multimethod research a synthesis of styles

Technical Support
Find My Rep

Foundations of Multimethod Research Synthesizing Styles

John Brewer - Trinity College, Ireland
Albert Hunter - Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
Description
Provides a history of multimethod research as a post-positivist approach to give an accurate understanding of the emergence of this technique
Compares and contrasts the major primary research methods to help students determine which multiple methods are suitable for their own research
Addresses the post-modern critique of science and reviews how it has been articulated recently to examine how it is evaluated today
Includes examples of research designs from academic journals so that students can see how formal results are written

This book is designed for advanced undergraduate and graduate research methods courses across the social and behavioral sciences. It is a must-read for anyone looking to gain a better conceptual understanding of how to do social and behavioral science research more effectively.

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

This is a superb resource for anyone undertaking research in the social sciences. Going beyond simple descriptions of how to use each of the individual methods, Brewer and Hunter provide compelling arguments for systematically synthesizing different research styles at each stage of the research process. In doing so, they help us to see social science research as both an art and a science. By focusing our attention on how a multimethod approach can enhance each stage of the research, they avoid the simplistic dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative research and provide us with a much more sophisticated way of looking at the multimethod approach.

This is a book I wish I had written. Although nearly every page contains an interesting methodological insight, it’s the synthesizing nature of the multimethod perspective that I find most satisfying. Instead of a patchwork of precepts and procedures, Professors Brewer and Hunter present a coherent synthesis of the principal quantitative and qualitative research styles.

This book takes you through various methods of research for one to make an informed decision

an ideal text for undergraduate students undertaking research in social sciences and business management. Clearly explaining the concept of multi method resreach

Includes examples of research designs from academic journals, so that students can see how formal results are written

Sample Materials & Chapters

Chapter 1. The Multimethod Approach and Its Promise

Chapter 3. Formulating Research Problems

Chapter 5. Finding the Objects to Study

For instructors

Select a purchasing option.

This title is also available on SAGE Research Methods , the ultimate digital methods library. If your library doesn’t have access, ask your librarian to start a trial .

Help & FAQ

Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles

Research output : Book/Report › Book

T1 - Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles

AU - Hunter, Albert

AU - Brewer, John

BT - Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles

PB - Sage Publications

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

multimethod research a synthesis of styles

This Just In
Grateful Dead
Old Time Radio
78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
Audio Books & Poetry
Computers, Technology and Science
Music, Arts & Culture
News & Public Affairs
Spirituality & Religion
Radio News Archive

Flickr Commons
Occupy Wall Street Flickr
NASA Images
Solar System Collection
Ames Research Center

All Software
Old School Emulation
MS-DOS Games
Historical Software
Classic PC Games
Software Library
Kodi Archive and Support File
Vintage Software
CD-ROM Software
CD-ROM Software Library
Software Sites
Tucows Software Library
Shareware CD-ROMs
Software Capsules Compilation
CD-ROM Images
ZX Spectrum
DOOM Level CD

Smithsonian Libraries
FEDLINK (US)
Lincoln Collection
American Libraries
Canadian Libraries
Universal Library
Project Gutenberg
Children's Library
Biodiversity Heritage Library
Books by Language
Additional Collections

Prelinger Archives
Democracy Now!
Occupy Wall Street
TV NSA Clip Library
Animation & Cartoons
Arts & Music
Computers & Technology
Cultural & Academic Films
Ephemeral Films
Sports Videos
Videogame Videos
Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

Wayback Machine (iOS)
Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

Explore the Collections
Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

Multimethod research : a synthesis of styles

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

Graphic Violence
Explicit Sexual Content
Hate Speech
Misinformation/Disinformation
Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

39 Previews

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

No suitable files to display here.

EPUB and PDF access not available for this item.

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by station45.cebu on December 26, 2019

11 Designing Multimethod Research

Albert Hunter is currently professor of sociology at Northwestern University and Director of the Urban Studies Program where he is affiliated with the Institute for Policy Research and the Transportation Center. His degrees are from Cornell (BA) and the University of Chicago (MA,PhD). He has previously taught at the University of Chicago, Wesleyan University, the University of Rochester and had visiting appointments at The London School of Economics, Yale University, the University of Edinburgh, and the University of Paris VIII-St. Denis. He is the author of numerous articles and books and most of his research is multimethod including two major multi-institutional multi-site collective projects conducted at the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy research – The Reactions to Crime Project, and the Changing Relations Project on Ethnic Diversity. His books include Symbolic Communities: The Persistence and Change of Chicago’s Local Communities (1974) two books on “multimethod research” (with John Brewer), Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles (1989) and Foundations of Multimethod Research (2006); a book on The Rhetoric of Social Research: Understood and Believed (1990), and most recently a book on “civil society” titled Pragmatic Liberalism: Constructing a Civil Society (with Carl Milofsky, 2007). He continues research on the “symbolic ecology” of cities including a comparative study of neighborhood response to gangs, and a comparative study of elite and poor suburbs of Chicago. He is also engaged in a ongoing comparative study of civil society in the US and the UK. He has served as Editor of Urban Affairs Review, Chair of the Community Section of the ASA, and Chair of the Plan Commission of the City of Evanston.

John D. Brewer is Professor of Sociology Emeritus at Trinity College in Hartford Connecticut. Previously he taught at the University of California, Los Angeles, York University in Toronto, Canada, and Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut and has held a visiting appointment at the University of Connecticut School of Law. He received his BA,. MA, and Ph.D degrees from the University of Chicago, where he was a Woodrow Wilson Fellow. He has studied formal organizations, written about problems in organization research and theory, and served in the elected position of Secretary to the American Sociological Association’s Section on Organizations and Occupations. He is co-author (with Albert Hunter, SAGE, 1989) Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles, and co-author (with Albert Hunter, SAGE, 2006) Foundations of Multmethod Research: Synthesizing Styles.

Published: 19 January 2016
Cite Icon Cite
Permissions Icon Permissions

The chapter begins with the “spirit of multimethod research,” which refers to an openness to serendipity and humble recognition that all methods have strengths and weaknesses and that by combining different methods one has compensating strengths leading to more credible results in the face of a series of skeptics’ questions. “Multimethods” involves combining any different methods while” mixed methods” more specifically focuses on combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Typologies of multimethod research from the literature based on characteristics and sequencing of methods themselves are briefly explored. The focus of the chapter is on the design of multimethod research in different subfields elucidating early historical exemplars and current developments. The selective and nonexhaustive subfields include words and deeds, rational actor, contextual effects, biomedical-social, evaluation, historical/comparative, and disaster research. Much of the chapter uses a positivist framework but concludes with a discussion of how multimethods are relevant for postpositive rhetorical and narrative frames.

Preamble: The Spirit of Multimethod Research

In addressing the question of research design we do not provide a “cookbook” or textbook normative approach to design where all is codified in a sequence of steps such that by doing A then B and combining with C one will produce D, an optimal outcome of research findings. We would rather stress the “art” of multimethod research—recognizing that good science exists to the degree it addresses a limited but profound set of questions. We have referred to these as the skeptics’ questions: an overarching concern with content, not a fetishsized concern with form—what some have labelled scientism .

We must not have an overreified notion of what science is but rather a more realistic empirical understanding of how science is actually done. As repeated studies in the sociology of science, or science studies suggest, it is better to pay attention to what practitioners say they really did, not what the methods textbooks say one should do ( Denzin, 1970 ). As Paul Lazarsfeld (1945) , an early practitioner of multimethod as well as survey research, stressed, “A good methodological investigation is not concerned with what a science should be: it tries to clarify what a science is and how it obtains its results” (p. vii; see also Jahoda, Lazarsfeld, & Zeisel, 1933/1971 ).

If one is to learn by studying then perhaps it is best to study exemplars, reports on research itself, not rules. This same spirit we suggest may carry over into the teaching and mentoring of science education. In the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, zoology) one does not have courses in methods per se; rather one acquires methods through the older apprentice model of working in labs, and as a research assistant one learns methods by doing research, not reading about how one should do research. This is a distinction we will see shortly is akin to distinguishing between “saying versus doing” or “words versus deeds.” Methods are what one does—not to say there are no limits and boundaries, but these are few and easily communicated as ideals—reliability and reproducibility, openness, no fabrication or fraud, and so on. Beyond that, researchers should show their data, explain how they obtained their data, how they analyzed their data, and consider alternative interpretations, summarizations, and generalizations as well as limitations and threats to validity. The objective is to build an argument that is consistent (logical), corresponding (to the data), and convincing (believable).

The Skeptics’ Questions

Research methods, in short, must address a few very basic questions true of all scientific investigations, and these normative ideals ask that research be systematic, open, reproducible, reliable, valid, and believable after scrutiny with a healthy skepticism.

Elsewhere we have enumerated some of these basic skeptics’ questions as follows:

Absolute theoretical adequacy —to what degree does a theory explain the full set of empirical findings?

Relative theoretical adequacy —how well does a theory explain data compared to other possible theories?

Questions of methodological bias —how might the data to be explained be influenced by the particular method(s) used to obtain the data?

Questions of measurement and conceptualization—how well have the concepts of a theory been measured?

Questions of causal inference —how well have research methods addressed the cause-and-effect relationships of a theory’s hypotheses

Questions of generalizability —how generalizable are the findings of research given the methods used?

Questions of realism versus simplification—how much realism versus simplification do the research’s methods provide? ( Brewer & Hunter, 1989 , 2006 )

All research, whatever the method, should address these questions, and different methods may address one or another of the questions better than others. The multimethods we suggest may be particularly helpful in addressing more of them, thereby reducing the skepticism about the research results or, conversely, increasing their credibility.

The overarching purpose of our conceiving and writing Multimethod Research ( Brewer & Hunter, 1989 ) over some three decades ago was to overcome the continuing and at times acrimonious debates between practitioners of different techniques of research, especially but not exclusively between quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social sciences. It was a disciplinary concern as much as a narrow methodological one—with an overall objective of reasserting the centrality of the old Baconian generic goal of an eclectic but rigorous method of science itself.

The earlier debates were useful for self-reflection and continuing refinement of different techniques highlighting the limitations noted by critics as well as the strengths asserted by proponents often in hyperbolic rhetoric on both sides. Our goal was to discipline but not stifle the debates and to bring about a tolerance and mutual understanding of a unified endeavor—advancing the singular overarching method of science itself.

What Do We Mean By “Design”?

Design means (for us) a number of different things. Design may, on the one hand, be the outcome of prescriptive planning as in research proposals where specification and selection of such elements as units of investigation, universes, sampling frames, sampling techniques, measurement, data transformation, and modes of analysis are thoughtfully defined in detail. On the other hand design may be discerned in post hoc pattern recognition of what has been an unfolding, evolutionary, pragmatic adaptation in the research process. In short, design can consciously occur before starting the research, or the process can occur as the research unfolds in an organic, opportunistic, and serendipitous fashion. We try to encompass both of these meanings—the enacted and the emergent—in our discussion of design. We suggest that most research progresses as a combination of some preplanning coupled with judicious emergent decision-making as the research is carried out. We would encourage a spirit of a competently trained pragmatic openness to serendipity; in short, the idea of “design” in designing multimethod research is more of a Darwinian notion of evolution and adaptation rather than an overreliance on an authoritative “Intelligent Designer.”

The evolution of multimethod designs, as with all methods, can occur at two levels—at the micro level with the opportunistic unfolding and combining of specific techniques of data collection and analysis present in a single research project, and at the macro level of a discipline as a whole as Mario Small (2011) demonstrated in his comprehensive review of multimethod research in sociology as he traced the unfolding natural history of specific combinations of different types of methods over recent decades. The multimethod spirit is one that is open to new, innovative, and at times unanticipated techniques.

Prepared Contingency

One way individuals learn different methods is through the study of prior exemplars and also through an apprenticeship in mentoring relationships during the actual conduct of research itself. An exposure to, understanding of, and capacity to use different methods is an ongoing learning experience throughout one’s career, a learning process greatly aided by an openness to a multimethod perspective. Some individuals may develop varying degrees of mastery of a variety of techniques, say for data collection or data analysis, while others may become highly specialized in this or that singular technique. The former person may craft a multimethod piece of research on his or her own, while the latter may still participate in multimethod research through a division of labor within a collective research project. Such was the case for example with the Reactions to Crime Project carried out by Northwestern University’s Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research in the 1970s and 1980s ( Hunter & Maxfield, 1980 ). But, to work, the collective multimethod research project must have a collective spirit that recognizes the strengths and limitations of the different methods, a spirit that does not just tolerate but emphasizes and appreciates the need for rigor and quality in the application of different methods in the overall scientific enterprise. In sum, multimethod research does not disparage monomethod research and in fact encourages more reflexive and refined sophistication in the mastering of each method with the goal of enacting the highest quality competent research. At the same time, the multimethod spirit encourages a “design for serendipity” recognizing that opportunistic and creative insights come to the well-prepared and reflective mind.

Methods Are What Researchers Do

Case studies in the ethnography of science have shown repeatedly that actual research is different than any ideal, and, we suggest, this is true of multimethod research as well. The oft told story of W. I. Thomas (1923) discovering a packet of letters thrown out in an alley and seeing them as a potential data source for studying Polish peasants who had immigrated to America is perhaps apocryphal but underscores the need for openness to diverse data and methods. We are not interested in prescription or preaching with respect to multimethod research. It is an approach we highly recommend when and where appropriate. Monomethod research is at times under certain conditions and contexts the way to go. We definitely prefer well-executed monomethod research to less competent multimethod research. The use of multimethods alone does not exonerate nor should it be a cloak for incompetence.

Multimethod Research Design

Multimethod research may be broadly defined as the practice of employing two or more different methods or styles of research within the same study or research program rather than confining the research to the use of a single method ( Brewer & Hunter, 1989 , 2006 ). Unlike mixed method research, it is not restricted to combining qualitative and quantitative methods but rather is open to the full variety of possible methodological combinations.

As there are numerous methods available to social researchers, and a variety of ways in which these methods can be combined, the topic of multimethod research design involves foremost asking (a) which methods are combined with which other methods and (b) how are the different methods deployed and implemented in relation to one another in the research process.

Typologies of Mixing

Prior commentators on multimethod research have produced a number of typologies reflecting the “what” and “how” of combining or mixing different distinct methods. We will briefly explore a few of these as developed by others. We note that most commonly in the literature “mixed methods” is used to refer to mixing quantitative and a qualitative method, while “multimethod” more broadly refers to mixing of two or more methods—regardless of whether they are qualitative or quantitative. In short, mixed method is a subset of multimethod.

One of the more formal and systematic typologies is that by Janice Morse (2003) who began with the basic qualitative quantitative distinction that she equated with a deductive and inductive drive, respectively. She then paired each with either a second quantitative or qualitative method and then subdivided each of those four cases in turn into a simultaneous or sequential timing of the deployment of the methods. The result was an eight-fold typology that she then analyzed in more depth as to their contribution to theory.

Johnson and Turner (2003) derived a typology based on the principal method of data collection by first distinguishing among the methods of questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, tests, observation, and secondary data. They then considered that each of these methods may in and of itself use mixed data collection strategies that could include two quantitative, two qualitative, or one qualitative and one quantitative. The first two “mixes” would be multimethod, while the third would be defined as an example of “mixed methods.” Finally, they suggested the six different methods themselves may be combined to create a “continuum” of a variety of methods and varied qualitative/quantitative combinations.

We will look at two other typologies that are more inductive in their derivation by Jerry Jacobs (2005) and Mario Small (2011) , respectively. Let us begin by examining research published recently by Jerry Jacobs in the American Sociological Review , the official journal of the American Sociological Association. This seems a promising way to lay out the basic dimensions of multimethod and mixed methods research design as now practiced in the discipline with which we are most familiar. Jacobs has helpfully published a brief survey of the papers published between 2003 and 2005, a period when he was editor of the American Sociological Review . He reported that a quarter of the papers he accepted for publication (17 out of 65) involved multiple method research, by which he means studies that “draw on data from more than one source and present more than one type of analysis” ( Jacobs, 2005 ).

Jacobs (2005) found several different combinations of methods in this group of studies. He noted that these multiple method studies “often but not always combined quantitative and qualitative data.” First, statistical surveys were combined with qualitative interviews. The interviews might either precede the survey to refine its questions or be conducted later to increase understanding and deepen interpretation of the survey data. Second, there were multiple quantitative approaches: for example, a field experiment followed later by a survey of the same subjects to test and compare with the experimental results; analysis of survey data from 30 countries to bolster a hypothesis derived from aggregate data from those countries. Finally, historical analyses employed qualitative and quantitative analyses of historical documents and archival data, and quantitative analysis of survey data were available as well as qualitative interview data from still-living participants. These different sorts of data were sometimes used concurrently to provide a more complete picture and sometimes in sequence to form and test hypotheses.

To put Jacobs’s (2005) report in perspective we have examined two other samples of the American Sociological Review , one roughly 20 years earlier (1984 and 1985) and the second from 2011 to the present. A striking contrast in these different time periods is that while Jacobs identified 17 multiple method studies in the 2003–2005 period, there were 10 such studies during 1984 and 1985, and 32 during 2011 and 2012. Clearly there is a linear trend of increasing publication of multimethod studies within sociology.

Mario Small (2011) in an Annual Review of Sociology article similarly developed an inductive typology based on an extensive review of the sociological literature. He too first noted the burgeoning number of studies that have come to use multiple methods in recent decades. He also noted that the usual combined qualitative/quantitative meaning of the category is unnecessarily restrictive as different qualitative methods and different quantitative methods may also be combined, and that furthermore the distinction of what constitutes quantitative and qualitative is itself a “fuzzy” distinction.

He began his typology by distinguishing between data collection and data analysis, recognizing, for example, that one could have a qualitative analysis of quantitative data and conversely a quantitative analysis of qualitative data. He then proceeded to elucidate examples of these varying types. He also considered the epistemology of multimethod research, which he noted is heavily rooted in pragmatism, and the primary motivations of researchers, which are either confirmation or complementarity. He further explored questions of sequencing and nesting in data collection and cross-over and integration in data analysis. Finally he noted the enduring questions of commensurability and specialization among methods. As he concluded:

the challenges of mixed methods research reflect those of sociology writ large, a discipline whose core methodological pluralism has produced, over its history, periods of conflict and cooperation, but few of lasting resolution. . . . Mixed method projects provide both the challenge and the opportunity for researchers to resolve some of the ambiguities that result from pluralism. ( Small, 2011 , p. 79)

An Inductive Typology of Fruitful Substantive Arenas for Multimethod Social Science Research

The previous discussion of multimethod research highlights typologies of different combinations of methods that are derived from characteristics of the methods themselves—such as the basic quantitative qualitative distinction, or relative significance as to which method has primacy in the research versus which plays a supportive role, or the mere sequencing and timing as to which comes first and which follows. These typologies are valuable for giving some coherence and organization to the rapidly expanding accumulation of multimethod studies. One must be careful, however, to not overreify these typologies and potentially advance them as normatively prescriptive strategies for conducting multimethod research. All research, multimethod included, is, we contend, a combination of science and art, design and serendipity, thoughtful planning and pragmatic opportunism.

We use here a more inductive approach following the lead of Jacobs (2005) and Small (2011) and develop a typology of multimethod research that begins not from first principles about methods but from different generalized types of substantive questions that have already been explored in the literature using multimethod research. The types of substantive questions are varied, and some that we identify, like that exploring the differences between words and deeds, have a long history in the literature, while others, such as combing biomedical markers and interview data, are relatively recent in origin. We present this typology as neither exhaustive nor necessarily mutually exclusive and do so in the hopes of presenting categories that will be useful in organizing and bringing some order to the field. But, in contrast to most multimethod typologies, we offer these less as prescriptive normative guides and more as sensitizing exemplars. As one prepares to conduct a piece of research and thinks about how to possibly incorporate a multimethod style, one can ask substantively, not just methodologically: What kind of research question is this? In such a case, one is being more true to the old adage that research questions should be driven by theoretical substance not methodological proclivities. Substance should dictate methods, not the reverse. This is an admonition shared widely across science in general, not just the social sciences.

For example, a recent article in Science ( Joppa et al., 2013 ) reporting a survey study of 400 biologists using canned modeling programs in the substantive area of “species distribution modeling” quotes one scientist: “The research question and the data should be king, with an approach being selected on the basis that it is appropriate to both the research question and the data rather than the research question and the data being selected to fit the approach which a person knows how to use.” While another biologist echoed a multimethod thesis: “We don’t need fancier software, we need people who understand ecology and the importance of multiple types of data. . . The key is the ability to think in ecological terms”(p. 815).

Substantive Arenas

The following are a few of these types of substantive arenas often using multimethod research that we have begun to explore and that we briefly elaborate in the following discussion:

Words and Deeds

Rational action, contextual effects, biomedical social research, evaluation research.

Historical/Comparative

Disaster Research

Words are what people say and are windows into what they think, while deeds are what people do—their behavior. We are most interested in the latter, because that is what has direct consequences for us and that is what we are most interested in anticipating so we may adapt our own behavior accordingly.

We acknowledge that words may be thought of as a form of behavior, so in this light we are comparing two different forms of behavior with one another. The words, which give the participants’ “meanings,” are closer to thoughts and ideas, or, using a more social psychological vocabulary, they are “attitudes” and “opinions” (things in people’s heads) and so “words and deeds” are linked to the “attitude behavior” distinction. Attitudes are seen as “predispositions” that may or may not match “dispositions” or behavior itself.

In comparing words and deeds, the approach is most often to compare prior words to subsequent deeds and to ascertain the degree of agreement or divergence between the two. The classic case of “cognitive dissonance” is but one type of divergence between word and deed.

Words as data can be gathered in a variety ways that often require direct interaction: they are “voiced” and may take the form of responses to questions on a survey instrument, recorded phone conversations, or written documents.

By contrast, deeds as data ideally require direct observation of behavior and so often require different methods than those used to gather “words.” Hence the multimethod approach is routinely found in such studies where two different data sets are compared.

Richard Lapiere’s (1934) work is generally cited as being among the earliest multimethod studies of the relationship between words and deeds or, in his words, attitudes and actions. In 1930 Lapiere conducted a field experiment consisting of 251 visits across the United States to assess the responses of hotel and restaurant proprietors to a young Chinese couple’s requests for service. Only once was the couple turned away. He followed up this action research component six months later with an attitude component, a mail survey asking the proprietors whether or not they would “accept members of the Chinese race” at their establishments. Contrary to their prior actions, very few of the proprietors expressed an accepting attitude ( Lapiere, 1934 ).

Lapiere’s work has proven to be exemplary in several ways. First, it demonstrated that individuals’ actions and attitudes could not necessarily be inferred directly from one another. Second, it demonstrated a methodology for measuring attitudes and actions separately and then empirically determining their interrelationships. Finally, the study has inspired and informed later research, particularly in the study of discrimination but also in the wider theoretical area of attitude–behavior relations (e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977 ; Ajzen, 2005). Pager and Quillian (2005) provided an overview of this more recent and more broadly theoretical work in the introduction to their own research, which is evocatively titled “Walking the Walk? What Employers Say Versus What They Do.” It is a sophisticated contemporary analogue of Lapiere’s study. They investigated employment discrimination based on the applicants’ race and criminal record.

The study was conducted in two stages. In the first “employers’ responses to job applicants were measured in real employment settings using an experimental audit methodology. . . . The preferences of employers were measured based on the number of call-backs to each of the applicants” ( Pager & Quillian, 2005 , p. 362). “The findings of the audit showed large and significant effects of both race and criminal record on employment opportunities” (p. 362). The second stage of the study was a telephone survey carried out several months later in which employers were asked to express their hiring preferences for hiring offenders. They found that employers who in the survey expressed “a greater likelihood of hiring ex-offenders were no more likely to do so in practice, and that large differences in racial hiring preferences were found in the experiment, but not in the survey” (p. 362).

Pager and Quillian (2005) concluded that “these comparisons suggest that employer surveys—even those using an experimental design to control for social desirability bias—may be insufficient for drawing conclusions about the actual level of hiring against stigmatized groups” (p. 355).

A central, and some say defining, assumption in classical economic theory is that individuals act rationally in pursing their own self-interest. From an economic perspective, words may be seen as a verbal expression of preferences, as illustrated in surveys of marketing research such as when people are asked which brand of detergent they prefer. The ultimate behavior or “deed” one is interested in, however, is: “Which detergent do they buy?” “What do they spend their money on?” According to Paul Samuelson (1948) , who developed the theory of revealed preferences, preferences are revealed in the behavior of how money is spent. Economists often eschew any other indicator of preferences other than that. In short, revealed preference is

an economic theory of consumption behavior which asserts that the best way to measure consumer preferences is to observe their purchasing behavior. Revealed preference theory works on the assumption that consumers have considered a set of alternatives before making a purchasing decision. Thus, given that a consumer chooses one option out of the set, this option must be the preferred option. ( Investopedia, 2014 )

One of the critics of the revealed preference theory states that “Instead of replacing ‘metaphysical’ terms such as ‘desire’ and ‘purpose’ ” they “used it to legitimize them by giving them operational definitions” ( Wade, 2004 , p. 958). Thus in psychology, as in economics, the initial, quite radical operationalist ideas eventually came to serve as little more than a “reassurance fetish” for mainstream methodological practice.

A common critique of this rational economic approach is that it is often based on sophisticated modeling relying on monomethod data points of either an experimental type, as in “prisoners’ dilemma” research, or monetized aggregated market data. In a circular self-referential manner, monetary expenditure is the “revealed preference” of economic researchers about how best to measure rationality itself. When the same propositions are explored with multimethods, different types of data, and other measures, researchers are often able to more realistically address the simplifying assumptions of such models and provide more robust analyses. For example, the seminal work of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (1974 , 2011) speaks to a variety of different methods that suggest that economic decision-making may be other than rational. Their research begins from a psychological experimental approach but is elaborated to include in-depth interviews, aggregate market data, and historical examples. Their results suggest that individuals operate in their decision-making by the use of heuristics or rules of thumb that are often less than optimally rational in economic terms or payoffs.

Mark Granovetter’s (1985) work on the socially embedded nature of economic transactions again relied on different data and methods that led to a reconsideration of the “rational individual” assumptions of traditional economics. The study of social networks required the addition of different methods and types of data beyond that provided by either aggregated economic or individualistic experimental methods. Studying the impact of people’s embeddedness in social contexts and social networks has become both a conceptual and a methodological addition to prior research on individualized and aggregated data methods and has been used to study everything from obesity to getting a job or a loan from a bank ( Granovetter, 1985 ; Uzzi, 1999 ; Cohen-Cole & Fletcher, 2008 ).

All social behavior occurs in a specific context or situation, and observed patterns of behavior may be generalized from one context to another, leading to more generalized understanding, or may be seen to be limited to specific contexts. The idea of seeing individuals’ behaviors as related to their context is exemplified by W. I. Thomas’s (1923) older notion of “the definition of the situation” and in more current discussions of structural effects and in empirical analyses employing hierarchical linear modeling. In short, individuals’ behaviors may not be simply a product of their individual attributes and attitudes but may be “influenced” by the fact that they are embedded in socially specific time and space contexts such as networks of friends and kin, institutions of school, church, and work, or small and large communities from neighborhoods to nations. A current example of such a research area is the discussion of “neighborhood effects” on such specific outcomes as academic achievement, mental and physical health, delinquency, and employment ( Sampson, Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley, 2002 ).

The study of such contextual effects often requires an explicit multimethod perspective in that one is simultaneously gathering data on two different types of units—individuals and the collective context in which they are embedded. Researchers attempt to assess the degree to which individual attributes versus collective characteristics (such as “race” or “class,” for example) have similar or different effects on people’s behavior. A typical structural effects question would ask: “Do poor people in rich neighborhoods behave differently than poor people in poor neighborhoods?”

Some subsets or types of contexts whose effects have been explored include the following:

Geo-political units that may vary in scale from neighborhood to cities and metro areas to states/provinces and nations. (See the voluminous research on neighborhood effects summarized in Sampson et al., 2002 ).

Organizational/institutional contexts such as schools, firms, agencies ( Scott & Meyer, 1994 ).

Small group/social network/social tie contexts such as friendship, coworkers, family, and kin.

This is what theorist Georg Simmel (1971) referred to as “social circles” and what Gary Fine (2012) documented in his numerous ethnographic studies of what he calls “tiny publics,” ranging from boys’ Little League teams to mushroom hunters to restaurant kitchens.

The idea of contextual effects is that one is collecting data at different scales, levels, or units of analysis and these different types of data require different methods of data collection. For example, at the collective level, there is census or economic data on geopolitical units or archival data on organizations. These collective levels of data are then coupled with individual-level data obtained through surveys, interviews, observation, or records.

Examples of structural effects are seen in the early work of reference group researchers such as Robert Merton, Samuel Stouffer, and Herbert Hyman among others ( Merton & Lazersfeld, 1950 ). The classic case is from Stouffer et al.’s (1949) , The American Soldier , where they discovered that satisfaction with the promotion system in different branches of the military depended on the varying rates of promotion between the branches (Air Force vs, Marines). The counterintuitive outcome was that higher rates of promotion produced less satisfaction with the system (Air Force) with lower rates producing greater satisfaction (Marines). James A. Davis, Spaeth, and Huson (1961) later elaborated these into systematic comparisons of individual- and collective-level variables producing a “typology of effects:” (a) Additive effects in which both individual-level and collective-level variables operate to combine their effects; (b) interaction effects in which the effect of either the individual-level or the collective-level variable is different depending on the value of the other; and (c) spurious effects in which the effect of either the individual-level or the collective-level variable disappears once one has “controlled” for the other level. More recent techniques of hierarchical linear modeling and their variants similarly attempt to disentangle these multimethod data to uncover contextual effects ( Raudenbush & Bryk, 2001 ).

There is an increasing interdisciplinary perspective on healthcare-related issues that has led to an explosion of multimethod research using combined methods of collecting biomedical data, social, and psychological data of individuals. From blood samples to mouth swabs to more detailed use of medical charts and the numerous “test results” they may contain, such data can be coupled to interview, survey, or field observational data on individuals. Such research is often motivated to finding causes or the etiology of disease or “cures” that may mitigate the consequences. Beyond causal analyses and questions of social causes of “illness,” or the reverse causation of medical conditions affecting social and psychological outcomes, lies the measurement and conceptual question of validity of medical conditions and symptoms. Such assessments may use multimethods research to actually identify and diagnose or define a syndrome or medical condition, for example posttraumatic stress disorder.

Such research has become especially significant with increasing use of genetic markers and some researchers attempts, perhaps too often naively, to link specific genes to specific behaviors—thereby short-circuiting what are likely much more complex processes at work. One is reminded of the early attempts of Cesare Lombroso to see a causal link between skull sizes and shapes and William Sheldon’s “biological body types” of ectomorphs, mesomorphs, and endomorphs and predilections to engage in criminal/delinquent behavior.

The multimethod perspective of this research extends beyond different types of data and data collection to include various analytic frameworks and strategies. Often relying on very large data sets of tens of thousands of cases, the analytic strategies point to “statistically significant” correlations between genetic markers and health or behavioral outcomes, even when the amount of variance explained is miniscule by comparison to the vast amount of unexplained variance still left to be explained by nongenetic factors. Such results are too readily overly interpreted from a “genetic determinist” argument by some, even when the authors of the research caution against such interpretations.

What a multimethod perspective brings to such questions is a need for other types of data and analyses that would fill in the black box of mechanisms and multifaceted chains of contingent causation that might link the genetic marker to some specific outcome. The perennial question of correlation and causation becomes entangled in the nature versus nurture debate. Jeremy Freese has perhaps been one of the leading sociological spokespersons calling for more cautionary conclusions based on multimethod strategies, especially when they are advanced in consideration of policy recommendations and programs. A recent research article in Science reporting a link between specific genetic markers and “educational outcomes” cautioned “the main lesson of the research, experts say, should be that attributing cultural and socioeconomic traits to genes is a dicey enterprise. “ ‘If there is a policy implication, it’s that there’s even more reason to be skeptical of genetic determinism’, says Jeremy Freese of Northwestern University in Evanston Illinois” ( Saey, 2013 ).

How does multimethod research help address genetic/social issues? Research aimed at relating genetics and social behavior is, of course, inherently multimethod in the broadest sense of the term because it employs methods derived from biology to study the genetic components and social science methods for the social components. Moreover, there are multiple biological research techniques and designs (e.g., blood vs. saliva DNA tests; twin, sibling, adoption, and molecular genetic studies). However, as sociological research interest has grown in the past two decades, the area has also become more multimethod in the general sense of employing varieties of social science methods in conjunction with one another and also as well with varieties of genetic data.

Survey research is the primary data collecting method currently employed in many social genetic studies. It allows for large sample studies that may be put to wide use. For example, the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health was started through the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill by Bearman, Udry, and Harris

to capture as much information as possible about the social circumstance, friendship networks and family conditions of 21,000 teenagers in 132 schools, from grades 7 through 12. The survey included a disproportionate number of twins, fraternal and identical, full and half siblings, and adopted children. . . Follow-up interviews were conducted a year later. Then, for the third wave. . . (in 2002), 2500 siblings were asked for DNA samples (via cheek swabs). ( Shea, 2009 , p. B6)

A fourth wave collected DNA with saliva samples for all respondents.

Data from surveys such as this have been employed to investigate the possible main and interaction effects of genetic characteristics on social behavior and are often supplemented by additional methods to improve upon the surveys. Guo, Elder, Cai, and Hamilton (2009) , for example, tested the hypothesis that “the genetic contribution to adolescent drinking depends on the drinking behavior of their friends” (p. 355) with data from a sample of clusters of siblings and their friends from the larger National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. They reinterviewed respondents at home, beyond the survey, to construct the clusters of friends. A special problem in determining friends’ drinking behavior is that there may be a projection effect when respondents themselves are asked to report their friends’ behavior. To avoid this possible bias, the researchers identified and then directly interviewed the respondents’ friends.

In another study, Guo et al. (2009) addressed the issue of selection bias in studying the influence of friends on behavior in their study of peer impacts on attitudes and drinking behavior. The study was a survey of a sample of roommates in a large university. The issue was that adolescents in particular tend to choose as friends people similar to themselves ( Guo et al., 2009 ). To address this issue, the researchers introduced an experimental component to their study by separately studying students who had been randomly assigned to roommates by the university housing office, a procedure that in their words “avoids the confounding effects of residential choice” (p. 4). The authors report that “This is the first time that gene-environmental interactions have been investigated using randomly assigned environmental influences” (p. 6). They conclude that the “genetic contribution” to adolescent drinking depends on the drinking behavior of their friends. That is, friend behavior moderates the genetic contribution to alcohol use.

Multimethod research has found a ready application in the burgeoning area of evaluation research. Evaluation research emerged explicitly from a policy-oriented set of questions about the effectiveness of programs designed to deal with specific social problems ( Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004 ). The call for evaluation of such programs has been heightened under the current antitax political context of doing away with programs that cannot demonstrate their effectiveness and more stringently their efficiency in a cost/benefit calculus. Evaluation research is therefore explicitly geared to providing data and analysis that can inform decision-making about supporting or negating specific programs. As a rubric in rational decision-making quantification is seen to be particularly valued as able to provide objective, universalistic, summary, comparative criteria by which to judge such programs. Coupled with the “natural” quantification provided by a “money” calculus, costs and benefits can be rendered commensurable and evaluated accordingly ( Espeland & Stevens, 1998 ).

An additional more refined consideration beyond assessing efficacy and efficiency is that of equity. Here the question becomes: “Who bears the cost, and who reaps the benefit?” The answer to this question may require different kinds of data and still different methods of research to distinguish how the costs and benefits are differentially distributed.

This logic of evaluation research has had a number of consequences. One is to focus on outcomes, more explicitly outcomes that are quantifiable, and even more explicitly quantifiable outcomes that can be given a dollar value. Second, the most valued research design is the true experiment with pre- and posttest measurement of outcomes (or “dependent” variables) coupled with random assignment to control and experimental groups that “do” or “do not” get the treatment of the program (the independent variable). These “ideal” research designs are often difficult to implement for any number of cost, time, practical, and ethical reasons, and this has led to a variety of quasi-experimental designs that relax one or another of the criteria ( Campbell & Stanley, 1963 , Cook & Campbell, 1979 ; Cook, 2002 ; Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002 ). The actual implementation and process of carrying out the program are often left relatively unexplored in such designs. This is the point at which more qualitative and ethnographic methods are brought to bear in a fuller understanding of the evaluation of programs ( Cook, Shadish, & Wong, 2008 ). Such qualitative research (e.g., in-depth interviews and field observation) may provide an understanding of the “causal process,” the detailed concatenated sequential “mechanisms” by which certain outcomes were obtained. Furthermore, such qualitative research may heighten the possibility of serendipitous discovery of unanticipated outcomes not previously considered, especially given a specific focus on monetized quantitative measurable outcomes.

As a result of the these considerations, evaluation research has increasingly come to incorporate a multimethod perspective—combining a variety of methods that more robustly evaluate programs in terms of process and outcomes and varieties of methods both within and between qualitative and quantitative methods. The “approximations” to what some see as the ideal of randomized experimental designs in “quasi-experiments come with appropriate caveats as to their limitations ( Cook & Campbell, 1979 ), and as Cook et al. (2008) later note, the use of different methods in combination have utility for answering a variety of different questions in evaluation research.

A number of major experimental social policy programs have been evaluated using multimethod research. For example researchers at the Seattle Income Maintenance Experiment and the Denver Income Maintenance Experiment randomly assigned poor people to various regimes and levels of welfare expenditure and assessed through multiple methods, such as surveys, interviews, diaries, and various specific outcomes in the life and welfare of recipients ( US Department of Health and Human Services, 1983 ). More recently, Move to Opportunity Programs have been evaluated with a variety of methods to assess the effects of moving poor families out of concentrated inner-city public housing to better neighborhoods and assessing various outcomes such as health, employment and educational performance of children ( Briggs, Popkin, & Goering, 2010 ).

Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989) developed a systematic rationale and prescription for the use of multimethods in evaluation research for five distinct purposes: (a) triangulation for convergence and corroboration, (b) complementarity for elaboration and enhancement, (c) development for helping to inform one method by another, (d) initiation for discovering paradox and contradiction, and (e) expansion for extending breadth and range. These were assessed empirically by looking at 53 evaluation studies and resulted in recommendations for ideal mixing of particular combinations of qualitative and quantitative methods. The combinations took into account their similarity and difference in phenomena studied, paradigm used, primacy of one over the other, integration or independence, and timing. One of the key distinctions noted was between product (outcome)-oriented evaluation and process-oriented evaluation and the finding that those that evaluated both product and process constituted the majority of mixed method studies.

Comparative Historical Causation, Trends, and Character Types

Our initial formulation of the multimethod perspective in multimethod research ( Brewer & Hunter, 1989 ) clearly called for a broad conception of multimethods beyond the narrow question of measurement as in Campbell and Fiske’s (1959) landmark article on triangulation. Multimethods we suggested should apply to all stages of the research to include for, example, multiple theoretical perspectives, and also different analytical strategies.

Historical causation

The question of varying analytical strategies has emerged in a number of arenas of social science but perhaps no more clearly than in the field of comparative/historical analysis. This becomes especially apparent in addressing the question of causation and its complexities ( Abbott, 1990 ). Should one pursue a variable-based statistical linear approach of a large numbers of cases isolating the impact of causal variables on selected outcomes, or should one pursue a small- N comparative analysis based on detailed exposition of selected cases using a logic of similarity/difference and presence/absence and being sensitive to sequence and timing in trying to isolate necessary and sufficient causes ( Skocpol & Somers, 1980 ; Skocpol, 1984 )? This is where Andrew Abbott’s (1997) reflections on the early Chicago School stressing “contingency and context” suggest the need for multimethod strategies. Abbott distinguished, for example, between those comparative historians who rely on variable analyses of large- N studies of nation/states statistically parsing out the effects of independent variables on selected dependent variables of interest versus those who rely on a small- N more comparative case-based analysis of specific events that have unfolded at varying points in time.

Among comparative historical analysts, Charles Ragin (1987) has developed a synthetic approach that reflects a multimethod merger of qualitative and quantitative methods. He uses the logic of Boolean algebra and “fuzzy sets” that produces a rigorous quantifiable assessment of varying combinations of qualitative characteristics that permit one to assess the contribution of necessary and sufficient causes for given outcomes. In short, he marries the rich detailed knowledge of qualitative data and small- N comparative logic with larger N data sets and develops quantitative statistical assessments of the likelihood of different combinations of contexts and conditions producing specified outcomes. Walton and Ragin (1990) have applied this technique to a study of which combinations of factors contributed to countries experiencing middle-class riots in response to International Monetary Fund policies. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (2003) posed similar concerns in their landmark compilation Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences . Focused especially on questions of causation such as necessary and sufficient causes and temporal order, sequence, and duration in societal level events—such as revolutions and depressions—they were concerned with the different logics and modes of analysis in this emergent field. Specifically addressing the concerns that a multimethod strategy is designed to address, they noted

First of all, across the relevant disciplines, methodological disagreements of varying intensities have emerged between qualitative and quantitative approaches. In comparative social science this is represented by disputes between comparative historical researchers and cross-national statistical researchers who work with large numbers of cases. (p. 16)

However, they note that the advocates of large- N and small- N methods are more recently “acknowledging that there is a place for both in the cycle of research” (p. 17). For example, methodologists report on iterative research programs in which comparative historical research supplements the initial findings of statistical studies and vice versa. They quote King, Kehone, and Verba’s book Designing Social Inquiry (1994) to the effect that “the differences between the quantitative and qualitative traditions are only stylistic and are methodologically and substantively unimportant. All good research can be understood—and is indeed best understood—to derive from the same underlying logic of inference” (p. 4). Mahoney and Rueschemeyer (2003) conclude with an invocation to the spirit of multimethod research “comparative historical researchers do their best research when they remain open to the use of diverse methodologies and analytic tools” (p. 24).

Debates over causal analysis in comparative and historical social science are often predicated on documenting broad historical trends of social change such as urbanization, industrialization, bureaucratization, and secularization, all of which are often captured in theories of modernity ( Moore, 1958 , 1966 ). Such studies—both historical analyses of changes over time and comparative analyses of different societies considered to be at different stages in an historical linear development from primitive to modern—often rely on a variety of data and different methods to demonstrate these broad trends of social change. We are not debating here the “Western bias” of theories of modernity or their assumptions of linear societal development (see Wallerstein, 1974 , 2004 on world systems theory and others for such questions and critiques), nor are we entering the debate as to whether or not such trends can be variously couched as upward positive “progress” versus downward declining trajectories, or combinations in various cyclical rise and fall theories. Rather we are highlighting here the degree to which such studies often rely on a multimethod accumulation of diverse sets of data as the basis of their assertions. We will briefly look at two such empirically based landmark exemplars, David McClelland’s (1961) research reported in The Achieving Society and Robert Putnam’s (2001) more recent research on the decline of civil society reported in Bowling Alone .

As a social psychologist, McClelland (1961) became fascinated with the psychological trait that he identified as “the need for achievement” or nAch as it became known, which is an internalized motive of people to continue to strive for ever greater accomplishments. Drawing on the work of the sociologist Max Weber (1905) and his landmark study of the rise of modern capitalism documented in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism , McClelland saw this need for achievement as a cultural variable that socialized individuals from different cultures into varying needs for achievement. In his experimental research, he documented the ways in which this need for achievement could be manipulated and heightened or depressed under varying conditions. But he extended his line of research far beyond the laboratory to include other data and other methods, such as analyses of artifacts of different cultures over time and content analysis of myths and stories from different cultures as to their emphasis on “achievement.” He correlated these with data from still other methods such as governmental statistics and showed, for example, a correlation between socialization into need for achievement as indicated by children’s stories and GDP as an outcome variable reinforcing one of Weber’s central tenants of the Spirit of Capitalism .

Robert Putnam (2001) begins his analysis of the decline of civil society in America by focusing on the questions of “trust” and “trustworthy,” which are seen to rest ultimately on the idea of keeping one’s word—meaning one’s subsequent behavior is in line with one’s prior verbal commitment. Trust is not just an attribute of individual dyadic relationships but may be generalized not only to people in general, including even strangers, but to institutions as well, as in people’s trust in government. The idea of civil society, that is, voluntary social relationships among individuals who have minimal social ties and may even be strangers to one another, is predicated on this element of a presumption of trust. To explore this realm of informal voluntary social ties, that is, civil society, which is distinct from primary ties of friends and kin and more formal ties governed by laws and the institutions of social control of the state ( Shils, 1957 ), requires a variety of different methods and data sources. This is clearly demonstrated by Putnam in his contemporary classic, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community . In this summary volume, he argues there has been a decline and transformation of the civil sphere in American life. In building his argument he presents a variety of data derived from different methods, including survey research on participation in voluntary associations, attitudes toward government, and generalized trust of others, as well as historical and archival data such as organizational memberships, voting records, and content analyses of media. As he states in his methodological appendix in Bowling Alone, “My primary strategy, as explained in Chapter 1 , has been to triangulate among as many independent sources of evidence as possible, following the model of researchers into global warming” (p. 315). Overall he finds there is a decline in people’s expressed trust of major traditional institutions in society –from government, to religion to business—which is seen to be the result of broken promises in the conduct of these institutions due to incompetence and corruption that undermines their legitimacy. It is the sheer volume and variety of data derived from different methods that makes his argument and analysis so persuasive. This is in part because he is able to provide a litany of data that support his argument and also because of the variety and types of data through which he is able to demonstrate a subtle and nuanced analysis that shows exceptions, qualifications, and limitations that increase the credibility of his overall argument. In short, he comes across as an objective researcher rather than a true believer polemicist.

Character types

C. Wright Mills (1959) in The Sociological Imagination roots the understanding of social life in the intersection of biography and history. Combining these two elements has been a continuing concern in social science research and has often involved different data and methods—a multimethod perspective—to capture and tease out this critical intersection. We have already briefly looked at macro-level multimethod approaches to history in considering causation and trends. Cultural shifts over time have social consequences and vice versa, not the least in producing different emerging types of characters as a consequence.

With respect to biography, there is an old tradition within sociology of producing life histories or characterizations of a type of person: a composite summarization of data obtained from numerous discrete individuals. These include The Unadjusted Girl ( Thomas, 1923 ), The Jack-roller ( Shaw, 1930/2013 ), The Professional Thief ( Sutherland, 1937 ), The Hobo ( Anderson, 1923 ), and others. James Bennett (1981) wrote of this approach as a typification or characterization of what theorists like Robert Merton (1968) would call statuses and roles, that is, structural positions that are distinct from the more individualistic psychology of personality. The composite character was a fictionalized distillation and amalgamation, with data selectively organized and summarized, but it was all true in the sense that all of the facts were verified and valid or, as one commentator put it, “nothing in here was made-up” (Howard Becker in personal communication at Rhetoric of Research Conference Northwestern University, May 1980). This is one type of biography that may result from an analysis of numerous discrete individual biographies. By contrast, the focus on discrete individual biographies—the archetypal literary biography such as James Boswell’s The Life of Samuel Johnson (1998) or William Manchester’s (1978) American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur, 1880–1964— are in effect case studies of a single individual while the composite biography constitutes the case itself (see Ragin and Becker’s What Is a Case? [1992]). Here, different methods and different types of data would be employed to produce the distinction between an individual personality and a social type or character.

The former would more likely involve archives and perhaps interviews of those who knew the focal person, while the latter would more likely draw on interviews and observations of numerous individuals representative of that type. An example of the latter is Martin Jankowski’s (1991) development of the summary gang character defined by defiant individualism (as opposed to a specific individual’s personality). He synthesized and distilled the characteristics of a typical gang member based on his decade-long participant observation of 29 gangs in three cities. A focus on character requires a multimethod strategy that incorporates cultural (e.g., ideas, beliefs) and structural (e.g., network) data about the milieu within which character types are formed. Context produces similarity that is distilled in similar character traits. Fitting individuals into history is a multimethod strategy of placing different types of characters into different historical trends and causal processes. The life histories are typified characters who are the outcomes of these processes.

Disaster research is one of the earliest sociological research areas to develop an explicitly multimethod approach. The impetus was the immediacy and transience of the events being studied.

On December 5, 1917, a munitions ship exploded in Halifax Harbor, inflicting severe damage on the city and injury to its inhabitants. Close to 2,000 people were killed and 9,000 more injured (in all about 22% of the city’s population). Samuel Henry Prince, who was then serving as an episcopal priest in Halifax, was both a participant and an observer of this explosion and its results. He later recorded his observations in his Columbia University doctoral dissertation, in what is generally regarded as the first sociological study of disaster ( Prince, 1920 ). Prince introduced his study with a methodological note that has resounded in the design of disaster research ever since:

The whole field. . . is a virgin subject in sociology. Knowledge will grow scientific only after the most faithful examination of many catastrophes. But it must be realized that the data of greatest value is left sometimes unrecorded and fades rapidly from the special memory. Investigation is needed immediately after the event. (p. 22)

In short, disaster studies to capture these fleeting memories and events must be based on quick response and firsthand research.

Following the disastrous experiences of World War II and the onset of the Cold War ( Form & Nosow, 1958 ), a number of quick-response disaster research programs were established at the National Opinion Research Center and elsewhere (see Barton, 1969 ). In 1963 the Disaster Research Center was established to more regularly monitor disasters with field and survey research. It has conducted over 600 such studies since its inception. Thus, in contrast to the 1917 Halifax explosion, the September 11, 2001, attack on New York City’s World Trade Center, while equally unexpected, had trained and experienced observers from the Disaster Research Center ready to respond almost immediately.

However, the routinization of disaster research readiness does not routinize the disastrous events themselves or the research into them. For example, one of the lead Disaster Research Center 9/11 researchers writes in her dissertation:

Direct observation of ongoing emergency activities was particularly valuable in this case precisely because the event itself seriously hampered record-keeping and clouded the memory of some emergency responders. With key decision makers often unable to recollect what was happening literally from one moment to the next, the ability to actually be present as decisions were made was critical for later efforts to reconstruct events. . . also facilitated rapport in later face-to-face interviews and added validity to information obtained in those conversations. To contend with the. . . research challenges. . . I draw upon the variety of data sources and employ multiple qualitative strategies—among them direct exploratory observation, primary data collection and analysis, as well as in-depth face-to-face and telephone interviews—to triangulate emergency response information. ( Kendra & Wachtendorf, 2003 , pp. 41–42)

More generally, Stallings (1997) has suggested that

The “challenge” of disaster research. . . is the lack of time between the occurrence of a disaster and the fielding of research: lack of time to develop theory and hypotheses; lack of time to develop research instruments; lack of time to decide which events are worthy of study. (p. 9)

This highly specialized area of research highlights another key factor that a multimethod perspective has proven be helpful in addressing the time element and a need for pragmatic quick response to an often unanticipated research situation and the need to address the multiple audiences and consumers of research.

One example of this pragmatic adaptation in a manmade disaster was the “experimental/survey” research of Bobo, Zubrinsky, Johnson, and Oliver (1994) in Los Angeles during the time of the Rodney King riot following the “not guilty” verdict of police officers captured on tape beating Mr. King. A survey had been launched days prior to the riot, which, among other things, had a series of items focused on race relations. After the riots the survey continued, and the researchers had a “natural experiment” or quasi-experimental design of before and after measures with the riot as the experimental variable. This piece of research beautifully represents two key aspects of the spirit of multimethod research—a pragmatic adaptive response to the serendipity of the research situation and a melded multimethod design combining survey and experimental logics.

The fact that “disaster research” often has multiple purposes for different audiences is another factor that makes multimethod research particularly attractive as a purposeful design. This was clearly the case, for example, in Kai Erikson’s (1976) research following the Buffalo Creek disaster in West Virginia reported in Everything in Its Path: Destruction of Community in the Buffalo Creek Flood . Erikson was initially approached by a law firm involved in the litigation of the case on behalf of residents whose homes and hamlets had been wiped out by the floodwaters released by a failed earthen dam built by a mining company. Erikson’s multimethod research relied predominantly on in-depth interviews with displaced residents and, perhaps most poignantly and empathetically, firsthand field observations of the everyday disrupted lives of residents of the hills and hollows of the area. Documenting the effects of the disaster for the legal audience may have been the initial impetus of the research, but other audiences included welfare services and various governmental agencies. Drawing on officially compiled statistics and archives, including the history of actions by the mining company, permitted Erikson’s multimethod research to both draw from and be of use to multiple sources and audiences. The simple profound conclusion for the sociology of disasters was to qualify the commonly stated proposition that disasters create a heightened sense of community in response to the shared fate. Erikson’s research concluded that if the disaster was sufficiently severe, as in the case of Buffalo Creek, it could in fact destroy community.

Another example of disaster research employing multimethods is Eric Klinenberg’s (2003) study of the Chicago summer heat wave of 1995, which resulted in the death of hundreds of Chicagoans, especially the elderly in certain poor minority neighborhoods. Again, relying on official statistics, in-depth interviews, and field observations Klinenberg concluded that the deaths were differentially distributed by neighborhood and that a critical factor was the variable density of networks of elderly found in two adjacent neighborhoods—dense in a Latino community that had relatively fewer deaths and relatively sparse in an adjacent Black community that had greater deaths. The relative isolation or connectedness affected whether or not others were there to check on how the elderly were faring in the heat and to offer assistance if needed. In a broadened autopsy of the disaster, Klinenberg’s research also explored the response and programs in place of various city agencies and departments, from police and fire to health and welfare, and concluded that they too bore some culpability.

One policy implication of the research has now been instituted by the mayor’s office: repeated public service announcements during subsequent heat waves for residents of the city to contact and check on the welfare of elderly kin and neighbors and for city employees such as police and fire and welfare workers to do the same. Klinenberg’s (2003) research has also been important for thinking about the quality of multimethod research and raising the question: Does the use of multimethods ipso facto produce better research results? Critiques of Klinenberg’s research by Duneier (2004 , 2006 ) and others generated some controversy and debate as to the adequacy and “thinness” of the field research he conducted. The implication is that time and effort spent on collecting other types of data might have been better spent in a greater immersion in the field providing more “thick description” rather than the more superficial observations reported. The lesson is, in short, that multimethods may be valuable but that simply having more methods and different data does not ensure greater validity if the methods themselves are inadequately employed.

Disaster research often attempts to distinguish between what is natural, as in a natural disaster, and what is the result of human agency and in the latter case to parse out “blame” and accountability This research gets readily translated into legal conceptual frameworks of culpability. Recent legal cases, for example, have held meteorologists “guilty” for having failed to predict and warn residents of impending storms or geologists for failure to warn of earthquakes ( Erikson, 1994 ; Freudenburg, Gramling, Laska, & Erikson, 2009 ).

The art of translating scientific and social science research results to multiple audiences was exemplified in the case of research on Love Canal, the toxic chemical site in Upstate New York where different publics, which included fellow scientists, evacuated former residents eager to learn if they could safely return to their homes and public officials and governmental decision-makers all eager for a simplified “yes or no” recommendation. Different data obtained through different methods, and perhaps equally significant, from different disciplines proved useful in communicating an understanding of the facts of the case and their implications for what people might decide to do ( Hunter, 1986 ).

Rhetoric, Narrative, and Postpositive Postmodern Multimethods: Turn, Turn, Turn

Science is a social process, and social science is social in both form and substance. The idea that methods of systematic research are employed to discover truth may be a central and noble teleological goal, but it is an oversimplified, reified, and idealized conception of what we actually do. We are not mere scientific automatons programmed to follow fixed procedures for probing reality, like the Mars rovers (Spirit, Opportunity, and Curiosity), but rather we are active social agents who talk to one another, read one another’s work, and debate and argue about the direction, meaning, and credibility of one another’s research and our assertions about the “truth” of what we have observed. This social constructionist perspective on science has a number of implications often defined as postmodern or postpositivist critique. Two of the more significant ones are the role of “the new rhetoric” and the “narrative” emphasis that sees science as a collection of stories. We briefly explore elements of rhetoric and narrative in turn.

The Rhetorical Turn

The social and rhetorical aspect of science is evidenced in a multimethod perspective with respect to the following:

The social goal of science is to convince others of the tentative truth of one’s assertions about questions posed. The tentativeness arises for a number of reasons, such as method limitations and historical and spatial limitations. These result in varying degrees of generalizability—from modest, limited claims of local truths to broader claims and heroic ones of universal truths. The convincing part entails the art of persuasion and being attentive to one’s audiences and the criteria by which they will judge the validity of one’s assertions.

Multimethods permit a variety of different questions to be posed about a given phenomenon of interest. For example, is the question/assertion one of descriptive fact or causal explanation (correlation vs. causation), one dealing with macro structural/cultural phenomena or the micro level of agency and intent, one focused on process and outcome, or one concerned with understanding alone or prescriptive policy implications?

Diverse others may have a variety of criteria by which they evaluate and are convinced of the truth value of one’s assertions. Multimethods allow one to address these different criteria. Different methods are varyingly adept at addressing each of the skeptic’s questions, and beyond these there may be other criteria in addition—some more general and some more specific that go to ontological assumptions: for example debates over the best mode of analysis in studying social change from “interrupted time series with switching replications” ( Cook & Campbell, 1979 ) to event history analysis ( Allison, 1984 ) to patterned sequences of nomothetic narrative ( Abbott 1995 ).

Multimethods address diverse criteria and answer a variety of skeptic’s questions, thereby becoming more convincing to more people and more types of people, as different types of texts and rhetorics are employed. These others may range from fellow academics concerned with the skeptics’ questions to policy planners concerned with cost/benefit analyses of effectiveness and efficiency to the broader public concerned with issues of equity and ethics. The variety of rhetorical arguments contained in a multimethod perspective may range from quantitative survey results to numbers to a sample of personal accounts to historical archives.

The rediscovery of rhetoric as a central component of scientific argument and social research is based on this social aspect of science. From these rhetorical perspective methods and the varying rules, procedures, techniques, and norms of science we derive tools for building an argument about the link between observations and data about the world and one’s ideas or theories. Scientific method narrowly construed is concerned about “persuading skeptics” by satisfying them that one has followed these rules in the research. According to The British Strong Programme ( Bloor, 1976/1991 ; Mulkay 1979 ). science is, from this perspective, subsumed under rhetoric as a method or “tool” of argumentation and persuasion. The “strong” assertion is that it is all rhetoric through and through. Hunter (1990) in The Rhetoric of Social Research sees social science research as a set of rhetorical relationships among the researcher, the subjects, and the audience tied together by texts or research reports.

Not only are there “conventions” of science that must be followed to be convincing, but the reports of research, from published articles to PowerPoint presentations, must be similarly stylized to persuade specific audiences. The multimethod approach, which is a “synthesis of styles” of research ( Brewer and Hunter, 1989 ), lends itself to being more persuasive (believable) not merely due to a greater number of methods but to their addressing different criteria of credibility. As poet John Donne noted about An Obscure Writer

Philo, with twelve years study hath been grieved This is to be understood as when will he be believed. ( Donne, 1986 , p. 210)

Margarete Sandelowski (2003) in Tables or Tableaux? The Challenges of Writing and Reading Mixed Methods Studies distinguished between method and methodology and also paradigms and techniques and added, “A major—and arguably the most important—criterion in evaluating the merits of a study lies in the ability of writers to persuade readers of its merits in their research reports (p. 321). Invoking Fish (1980), she directly addressed the rhetoric of multimethods by noting that qualitative and quantitative belong to different interpretive communities. She considered this an “aesthetic criteria, including the sense of rightness and comfort readers experience that is crucial to the judgment they make about the validity of a study.” She therefore explores the need for” mixed media for mixed methods for mixed audiences” (p. 335).

The issue of different genres of research reports are seen in two chapters from Hunter’s edited volume (1990)— Joseph Gusfield’s (1990) comparison of Liebow’s (1967) Tally’s Corner based on qualitative research versus Blau and Duncan’s (1978) quantitative analysis of the American Occupational Structure —and in Marjorie DeVault’s (1990) comparison of Kanter’s (1993) Men and Women of the Corporation versus Krieger’s (1983) The Mirror Dance , both dealing with women’s roles and identities bur the former with a traditional organizational analysis and the latter with a more feminist perspective. To paraphrase DeVault: same subject, different methods. Quoting Wolfer (1991), Sandelowski (2003) noted that “different aspects of reality lend themselves to different methods of inquiry” (p. 327), and, she added, “there is no uniform paradigm-method link, there is a method reality link” (p. 327).

Sandelowski (2003) further suggests the mixing may have one of two purposes “to achieve a fuller understanding of a target phenomenon and to verify one set of findings against the other or a comprehensive kaleidoscopic sense of understanding versus truth or validity ‘representation’.” She posed a great question: What is mixed? And what kind of mixing occurs? Through focusing on the qualitative quantitative distinction she recognizes the ambiguity in distinguishing between them and the difficulty of crafting research reports incorporating both in a convincing manner.

Johnson and Turner’s (2003) chapter in the Handbook of Mixed Methods uses the key idea of “trustworthy,” which they equate with validity and which in the title of Hunter’s book would be “believable.” They say, “Valid research is plausible, credible, trustworthy, and, therefore, defensible. . . . We treat the terms valid and trustworthy as synonyms” (p. 300; italics in original). This may be directly linked to multimethods in that we are prone to trust the many over the few, if confirmatory, and to have if not “mistrust” then at least doubt over the disconfirming or specification of differences due to method itself ( Lever, 1978 ).

The rhetorical turn is closely allied with another postmodern humanistic approach to social science research and that is the idea that what we do is basically tell a story—create a narrative. The iconic corollary to multimethod research from the narrative perspective is like the “Rashomon effect,” the stories of a single event or phenomenon told from the perspectives of different witnesses and participants. This, of course, raises the larger phenomenological question—is it many versions of one event or many different events? We operate from the assumption that the real world does exist (physicalism) and yet recognize that our knowledge of that real world is a varied and imperfect product of the observations we make of it (relativism).

As Andrew Abbott (1992) has observed in his landmark paper “From Causes to Events: Notes on Narrative Positivism”:

In the last decade, a number of writers have proposed narrative as the foundation for sociological methodology. By this they do not mean narrative in terms of words as opposed to numbers and complexity as opposed to formalization. Rather, they mean narrative in the more generic sense of process, or story. . . . In the context of contemporary empirical practice, such a conception is revolutionary. Our normal methods parse social reality into fixed entities with variable qualities. They attribute causality to the variables –hypostatized social characteristics—rather than to agents; variables do things, not social actors. Stories disappear. (p. 428)

The key trope ( Booth, 1961/1983 ) that governs narratives of science, including social science, is that of a “quest.” It is a quest that begins with a question leading to a search using research to explore the unknown. It is a purposeful journey to find a treasured goal, to go out into that real world and make the unknown known—in a word to acquire knowledge. One hopes that the knowledge one acquires has some validity that it is “true” and that what one believes to be true about the phenomena bears some close approximation to reality. From a pragmatic perspective—it is valid if the knowledge works, if it allows one to accomplish what one wishes to get done; if it doesn’t work it is useless ( Dewey, 1938 ).

Some might think the narrative is merely the story about how one does science—that it is not the doing of science itself. We suggest that the narrative is in fact a critical part of the doing of science itself, and the stories we tell about what we do serve to reflexively construct and reconstruct the actual quest itself.

As noted by Scott Baker (1990) :

In studying the discourse of scientific communities, in fact, we find these communities employing multiple rhetorics as often as they use strict singular logics. . . . We note moreover, that scientists do not exclusively depend upon, or even follow, the strict guidelines of their field’s logic or method. They convince each other and the lay public that their theories are reliable by means of persuasion not provided for or sanctioned by the accepted methodology. . . these communication strategies are outside the formal rules of method, [yet] they do persuade. (pp. 233–234)

But the postmodernist idea of narrative is more than just telling a story about how science is conducted; narrative is seen to be an ontological aspect of how we as “sensate human beings” “make sense” of the real world. Abbott (1997) claims we do so by taking into consideration “context and contingency,” and Ragin (1987) suggests we tell narratives of constellations of characteristics defining our objects of study (our cases) as they alter through time. To highlight a quote presented previously that focused on the mechanism or the black box of explanation ( Guo & Adkins, 2008 ):

It should be pointed out that significant statistical findings alone are rarely, if ever, considered proof of a link between a genetic variant and a human complex phenotype. This contrasts with the usual practice in social sciences. Repeated significant results in social sciences showing a connection between, for example, parental education and children’s education attainment are often considered sufficient evidence for such a connection. The credibility of the evidence is not only from the replicated statistical results but also from real-life observation. Drawing from personal experiences, most people would probably agree that a higher level of parental education would lead to a higher level of education in children on average. Such confirmation from life experiences is not available for interpreting genetic findings. Genotypes are not visible in everyday life. To develop a credible story that supports statistical findings, other evidence is needed, such as those from animal studies and biochemical studies. (p. 224; italics added)

The Narrative Moral of Multimethod Research Design

We return to the opening of our discussion about multimethod research design, just as Ulysses eventually returned to Greece after a meandering Odyssey, and that is to stress the spirit of multimethod research with which we began. True believers of one or another method, positing different ontological assumptions, will continue to debate the appropriateness of different methods, as they should in the full spirit of free inquiry. But in the further spirit of multimethod research such assumptions should be open to challenge, and a tolerance for entertaining alternative assumptions should be considered. The spirit of humility, not hubris, and the recognition of limitations in methods are more likely to advance the cause of science than any authoritative dictates of idealized methods. Context and contingency apply to research itself, and understanding the broader social context and the pragmatic contingent decisions made in the conduct of research must be taken into accounts. What we claim to know is dependent on how we came to know it. And the multimethod perspective still holds out the promise of closer approximations to truth about reality or, at a minimum, more moderated contingent claims to truth that reflect the reality of science itself.

We previously stated our criteria of good scientific research that it be

Consistent—logically consistent, not random or contradictory

Corresponding—data and ideas linked in measurement

Convincing—rhetorically persuasive

To this we add another—that it be “competent”

Multimethod research is not a magic bullet to truth but a style that still demands rigor and reflection in addressing the skeptic’s central question: “How do you know?”

Discussion Questions

Can one consider mixed methods research a subset of multimethod research?

What parts of reality and the world does multimethod research focus on?

In what ways is multimethod research frequently superior to single or monomethod research?

Is multimethod research multidisciplinary?

What are some classic multimethod studies provided in this chapter, and what makes them important?

Suggested Websites

http://www.sociology.northwestern.edu/people/faculty/albert-hunter.html

Information about the authors of this chapter.

Abbott, A. ( 1990 ). Conceptions of time and events in social science methods: Causal and narrative approaches. Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History , 23 (4), 140–150.

Google Scholar

Abbott, A. ( 1992 ). From causes to events notes on narrative positivism. Sociological Methods & Research , 20 , 428–455.

Abbott, A. ( 1995 ). Sequence analysis: New methods for old ideas. Annual Review of Sociology , 21 , 93–113.

Abbott, A. ( 1997 ). Of time and space: The contemporary relevance of the Chicago School. Social Forces , 75 , 1149–1182.

Ajzen, I. , & Fishbein, M. ( 1977 ). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin , 84 (5). doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.84.888

Allison, P. D. ( 1984 ). Event history analysis: Regression for longitudinal event data . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Google Preview

Anderson, N. ( 1923 ). The hobo: The sociology of homeless men . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Baker, S. ( 1990 ). Reflection, doubt, and the place of rhetoric in postmodern social theory. Sociological Theory , 8 , 212–245.

Barton, A. H. ( 1969 ). Communities in disaster: A sociological analysis of collective stress situations . Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.

Bennett, J. ( 1981 ). Oral history and delinquency: The rhetoric of criminology . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Blau, P. M. , & Duncan, O. D. ( 1967 ). American occupational structur e. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bloor, D. ( 1991 ). Knowledge and social imagery . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bobo, L. , Zubrinsky, C. L. , Johnson, J. H. Jr. , & Oliver, M. L. ( 1994 ). Public opinion before and after a spring of discontent. In M. Baladassare (Ed.), The Los Angeles riots: Lessons for the urban future (pp. 103–133). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Booth, W. C. ( 1983 ). The rhetoric of fiction . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Boswell, J. ( 1998 ). Life of Johnson . Edited by R. W. Chapman. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Brewer, J. , & Hunter, A. ( 1989 ). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Brewer, J. , & Hunter, A. ( 2006 ). Foundations of multimethod research: Synthesizing styles . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Briggs, X. S. , Popkin S. J. , & Goering J. M. ( 2010 ). Moving to opportunity: The story of an American experiment to fight ghetto poverty . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Campbell, D. T. , & Fiske, D. W. ( 1959 ). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin , 56 , 81.

Campbell, D. T. , & Stanley, J. C. ( 1963 ). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research . Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Cohen-Cole, E. , & Fletcher, J. M. ( 2008 ). Is obesity contagious? Social networks vs. environmental factors in the obesity epidemic. Journal of Health Economics , 27 , 1382–1387. doi: 10.1016/j.healeco.2008.04.005

Cook, T. D. ( 2002 ). Randomized experiments in educational policy research: A critical examination of the reasons the educational evaluation community has offered for not doing them. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 24 (3), 175–199.

Cook, T. D. , & Campbell, D. T. ( 1979 ). Quasi- experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Cook, T. D. , Shadish, W. R. , & Wong, V. C. ( 2008 ). Three conditions under which experiments and observational studies produce comparable causal estimates: New findings from within-study comparisons. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 27 , 724–750. doi: 10.1002/pam.20375

Davis, J. A. , Spaeth, J. L. , & Huson, C. ( 1961 ). A technique for analyzing the effects of group composition. American Sociological Review , 26 , 215–225.

Denzin, N. K. ( 1970 ). The research act in sociology: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods . Piscataway, NJ: Aldine.

DeVault, M. L. ( 1990 ). Women write sociology: Rhetorical strategies. In A. Hunter (Ed.), The rhetoric of social research: Understood and believed , (pp. 97–110.). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Dewey, J. ( 1938 ). Logic: The theory of inquiry . New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Donne, J. ( 1896 ). Epigrams. In E. K. Chambers (Ed.) Poems of John Donne (Vol II, p. 210). London: Lawrence & Bullen.

Duneier, M. ( 2004 ). Scrutinizing the heat: On ethnic myths and the importance of shoe leather. Contemporary Sociology , 2 , 139–150.

Duneier, M. ( 2006 ). Ethnography, the ecological fallacy, and the 1995 Chicago heat wave. American Sociological Review , 71 , 679–688.

Erikson, K. T. ( 1976 ). Everything in its path: Destruction of community in the Buffalo Creek flood . New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Erikson, K. ( 1994 ). A new species of trouble: The human experience of modern disasters . New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Espeland, W. N. , & Stevens, M. L. ( 1998 ). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology , 24 , 313–343.

Fine, G.A. ( 2012 ). Tiny publics: A theory of group action and culture . Ithaca, NY: CUP Services.

Form, W. H. , & Nosow, S. ( 1958 ). Community in disaster . New York, NY: Harper.

Freudenburg, W. R. , Gramling, R. , Laska, S. & Erikson, K. ( 2009 ). Catastrophe in the making: The engineering of Katrina and the disasters of tomorrow . Washington, DC: Island Press.

Granovetter, M. ( 1985 ). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology , 91 , 481–510.

Greene, J. C. , Caracelli, V. J. , & Graham, W. F. ( 1989 ). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 11 , 255–274.

Guo, G. , & Adkins, D. E. ( 2008 ). How is a statistical link established between a human outcome and a genetic variant? Sociological Methods Research , 37 , 201–226.

Guo, G. , Elder, G. H. , Cai, T. , & Hamilton, N. ( 2009 ). Gene–environment interactions: Peers’ alcohol use moderates genetic contribution to adolescent drinking behavior. Social Science Research , 38 , 213–224.

Guo, G. , Hardie, J. H. , Owen, C. , Daw, J.K. , Fu, Y. , Lee, H . . . Duncan, G. ( 2009 ). DNA collection in a randomized social science study of college peer effects. Sociological Methodology , 39 , 1–29.

Gusfield, J. R. ( 1990 ). Two genres of sociology: A literary analysis of the American occupational structure and tally’s corner. In A. Hunter (Ed.), The rhetoric of social research: Understood and believed , (pp. 62–96.). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Hunter, A. ( 1986 ). Love Canal emergency declaration area: Proposed habitability criteria study: Vol. 1. Technical Review Committee . New York, NY: US Environmental Protection Agency, US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control, New York State Department of Health, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

Hunter, A. (Ed.). ( 1990 ). The rhetoric of social research: Understood and believed . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Hunter, A. , & Maxfield, M. G. ( 1980 ). Reactions to Crime Project: Vol. 1. Methodological overview of the Reactions to Crime Project . Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, Center for Urban Affairs.

Investopedia. (2014). Revealed preference. Retrieved from http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revealed-preference.asp

Jacobs, J. A. ( 2005 ). Multiple methods in ASR. Footnotes: Newsletter of the American Sociological Review , 33 (9). Retrieved from http://www.asanet.orgwww.asanet.org/footnotes/dec05/indextwo.html .

Jahoda, M , Lazarsfeld, P. F. , & Zeisel, H , ( 1971 ). Marienthal: The sociography of an unemployed community . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. (Originally published in 1933)

Jankowski, M. S. ( 1991 ). Islands in the street: Gangs and American urban society . Berkeley: University of California.

Joppa, L. N. , McInerny, G. , Harper, R. , Salido, L. , Takeda, K. , O’Hara, K. , . . . Emmott, S. ( 2013 ). Troubling trends in scientific software use. Science , 340 , 814–815.

Johnson, B. , & Turner, L. A. ( 2003 ). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research , (pp. 297–319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kahneman, D. ( 2011 ). Thinking, fast and slow . New York, NY: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux.

Kanter, R. M. ( 1993 ). Men and women of the corporation . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Kendra, J. M. , & Wachtendorf, T. ( 2003 ). Elements of resilience after the World Trade Center disaster: Reconstituting New York City’s Emergency Operations Centre. Disasters , 27 (1), 37–53. doi:10.1111/1467-7717.00218

King, G. , Keohane, R. O. , & Verba, S. ( 1994 ). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Klinenberg, E. ( 2003 ). Heat wave: A social autopsy of disaster in Chicago . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Krieger, S. ( 1983 ). The mirror dance: Identity in a women’s community . Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

LaPiere, R. T. ( 1934 ). Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces , 13 , 230–237.

Lazarsfeld, P. F. ( 1945 ) Foreward to Ernest Greenwood, Experimental Sociology . New York, NY: King’s Crown Press.

Lever, J. ( 1978 ). Sex differences in the complexity of children’s play and games. American Sociological Review , 43 , 471–483.

Liebow, E. ( 1967 ). Tally’s corner: A study of Negro streetcorner men . New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

Mahoney, J. , & Rueschemeyer, D. (Eds.). ( 2003 ). Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Manchester, W. ( 1978 ). American Caesar: Douglas McArthur . New York, NY: Dell.

McClelland, D. C. ( 1961 ). Achieving society . Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Merton, R. K. (Ed.). ( 1968 ). Social theory and social structure . New York, NY: Free Press.

Merton, R. K. , & Lazersfeld, P. F. (Eds.). ( 1950 ). Continuities in social research: Studies in the scope and method of “The American Soldier.” New York, NY: Free Press.

Mills, C. W. ( 1959 ). The sociological imagination . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Moore, B. ( 1958 ). Political power and social theory: Six studies . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Moore, B. ( 1966 ). Social origins of dictatorship and democracy: Lord and peasant in the making of the modern world . Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Morse, J. M. ( 2003 ). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 189–208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mulkay, M. J. ( 1979 ). Science and the sociology of knowledge . London: Allen & Unwin.

Office of Income Security Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, US Department of Health and Human Services. ( 1983 ). Overview of the Seattle–Denver income maintenance experiment final report . Washington, DC: Author.

Pager, D. , & Quillian, L. ( 2005 ). Walking the talk? What employers say versus what they do. American Sociological Review , 70 , 355–380. doi: 10.1177/000312240507000301

Prince, S. H. ( 1920 ). Catastrophe and social change, based upon a sociological study of the Halifax disaster . Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law 212. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Putnam, R. D. ( 2001 ). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community . New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Ragin, C. C. ( 1987 ). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ragin, C. C. , & Becker, H. S. (Eds.). ( 1992 ). What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Raudenbush, S. W. , & Bryk, A. S. ( 2001 ). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods . Advanced Quantitative Techniques in the Social Sciences 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rossi, P. H. , Lipsey, M. W. , & Freeman, H. E. ( 2004 ). Evaluation: A systematic approach . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Saey, T. H. (2013, June 29). Gene weakly linked to education level. Science News . Retrieved from https://www.sciencenews.org/article/genes-weakly-linked-education-level

Sampson, R. J. , Morenoff, J. D. , & Gannon-Rowley, T. ( 2002 ). Assessing “neighborhood effects”: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology , 28 , 443–478.

Samuelson, P. ( 1948 ). Economics . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Sandelowski, M. ( 2003 ). Tables or tableaux? The challenges of writing and reading mixed methods studies. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research , (pp. 321–350). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Scott, W. R. , & Meyer, J. W. (Eds.). ( 1994 ). Institutional environments and organizations: Structural complexity and individualism . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shadish, W. R. , Cook, T. D. , & Campbell, D. T. ( 2002 ). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Shaw, C. R. ( 2013 ). The jack-roller . Eastford, CT: Martino. (Originally published in 1930)

Shea, C. ( 2009 ). The nature–nurture debate, redux: Genetic research finally makes its way into the thinking of sociologists. The Chronicle of Higher Education , 54 (31), B6.

Shils, E. ( 1957 ). Primordial, personal, sacred and civil ties: Some particular observations on the relationships of sociological research and theory. The British Journal of Sociology , 8 (2), 130–145.

Simmel, G. ( 1971 ). On individuality and social forms . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Skocpol, T (Ed.). ( 1984 ). Vision and method in historical sociology . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Skocpol, T. , & Somers, M. ( 1980 ). The uses of comparative history in macrosocial inquiry. Comparative Studies in Society and History , 22 (2), 174–197.

Small, M. L. ( 2011 ). How to conduct a mixed methods study: Recent trends in a rapidly growing literature. Annual Review of Sociology , 37 , 57–86. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102657

Stallings, R. A. ( 1997 ). Sociological theories and disaster studies . Newark, DE: Disaster Research Center.

Stouffer, S. A. , Lumsdaine, A. A. , Lumsdaine, M. H. , Williams R. M. Jr. , Smith, M. B. , Janis, I. L. , . . . & Cottrell L. S. Jr. ( 1949 ). Studies in social psychology in World War II: Vol. 2. The American soldier: Combat and its aftermath . Oxford, UK: Princeton University Press.

Sutherland, E. H. (Ed.) ( 1937 ). The professional thief . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press

Thomas, W. I. ( 1923 ). The unadjusted girl . Oxford, UK: Little, Brown and Co.

Tversky, A. , & Kahneman, D. ( 1974 ). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science , 185 , 1124–1131.

Uzzi, B. ( 1999 ). Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: How social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. American Sociological Review , 64 , 481–505.

Wade, H. D. ( 2004 ). On operationalisms and economics. Journal of Economic Issues , 38 (4), 953–968.

Wallerstein, I. M. ( 1974 ). The modern world-system: Vol. 1. Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century . New York, NY: Academic Press.

Wallerstein, I. M. ( 2004 ). World-systems analysis: An introduction . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Walton, J. , & Ragin, C. ( 1990 ). Global and national sources of political protest: Third world responses to the debt crisis. American Sociological Review , 55 , 876–890.

Weber, M. (1905). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism . New York, NY: Routledge. 2001 .

About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Politics, Philosophy & Social Sciences
Social Sciences
Methodology & Research

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet or computer – no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Follow the author

Image Unavailable

To view this video download Flash Player

Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles (SAGE Library of Social Research) Paperback – 29 Dec. 1989

ISBN-10 080393078X
ISBN-13 978-0803930780
Edition 1st
Publisher SAGE Publications, Inc
Publication date 29 Dec. 1989
Language English
Dimensions 14.61 x 1.91 x 22.23 cm
Print length 216 pages
See all details

Product description

About the author, product details.

ASIN ‏ : ‎ 080393078X
Publisher ‏ : ‎ SAGE Publications, Inc; 1st edition (29 Dec. 1989)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Paperback ‏ : ‎ 216 pages
ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 080393078X
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0803930780
Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 14.61 x 1.91 x 22.23 cm
33,415 in Anthropology & Sociology Biographies
410,459 in Reference (Books)

About the author

John brewer.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Customer reviews

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings, help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyses reviews to verify trustworthiness.

No customer reviews

UK Modern Slavery Statement
Sustainability
Amazon Science
Sell on Amazon
Sell on Amazon Business
Sell on Amazon Handmade
Sell on Amazon Launchpad
Supply to Amazon
Protect and build your brand
Associates Programme
Fulfilment by Amazon
Seller Fulfilled Prime
Advertise Your Products
Independently Publish with Us
Host an Amazon Hub
› See More Make Money with Us
Instalments by Barclays
Amazon Platinum Mastercard
Amazon Classic Mastercard
Amazon Currency Converter
Payment Methods Help
Shop with Points
Top Up Your Account
Top Up Your Account in Store
COVID-19 and Amazon
Track Packages or View Orders
Delivery Rates & Policies
Amazon Prime
Returns & Replacements
Manage Your Content and Devices
Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
Amazon Mobile App
Customer Service
Accessibility
Conditions of Use & Sale
Privacy Notice
Cookies Notice
Interest-Based Ads Notice

(Stanford users can avoid this Captcha by logging in.)

Send to text email RefWorks EndNote printer

Foundations of multimethod research : synthesizing styles

Available online.

Sage Research Methods

At the library

Green Library

More options.

Find it at other libraries via WorldCat
Contributors

Description

Creators/contributors, contents/summary.

Preface Historical Introduction
1. The Multimethod Approach and Its Promise Four Imperfect But Useful Research Methods A Broader Multimethod View Finding Consensus in a House of Many Mansions A Systematic Approach
2. A Healthy Skepticism About Theory and Method Orienting Theory Toward Research and Vice Versa A Healthy Skepticism An Assessment of Four Research Styles The Multimethod Approach: A Fifth Research Style
3. Formulating Research Problems The Role of Research Problems in the Research Process The Empirical Unfolding of Research Problems The Role of Theory in Problem Formulation
4. Collecting Data With Multiple Methods A Variety of Data-Collecting Methods Validation Versus Exploration Cost/Benefit Analyses of Different Methods of Data Collection
5. Finding the Objects to Study The Dilemma of the Few and the Many Units and Variables Types of Sampling Sampling and Generalization
6. Measuring Concepts and Assessing Measurement Validity Defining Social Scientific Measurement Judging Measurement's Success From Facts Rather Than Fiction Designing Validation Studies What to Do if Measurement Fails (and How to Guard Against Failure)
7. Explaining Social Phenomena Causally Causation and Causal Explanation Modes of Causal Analysis Assessing the Validity of Causal Research Multitest Validity
8. A Postscript on Postmodernism The Postmodern Critique Some Research Examples The Technology of Method
9. Making Research Public: The Social Context of Multimethod Research Internal Politics External Politics Multimethod Research in Relation to Society References Index About the Authors.
(source: Nielsen Book Data)

Amazon Prime includes:

Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.

Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
Streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows with limited ads on Prime Video.
A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access

Important: Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.

Buy new: .savingPriceOverride { color:#CC0C39!important; font-weight: 300!important; } .reinventMobileHeaderPrice { font-weight: 400; } #apex_offerDisplay_mobile_feature_div .reinventPriceSavingsPercentageMargin, #apex_offerDisplay_mobile_feature_div .reinventPricePriceToPayMargin { margin-right: 4px; } $90.91 $ 90 . 91 FREE delivery Tuesday, May 21 Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com

Return this item for free.

Free returns are available for the shipping address you chose. You can return the item for any reason in new and unused condition: no shipping charges

Go to your orders and start the return
Select the return method

Save with Used - Good .savingPriceOverride { color:#CC0C39!important; font-weight: 300!important; } .reinventMobileHeaderPrice { font-weight: 400; } #apex_offerDisplay_mobile_feature_div .reinventPriceSavingsPercentageMargin, #apex_offerDisplay_mobile_feature_div .reinventPricePriceToPayMargin { margin-right: 4px; } $16.49 $ 16 . 49 $3.99 delivery May 23 - 30 Ships from: HPB-Red Sold by: HPB-Red

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Follow the author

Image Unavailable

To view this video download Flash Player

Foundations of Multimethod Research: Synthesizing Styles 1st Edition

Purchase options and add-ons.

Drawing from authors John Brewer and Albert Hunter′s original work published in 1989, when single method research was the standard, this new text offers an explanation of how a planned synthesis of various research techniques such as fieldwork, surveys, experiments, and nonreactive studies can be purposely used to improve social science knowledge. Foundations of Multimethod Research: Synthesizing Styles explores the many aspects of the multimethod research approach, including the formulation of research problems, data collection, sampling and generalization, measurement, reliability and validity, hyposthesis testing and causal analysis, and writing and publicizing results.

ISBN-10 0761988610
ISBN-13 978-0761988618
Edition 1st
Publisher SAGE Publications, Inc
Publication date August 11, 2005
Language English
Dimensions 6 x 0.55 x 9 inches
Print length 240 pages
See all details

Editorial Reviews

Product details.

Publisher ‏ : ‎ SAGE Publications, Inc; 1st edition (August 11, 2005)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Paperback ‏ : ‎ 240 pages
ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0761988610
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0761988618
Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 10.9 ounces
Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 6 x 0.55 x 9 inches
#1,960 in Medical Psychology Research
#2,115 in Popular Psychology Research
#2,122 in Scientific Research

About the author

John brewer.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Customer reviews

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

Sort reviews by Top reviews Most recent Top reviews

Top review from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later..

Amazon Newsletter
About Amazon
Accessibility
Sustainability
Press Center
Investor Relations
Amazon Devices
Amazon Science
Sell on Amazon
Sell apps on Amazon
Supply to Amazon
Protect & Build Your Brand
Become an Affiliate
Become a Delivery Driver
Start a Package Delivery Business
Advertise Your Products
Self-Publish with Us
Become an Amazon Hub Partner
› See More Ways to Make Money
Amazon Visa
Amazon Store Card
Amazon Secured Card
Amazon Business Card
Shop with Points
Credit Card Marketplace
Reload Your Balance
Amazon Currency Converter
Your Account
Your Orders
Shipping Rates & Policies
Amazon Prime
Returns & Replacements
Manage Your Content and Devices
Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
Conditions of Use
Privacy Notice
Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
Your Ads Privacy Choices

IMAGES

MULTIMETHOD RESEARCH: A SYNTHESIS OF STYLES (SAGE LIBRARY By John Brewer $28.95
Multimethod Research, Causal Mechanisms, and Case Studies
Media Review: Foundations of Multimethod Research: Synthesizing Styles (2nd ed)
Foundations of Multimethod Research
Multimethod research : a synthesis of styles : Brewer, John, 1936- : Free Download, Borrow, and
Three PhD Candidates receive fellowship to attend Institute for Qualitative and MultiMethod

VIDEO

Statistical Procedure in Meta-Essentials
Video 15 Multimethod Research 2
Fulcro RAD Multimethod Rendering
Video 14 Multimethod Research 1
Exploring Mixed Methods Research Designs: Types and Applications
WRITING THE CHAPTER 3|| Research Methodology (Research Design and Method)

COMMENTS

Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles.
Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Sage Publications, Inc. Abstract. Skepticism is an essential part of scientific inquiry, and different types of methods represent important critical perspectives. Equally important, however, is the fact that different research methods offer possible solutions for one another's problems.
Multimethod Research : A Synthesis of Styles
The authors examine the many aspects of the multimethod research approach including: the formulation of research problems, data collection, sampling and generalization, reliability and validity, hypothesis testing and causal analysis, and writing and publicizing results.
Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles
Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles. The Multimethod Approach and Its Promises A Healthy Skepticism About Theory and Method Formulating Research Problems Collecting Data with Multiple Methods Finding the Objects to Study Measuring Concepts and Assessing Measurement Validity Explaining Social Phenomena Causally A Postscript on ...
Multimethod research : a synthesis of styles
Multimethod research : a synthesis of styles by Brewer, John, 1936-Publication date 1989 Topics Social sciences -- Research -- Methodology Publisher Newbury Park, Calif. : Sage Publications Collection inlibrary; printdisabled; internetarchivebooks Contributor Internet Archive Language English.
Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles (SAGE Library of Social
The authors examine the many aspects of the multimethod research approach including: the formulation of research problems, data collection, sampling and generalization, reliability and validity, hypothesis testing and causal analysis, and writing and publicizing results.
Foundations of Multimethod Research
Key Features: Provides a history of multimethod research as a post-positivist approach to give an accurate understanding of the emergence of this technique. Compares and contrasts the major primary research methods to help students determine which multiple methods are suitable for their own research. Addresses the post-modern critique of ...
Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles.
Linguistics, Education. Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics. 2020. TLDR. The data have revealed that the influence of Amharic on the Tigrinya variety used as MOI is high at all linguistic levels (phonology, morphology, syntax and lexical), and it brings about negative effect in classroom communication. Expand.
Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles
BT - Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles. PB - Sage Publications. ER - Hunter A, Brewer J. Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles. Sage Publications, 1989. Powered by Pure, Scopus & Elsevier Fingerprint Engine ...
Multimethod research : a synthesis of styles
Multimethod research : a synthesis of styles. Responsibility John Brewer, Albert Hunter. Imprint Newbury Park, Calif. : Sage Publications, c1989. Physical description 209 p. ; 22 cm. ... Multimethod Research explains how a planned synthesis of different research techniques can be purposely used to improve social science knowledge and avoid ...
Multimethod research : a synthesis of styles : Brewer, John, 1936
209 p. ; 23 cm. An icon used to represent a menu that can be toggled by interacting with this icon.
Designing Multimethod Research
The chapter begins with the "spirit of multimethod research," which refers to an openness to serendipity and humble recognition that all methods ... Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles (1989) and Foundations of Multimethod Research (2006); a book on The Rhetoric of Social Research: Understood and Believed (1990), and most recently a ...
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A Synthesis of
Multimethod research: A Synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 209 pp., $36.00 (hardcover), $17.95 (softcover) Merle H. Mishel PhD, RN, FAAN, Merle H. Mishel PhD, RN, FAAN. Professor and Division Head, Mental Health Nursing College of Nursing University of Arizona, Tucson. Search for more papers by this author.
Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles (SAGE Library of Social
Buy Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles (SAGE Library of Social Research) 1 by Brewer, John D., Hunter, Albert D. (ISBN: 9780803930773) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.
Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles (SAGE Library of Social
Hunter has published numerous books and articles, including Symbolic Communities, The Rhetoric of Social Research: Understood and Believed, Foundations of Multimethod Research, and most recently Pragmatic Liberalism: Constructing a Civil Society. His undergraduate degree is from Cornell and his PhD is from the University of Chicago.
Media Review: Foundations of Multimethod Research: Synthesizing Styles
In This Issue: Intersection of Realist Inquiry and Structural Equation Modeling, Multilevel Participatory Social Justice Mixed Methods Design, Qualitative Vignette Experiments, Mixed Methods Research Systematic Methodological Reviews, and Mixed Methods in Randomized Controlled Trials
Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles (SAGE Library of Social
Buy Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles (SAGE Library of Social Research) 1 by Brewer, John D., Hunter, Albert D. (ISBN: 9780803930780) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.
Foundations of multimethod research : synthesizing styles in
Multimethod Research offers an explanation of how a planned synthesis of various research techniques (fieldwork, surveys, experiments, and nonreactive studies) can be purposely used to improve social science knowledge. The authors discuss the many aspects of the multimethod research approach, including the formulation of research problems, data ...
Multimethod Research : A Synthesis of Styles
Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles John Brewer, Albert Hunter Snippet view - 1989. About the author (1989) John D. Brewer is President of the British Sociological Association and Sixth-Century Professor of Sociology and former Head of Department (2004-2007) at Aberdeen University, moving from Queen's University Belfast in July 2004 ...
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A Synthesis of
Multimethod research: A Synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 209 pp., $36.00 (hardcover), $17.95 (softcover) Merle H. Mishel PhD, RN, FAAN, Merle H. Mishel PhD, RN, FAAN. Professor and Division Head, Mental Health Nursing College of Nursing University of Arizona, Tucson. Search for more papers by this author.
Book Reviews : Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles by John
Intended for healthcare professionals. 0 Cart Cart
Foundations of multimethod research : synthesizing styles
Preface Historical Introduction 1. The Multimethod Approach and Its Promise Four Imperfect But Useful Research Methods A Broader Multimethod View Finding Consensus in a House of Many Mansions A Systematic Approach 2. A Healthy Skepticism About Theory and Method Orienting Theory Toward Research and Vice Versa A Healthy Skepticism An Assessment of Four Research Styles The Multimethod Approach: A ...
Foundations of Multimethod Research : Synthesizing Styles
Books. Foundations of Multimethod Research: Synthesizing Styles. John Brewer, Albert Hunter. SAGE, 2006 - Business & Economics - 206 pages. Drawing from authors John Brewer and Albert Hunter's original work published in 1989, when single method research was the standard, this new text offers an explanation of how a planned synthesis of various ...
Foundations of Multimethod Research: Synthesizing Styles
Amazon.com: Foundations of Multimethod Research: Synthesizing Styles: 9780761988618: John Brewer, Albert Hunter: Books ... this new text offers an explanation of how a planned synthesis of various research techniques such as fieldwork, surveys, experiments, and nonreactive studies can be purposely used to improve social science knowledge. ...

You are here

Foundations of Multimethod Research Synthesizing Styles

Sample Materials & Chapters

For instructors

Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles

Internet Archive Audio

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Save Page Now

Multimethod research : a synthesis of styles

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

IN COLLECTIONS

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

11 Designing Multimethod Research

Preamble: The Spirit of Multimethod Research

The Skeptics’ Questions

What Do We Mean By “Design”?

Prepared Contingency

Methods Are What Researchers Do

Multimethod Research Design

Typologies of Mixing

An Inductive Typology of Fruitful Substantive Arenas for Multimethod Social Science Research

Substantive Arenas

Words and Deeds

Disaster Research

Comparative Historical Causation, Trends, and Character Types

Historical causation

Character types

Rhetoric, Narrative, and Postpositive Postmodern Multimethods: Turn, Turn, Turn

The Rhetorical Turn

The Narrative Moral of Multimethod Research Design

Discussion Questions

Suggested Websites

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Follow the author

Image Unavailable

Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles (SAGE Library of Social Research) Paperback – 29 Dec. 1989

Product description

About the author

Customer reviews

No customer reviews

Foundations of multimethod research : synthesizing styles

At the library

Green Library

Description

Amazon Prime includes:

Follow the author

Image Unavailable

Foundations of Multimethod Research: Synthesizing Styles 1st Edition

Editorial Reviews

About the author

Customer reviews

Top review from the United States

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS