Qualitative Research

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mason, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Qualitative Research, Vol. 6, No. 1, 9-25 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1468794106058866

Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way

Jennifer Mason

University of Manchester, jennifer.mason{at}manchester.ac.uk

This article makes an argument for a ‘qualitatively driven’ approach to mixing methods. It focuses on the value of mixed-methods approaches for researching questions about social experience and lived realities. It suggests that ‘qualitative thinking’ is a useful starting point for mixing methods, but that it is ultimately more helpful to think in terms of multi-dimensional research strategies that transcend or even subvert the so-called qualitative-quantitative divide. Mixing methods helps us to think creatively and ‘outside the box’, to theorize beyond the micro-macro divide, and to enhance and extend the logic of qualitative explanation. Mixed-methods approaches raise challenges in reconciling different epistemologies and ontologies, and in integrating different forms of data and knowledge. The article argues that we should think more in terms of ‘meshing’ or ‘linking’ than ‘integrating’ data and method. It goes on to argue for the development of ‘multi-nodal’ dialogic explanations that allow the distinctiveness of different methods and approaches to be held in creative tension. The article concludes with a discussion of qualitatively derived principles for mixing methods.

Key Words: lived realities • mixed methods • multi-dimensional methods • qualitative methods • social experience


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Field MethodsHome page
C. I. Voils, M. Sandelowski, J. Barroso, and V. Hasselblad
Making Sense of Qualitative and Quantitative Findings in Mixed Research Synthesis Studies.
Field Methods, January 1, 2008; 20(1): 3 - 25.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Mixed Methods ResearchHome page
A. B. Dellinger and N. L. Leech
Toward a Unified Validation Framework in Mixed Methods Research
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, October 1, 2007; 1(4): 309 - 332.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Qualitative ResearchHome page
R. Hurdley
Focal points: framing material culture and visual data
Qualitative Research, August 1, 2007; 7(3): 355 - 374.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Qualitative ResearchHome page
S. Hillyard
'As relevant as banning polo in Greenland': the absence of ethnographic insight into country sports in the UK
Qualitative Research, February 1, 2007; 7(1): 83 - 101.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Research in NursingHome page
D. Freshwater
Integrating mixed-methods research into healthcare
Journal of Research in Nursing, May 1, 2006; 11(3): 179 - 181.
[PDF]