Merged methods as a step beyond mixed methods: an utopian proposal

In the last twenty years, we have observed a decline of quantitative (QT) methods (see Payne et al. 2004; Williams et al. 2008; Erola et al. 2015). The recent dominant position of qualitative (QL) methods can be noticed also at the Conferences of ISA and ESA where the presentations of QL-research-based papers are the majority. One effect of the rebalance between QL and QT is (also) the recent ‘resurgence’ of mixed methods. Resurgence because they are not a real novelty (Gobo and Mauceri 2014). The rationale for mixing both kinds of data within a single study is that neither QT nor QL methods are sufficient in themselves to fully capture the phenomenon. When used in combination, QL and QT 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. A new challenge faces 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 research findings. Some “integrated” methods already exist: ‘Delphi’ (Dalkey and Helmer 1963, Fletcher and Marchildon 2014), ‘mystery shopper’ (Wiele van der, Hesselink and Iwaarden, van 2005), ‘calendar and time diary methods’ (Belli and Callegaro 2009), ‘conversational survey’ (Gobo and Mauceri 2014, 184ff). Still others may be invented. References Belli, R. F. and Callegaro, M. (2009). The emergence of calendar interviewing: A theoretical and empirical rationale. In R. F. Belli, F. P. Stafford, & D. F. Alwin (Eds.), Calendar and time diary methods in life course research (pp. 31-52). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage. Dalkey, N. and Helmer O. (1963). An experimental application of Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9, 458–67. 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, 49(2): 374-94. 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, 13(1): pp.1-18. Gobo G. and Mauceri S. (2014), Constructing Survey Data. An interactional approach, London, Sage. Payne G., Williams M. and Chamberlain S. (2004), Methodological Pluralism in British Sociology. Sociology, 38(1): 153-63. Wiele, A. van der, Hesselink, M.G. and 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), 529-41. Williams, M., Payne G., Hodgkinson L. and Poade D. (2008), Does sociology count: student attitudes to the teaching of quantitative methods. Sociology 42(5): 1003-21.