paper type Viewpoint

In organization and management studies, as in humanities and social sciences, we have witnessed over time several “turns”: cognitive, linguistic, pragmatic, interactional and so on. One of the great importance for the birth of QROM was the “qualitative turn” in social research methodology. Quantitative methods: no mainstream anymore … In the UK, in the last 20 years, we have observed a decline of survey-based research. As Payne et al. (2004) diagnosed “the dominant position on research methodology and methods among British sociologists has for many years been that of ‘methodological pluralism’ ”. However, concerns have lately been expressed about the lack of research involving quantitative methods, not least by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)” (p. 153). Their study of four mainstream British journals (Sociology, British Journal of Sociology, Sociological Review and Sociological Research Online) over two years (1999 and 2000), together with associated sources, shows new national patterns of research methods used in published work. For example, the qualitative research is far greater than that quantitative (see tab. 2, p. 159); in addition the younger generation (junior staff) are more

Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal Vol. 10 No. 4, 2015 pp. 329-331 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1746-5648 DOI 10.1108/QROM-07-2015-1309

QROM 10,4

Downloaded by giampietro gobo At 01:07 21 November 2015 (PT)

330

interested in qualitative methods (tab. 4, p. 161); finally “only about one in 20 of published papers in the mainstream journals uses quantitative analysis” (p. 161). Later, in the first national survey of British undergraduate attitudes concerning the methodological character of the discipline and specifically in relation to quantitative methods, Williams et al. (2008) found that “most sociology students saw their subject as closer to the humanities than the sciences […] many students expressed anxiety about quantitative methods and ‘number’ […] a lack of student interest in the use of quantitative methods” (p. 1003). The authors conclude that “the views held by present undergraduates do not augur well for a methodologically pluralist discipline in the future, or more generally for key numeric and analytic skills sociology graduates can bring to other professions and occupations” (p. 1003). Recently Erola et al. (2015) have compared methodological trends in nationally and internationally oriented sociology using data, over the span 1990-2009, from the articles of three Nordic sociological journals: one international (Acta Sociologica), one Finnish (Sosiologia) and one Danish (Dansk Sociologi). The results suggest that “quantitative research is increasingly concentrated in international publishing venues, while national journals act more and more as platforms for qualitative research” (p. 374). The “qualitative turn” is observed also in other countries (especially in their graduate schools, where students prefer qualitative dissertations) and at the conferences of ISA (International Sociological Association) and ESA (European Sociological Association) where the presentations of qualitative-research-based papers are in the majority. The mixed methods … re-turn Obviously to find that quantitative methods are no longer mainstream is just an observation, not reason for joy or revenge. Within methodological pluralism, each method has citizenship and every researcher has the right to use the method s/he thinks and feels appropriate, without discrimination or ostracism (as happened in the past for many qualitative researchers). However, this widespread “qualitative turn” offers to QROM additional opportunities for its growth and further room for its circulation and success. One effect of the rebalance between quality and quantity is the recent “resurgence” of mixed methods. Resurgence because (even if not sufficiently emphasized in literature) they are not a real novelty, re-stating a seminal trend in social research. Indeed, mixed methods have now come back into favour after their first beginnings: initially in Europe with Pierre La Play (France), Benjamin S. Rowntree (UK), Paul F. Lazarsfeld (Austria) and others; after in USA with the Chicago School and the Colombia School. Their research practices were in fact mixed, albeit perhaps without the methodological awareness of today (Gobo and Mauceri, 2014). Diverse methodologies in a single study or … in a single method? Mixed methods constitute one of the most important contemporary trends in social and applied research. The rationale for mixing both kinds of data within a single study is that neither quantitative nor qualitative methods are sufficient in themselves to fully capture the phenomenon. When used in combination, quantitative and qualitative methodologies supplement each other and permit a more forceful analysis with benefits from the strengths of each. However, combining them within the same research project may be costly and time-consuming. In addition, merging diverse methods in a single study raises the problem of what should be done when the findings of one investigation method conflict with those of another. Whilst this conflict might be considered an enrichment, in the sense that it yields

additional insights useful to the researcher, it may be problematic when a study (especially in the field of applied research and management) is required to provide precise answers. Also because, and this should not be forgotten, every method (partially) constructs its results.

Downloaded by giampietro gobo At 01:07 21 November 2015 (PT)

Beyond mixed methods: “merged” methods A new challenge faces social research, and QROM could lead this theoretical and practical enterprise: creating new methods, which could combine both qualitative and quantitative approaches in a single instrument, squeezing the advantages of both in a single technique. With the benefit of lowering the costs and making more consistent the research findings. Some “merged” methods already exist: “Delphi” (Dalkey and Helmer, 1963; Fletcher and Marchildon, 2014), “mystery shopper” (van der Wiele et al., 2005), “calendar and time diary methods” (Belli and Callegaro, 2009; Glasner et al., 2012), “conversational survey” (Gobo and Mauceri, 2014, 184ff). Still others may be invented. And QROM could be a visionary laboratory. References Belli, R.F. and Callegaro, M. (2009), “The emergence of calendar interviewing: a theoretical and empirical rationale”, in Belli, R.F., Stafford, F.P. and Alwin, D.F. (Eds), Calendar and Time Diary Methods in Life Course Research, Sage, Thousands Oaks, CA, pp. 31-52. Dalkey, N. and Helmer, O. (1963), “An experimental application of Delphi method to the use of experts”, Management Science, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 458-467. Erola, I., Reimer, D., Räsänen, P. and Kropp, K. (2015), “No crisis but methodological separatism: a comparative study of Finnish and Danish publication trends between 1990 and 2009”, Sociology, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 374-394. Fletcher, A.J. and Marchildon, G.P. (2014), “Using the Delphi method for qualitative, participatory action research in health leadership”, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-18. Glasner, T., van der Vaart, W. and Belli, R.F. (2012), “Calendar interviewing and the use of landmark events – implications for cross-cultural surveys”, Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, Vol. 115 No. 1, pp. 45-52. Gobo, G. and Mauceri, S. (2014), Constructing Survey Data. An Interactional Approach, Sage, London. Payne, G., Williams, M. and Chamberlain, S. (2004), “Methodological pluralism in British sociology”, Sociology, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 153-163. van der Wiele, A., Hesselink, M.G. and van Iwaarden, J.D. (2005), “Mystery shopping: a tool to develop insight into customer service provision”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 529-541. Williams, M., Payne, G., Hodgkinson, L. and Poade, D. (2008), “Does sociology count: student attitudes to the teaching of quantitative methods”, Sociology, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 1003-1021. About the author Giampietro Gobo, PhD, is a Professor of Methodology of Social Research and Evaluation Methods, and the former Director of the centre ICONA (Innovation and Organizational Change in Public Administration), at the University of Milan. He has published extensively in the areas of qualitative and quantitative methods. His books include Doing Ethnography (Sage 2008), Qualitative Research Practice (Sage 2004, co-edited with C. Seale, J.F. Gubrium and D. Silverman) and Constructing Survey Data (Sage 2014, with S. Mauceri). Professor Giampietro Gobo can be contacted at: [email protected] For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

Mixed to merged methods 331