After the initial life (which coincides with the origins of social research in the 1850s, and lasts until 1940s), mixed methods revive at the beginning of 1970s. However, this…
Abstract
Purpose
After the initial life (which coincides with the origins of social research in the 1850s, and lasts until 1940s), mixed methods revive at the beginning of 1970s. However, this second life (or renaissance) receives the deleterious imprinting of quantitative methods. In fact, some of the old positivist assumptions are still reproduced and active in most of mixed methods research. This imprinting is traceable in the ambiguity (and purposive semantic stretching) of the term “qualitative”: from the 1990s, it encompasses almost everything (even approaches considered positivistic in the 1950s!). Whereby the semantical extension of the term “qualitative” has become a sort of Trojan horse for a new legitimation of many quantitative and positivist researchers: a great swindle. Today “qualitative” is nonsense and acts as a bug, which muddies the qualitative-quantitative debate. For this reason, it would be better to remove the bug (i.e. to discharge the term “qualitative” from the language of social research and methodology), reset and start over from the level of specific research methods, considering carefully and balancing their diversity before mixing them. The purpose of this paper is to outline two (complementary) ways of integration of methods (“mixed” and “merged”), arguing that “merged” methods realize a higher integration than “mixed” methods, because the former overcome some weaknesses of the latter.
Design/methodology/approach
A semantic and pragmatic analysis of the term “qualitative.”
Findings
In social and behavioral sciences, the second life of mixed methods has been heavily affected by old positivist and quantitative assumptions.
Research limitations/implications
The term “qualitative” should be discharged from the language of social research and methodology.
Practical implications
The coveted integration in “mixed” methods, could be better pursed through “merged” methods.
Social implications
Disentangling the strands of a debate (the qualitative-quantitative one) become muddy.
Originality/value
An alternative framework, to interpret the mixed methods history and their recent developments, has been proposed.
Details
Keywords
The purpose of this paper is to further the discussion on points made by Giampietro Gobo, provide additional information on the place of qualitative research in management, and…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to further the discussion on points made by Giampietro Gobo, provide additional information on the place of qualitative research in management, and question the space of merged methods.
Design/methodology/approach
Use a conversational approach as well as a review of qualitative vs quantitative research in three top tier journals for the years 2013-2016 (by a simple count).
Findings
Quantitative methods remain very much mainstream in management research, yet one finds that for one of the journals, space is evenly shared between qualitative and quantitative methods.
Research limitations/implications
This is a viewpoint and does not offer a systematic review of all top tier management journals.
Originality/value
It is hope that with this viewpoint debate as to the space of qualitative research, and merged methods can be stimulated.
Details
Keywords
Giampietro Gobo called for new methods that combine qualitative and quantitative approaches in a single instrument, suggesting this was the next challenge facing social research…
Abstract
Purpose
Giampietro Gobo called for new methods that combine qualitative and quantitative approaches in a single instrument, suggesting this was the next challenge facing social research and mixed methods in particular. The purpose of this paper is to respond to that challenge.
Design/methodology/approach
An overview of methods, demonstrating their inherently mixed qualities, with special emphasis on a range of methods that can be classified as merged.
Findings
The real challenge is not to find merged methods, but to ensure integration of the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the methods used during the analysis and writing processes.
Practical implications
Researchers need to be alerted to the mixed elements within their work, to learn how to better tap into these and to exploit the integrative potential of their methods during analysis and writing. Researchers need more “rounded” methods training.
Originality/value
This paper refocuses the challenge facing mixed methods research.
Details
Keywords
In social sciences, after having witnessed several “turns” (cognitive, linguistic, pragmatic, interactional), the authors observe the rise of the “qualitative turn”. Therefore…
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.