Mixing Methods

in the Discipline of Politics

by Renske Doorenspleet

2 of 10

Quantitative methods:

NumbersLarge-NVariables centralPoint of view of researcherResearcher distantTheory testing StaticStructuredGeneralization Hard, reliable dataMacro

Qualitative methods:

WordsSmall-NCases centralPoints of view of participantsResearcher closeTheory developmentProcessUnstructuredContextual understandingRich, deep dataMicro

see also Bryman (2004: pp.286-288)

(A) Quantitative and Qualitative Methods

3 of 10

(B) Mixing Methods: Lieberman’s framework

How would you investigate the same questions by using mixed methods?

Tarrow (1995): triangulation: use of qualitative and quantitative methods to answer one and the same research question

But how? Read: Lieberman, E.S. (2005). ‘Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research’ in American Political Science Review, vol. 99, no. 13, pp. 435-452

4 of 10

Explanation framework

Two crucial steps:1. large-N quantitative analyses (LNA)2. small-N qualitative analyses (SNA)

a. model testingb. model building

(B) Mixing Methods: Lieberman’s framework

5 of 10

Some examples of studies using framework

1. Relationship economic development and democracy

2. Relationship civic culture and welfare

3. Relationship international trade and human rights

(B) Mixing Methods: Lieberman’s framework

6 of 10

(C) Mixing Methods: Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths: combination of best of both worlds

1. Better concepts and measurements; caused by more internal validity (SNA) and more external validity (LNA)

2. Better case selection; clear guidelines and criteria for case selection in SNA

3. Better contribution to theory development

7 of 10

Weaknesses

1. Not always better concepts and measurements

2. SNA is nested within LNA, so in the end LNA determines research agenda

3. Incompatibility thesis

(C) Mixing Methods: Strengths and Weaknesses