Advertisement

Quality & Quantity

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 415–450 | Cite as

Using mixed methods for the analysis of individuals: a review of necessary and sufficient conditions and an application to welfare state attitudes

  • Achim Goerres
  • Katrin Prinzen
Article

Abstract

When studying individuals, when is the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods better than just one method alone? Whereas the debate in macro-level research, such as in political science about comparing nations, has made progress in identifying meaningful logics for a combination of methods, it is yet unclear how these logics can be applied to the study of individuals. Individual-level dynamics are in tendency less inert than those of nations or organisations. Therefore, a combination of methods is more difficult to justify in individual-level analysis since differences in measurement results could be due to changes in the dynamics rather than due to the application of different techniques. In contrast, the assumption of unit homogeneity seems to be more easily met for individuals than for countries or other higher-level aggregates, facilitating a comparison of like and like. First, this article presents a compilation of conditions scattered across the literature for the analysis of individuals, according to which a mixed-method is preferable to a single-method approach. Second, the application of these conditions is illustrated with an analysis of the impact of intergenerational relationships on welfare state attitudes in Germany on the basis of survey and focus group data.

Keywords

Mixed methods Multi-method approach Welfare state attitudes Individuals 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adcock R., Collier D.: Measurement validity: a shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 95, 529–546 (2001)Google Scholar
  2. Almond, G.A., Verba, S.: The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1989 [1963])Google Scholar
  3. Andreß H.-J., Heien T.: Four worlds of welfare state attitudes? A comparison of Germany, Norway, and the United States. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 17, 337–356 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andreß H.-J., Heien T., Hofäcker D.: Wozu brauchen wir noch den Sozialstaat?. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen (2001)Google Scholar
  5. Bengtson V.L., Roberts R.E.L.: Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: an example of formal theory construction. J. Marriage Fam. 53, 856–870 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Busemeyer M.R., Goerres A., Weschle S.: Demands for redistributive policies in an era of demographic aging: the rival pressures from age and income in 14 OECD countries. J. Eur. Soc. Policy 19, 195–212 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell A., Converse P.E., Miller W.E., Stokes D.: The American Voter. Wiley, New York/London (1960)Google Scholar
  8. Campbell A.L.: How Policies Make Citizens. Princeton University Press, Princeton/Oxford (2003)Google Scholar
  9. Campbell D.T., Fiske D.W.: Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol. Bull. 56, 81–105 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coppedge M.: Thickening thin concepts and theories: combining large N and small in comparative politics. Comp. Politics 31, 465–476 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daatland S.O., Lowenstein A.: Intergenerational solidarity and the family-welfare state balance. Eur. J. Ageing 2, 174–182 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ebbinghaus B.: When less is more: selection problems in large- N and small- N cross-national comparisons. Int. Sociol. 20, 133–152 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Esping-Andersen G.: The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Polity, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  14. Faletti T.G., Lynch J.F.: Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis. Comp. Political Stud. 42, 1143–1166 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goerres A., Tepe M.: Age-based self-interest, intergenerational solidarity and the welfare state: a comparative analysis of older people’s attitudes towards public childcare in 12 OECD countries. Eur. J. Political Res. 49, 818–851 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Groves R.M., Fowler F.J., Couper M.P., Lepkowski J.M., Singer E., Tourangeau R.: Survey Methodology. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken (2004)Google Scholar
  17. Hanson B.: Wither qualitative/quantitative? Grounds for methodological convergence. Qual. Quant. 42, 97–111 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Iversen T., Soskice D.: An asset theory of social policy preferences. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 95, 875–893 (2001)Google Scholar
  19. Kelle U.: Die Integration qualitativer und quantitativer Methoden in der empirischen Sozialforschung. Theoretische Grundlagen und methodologische Konzepte. VS, Wiesbaden (2007)Google Scholar
  20. Kelle U., Erzberger C.: Integration qualitativer und quantitativer Methoden. Methodologische Modelle und ihre Bedeutung für die Forschungspraxis. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 51, 509–531 (1999)Google Scholar
  21. King G., Keohane R.O., Verba S.: Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994)Google Scholar
  22. Kittel B.: A crazy methodology?: On the limits of macro-quantitative social science research. Int. Sociol. 21, 647–677 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kohli M.: Private and public transfers between generations: linking the family and the state. Eur. Soc. 1, 81–104 (1999)Google Scholar
  24. Künemund H., Rein M.: There is more to receiving than needing: theoretical arguments and empirical explorations of crowding in and crowding out. Ageing Soc. 19, 93–121 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lau R.R.: Models of decision-making. In: Sears, D.O., Huddy, L., Jervis, R. (eds) Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003)Google Scholar
  26. Leahey E.: Convergence and confidentiality? Limits to the implementation of mixed methodology. Soc. Sci. Res. 36, 149–158 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leech N.L., Onwuegbuzie A.J.: A typology of mixed methods research designs. Qual. Quant. 43, 265–275 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lieberman E.S.: Race and Regionalism in the Politics of Taxation in Brazil and South Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lieberman E.S.: Nested analysis as mixed-method strategy for comparative research. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 99, 435–452 (2005)Google Scholar
  30. Lin A.C.: Bridging positivist and interpretivist approaches to qualitative methods. Policy Stud. J. 26, 162 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lin, A.C., Loftis, K.: Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods in political science: a primer. In: APSA Annual Conference. Washington, DC (2005)Google Scholar
  32. Lipset S.M., Trow M.A., Coleman J.S.: Union Democracy: The Internal Politics of the International Typographical Union. Free Press, Glencoe (1956)Google Scholar
  33. Lobe B., Vehovar V.: Towards a flexible online mixed method design with a feedback loop. Qual. Quant. 43, 585–597 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mahoney J.: Toward a unified theory of causality. Comp. Political Stud. 41, 412–436 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meijer P.C., Verloop N., Beijaard D.: Multi-method triangulation in a qualitative study on teachers’ practical knowledge: an attempt to increase internal validity. Qual. Quant. 36, 145–167 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller S.I., Gatta J.L.: The use of mixed methods models and designs in the human sciences: problems and prospects. Qual. Quant. 40, 595–610 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Munck G.L., Snyder R.: Debating the direction of comparative politics: an analysis of leading journals. Comp. Political Stud. 40, 5–31 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ong B.N., Dunn K.M., Croft P.R.: “Since You’re Asking . . .”: Free Text Commentaries in an Epidemiological Study of Low Back Pain Consulters in Primary Care. Qual. Quant. 40, 651–659 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pappi, F.U., Shikano, S.: Die gesundheitspolitischen Präferenzen der deutschen Wählerschaft. MZES Working Papers 87 (2005)Google Scholar
  40. Rohlfing I.: What you see and what you get. Comp. Political Stud. 41, 1492–1514 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roller E.: Einstellungen der Bürger zum Wohlfahrtsstaat der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen (1992)Google Scholar
  42. Sale J.E.M., Brazil K.: A strategy to identify critical appraisal criteria for primary mixed-method studies. Qual. Quant. 38, 351–365 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sale J.E.M., Lohfeld L.H., Brazil K.: Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: implications for mixed-methods research. Qual. Quant. 36, 43–53 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sieber S.D.: The integration of fieldwork and survey methods. Am. J. Sociol. 78, 1335–1359 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith G., Hirst A.: Strategic political segmentation: a new approach for a new era of political marketing. Eur. J. Mark. 35, 1058–1073 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vanhuysse, P., Goerres, A. (eds.): Generational Politics and Policies: Comparative Studies of Aging Postindustrial Democracies. Routledge, London (2011) (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  47. Verba S., Nie N.H., Kim J.-o.: Participation and political equality. A seven-nation comparison. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1978)Google Scholar
  48. Verba S., Schlozman K.L., Brady H.E.: Voice and equality: civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  49. Williams R.: Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables. Stata J. 6, 58–82 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations