Mixed Methods? Do They Really Work? A Commentary

• Cheng, Shu-Ju Ada ^[1]
  1. [1] DePaul University

     DePaul University

     City of Chicago, Estados Unidos

     
• Localización: RIMCIS: Revista Internacional y Multidisciplinar en Ciencias Sociales, ISSN-e 2014-3680, Vol. 2, Nº. 3 (November), 2013, págs. 221-235
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
• Resumen

  • In this short commentary, I comment on the state and popularity of mixed methods in social sciences in recent decades. While quantitative and qualitative methods are considered complementary, I question the use of mixed methods by scholars without deeper reflections on the epistemological and methodological foundations of these two methods. My contention is that researchers cannot simply combine qualitative and quantitative methods without explicating how they reconcile and negotiate their different foundations. These two methods are not just tools. The act of mixing them without reflections is simply not sufficient. Reconciling and reflecting upon the foundational differences between these two methods would be an essential step.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Alvesson, M., & Skoldberg, K. (Eds.). (2009). Reflexive methodology: new vistas for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Coffey, A. (1999). The ethnographic self: fieldwork and the representation of identity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Devault, M. (1999). Liberating method: feminism and social research. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
  • Gitlin, A. (1994). Power and method: political activism and educational research. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences, 2(3) 235
  • Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  • Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? whose knowledge?: thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  • Harding, S. (Eds.). (2003). The feminist standpoint theory reader: intellectual and political controversies. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Hertz, R. (1997). Reflexivity and voice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
  • Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Yaiser, M. (Eds.). (2004). Feminist perspectives on social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Lather, P. (2007). Getting lost: feminist efforts toward a double(d) science. State University of New York.
  • Zuberi, T., & Bonilla-Silva, E. (2008). White Logic, white methods: racism and methodology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.