You are on page 1of 14

University of Oslo

The Faculty of Social Sciences

Oslo Summer School in

Comparative Social Science Studies 2018

Mixed and Merged Methods

Toward a Methodological Pluralism
Professor Dr. Giampietro Gobo, Department of Social and
Political Studies, University of Milan, Italy
Course dates: 30 July - 3 August 2018

Main disciplines: Methodology, Sociology, Political Science,

Psychology, Economics, Geography

Course Credits: 10 pts (ECTS)

Course objectives / learning outcome

From the 1990s, mixed methods – the integration of “qualitative and quantitative
approaches or methods in a single study or a program of inquiry” (Tashakkori and
Creswell 2007: 4) – are an important aspect of contemporary social research.

However, their presence is not new in the methodological landscape. Historically, mixed
methods were a common practice for almost one century, since the making of social
research until the late 1930s. Examples are: the seminal work of the French Frédéric Le
Play in the late 1840s; the inquiries directed by the Englishmen Charles Booth in 1886
and B. Seebohm Rowntree in 1899; the golden age of the Chicago School in the 1920s;
the studies conducted by the Austrian P.F. Lazarsfeld from the 1930s; the work of the
American Rensis Likert in the same period, and so on.

Therefore, the current trend of mixed methods did not emerge unexpectedly, but it is
rooted in important experiences and practices of the past, without which the philosophy
and epistemological foundations of contemporary mixed methods research cannot be
fully understood.

University of Oslo
The Faculty of Social Sciences
After a historically introduction on the making of mixed methods and their renaissance
in the 1990s, the course will give an overview about current debates and the most
important issues in the field.

The course will first propose an alternative classification (of the main methodologies
currently used in social sciences), aiming to overcome the outdated dichotomy
qualitative-quantitative. Then, the (apparently obsolete) language of social research
(shaped by terms such as 'measurement', 'concepts', 'hypothesis', ‘indicators’, ‘variable',
‘sampling’, ‘generalization’ and so on) will be revisited in the light of a new
epistemological framework; that will serve as a basis for re-joining qualitative and
quantitative approaches on a new methodological ground, which was called by someone
“third paradigm” (Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998, Greene and Caracelli 2003, Morgan
2007, Creswell and Plano Clark 2011).

As a result, course participants will acquire skills and competencies in order to design a
mixed methods study and develop an appropriate strategy to answer specific research
questions. In this regard, some little-known techniques (“inter-vey”, calendar
interviewing, Delphi method, mystery shopper), classified as “merged methods” (Gobo
2015), will be showed. They are particularly interesting because could represent an
overshooting of the qualitative and quantitative divide, by the fact they embody in one
single method the advantages of either approaches or methods (Gobo 2016).

Finally, it will be argued how mixed methods are useful for decolonizing contemporary
methodology and why they are particularly suitable for studying multicultural societies.

During the course, participants (if they wish) will have the chance to share own ideas
and plans regarding a mixed methods design (e.g. a PhD project, a fieldwork problem
and so on) and receive comments, suggestions and advices emerging from the collective

P age 2 o f 1 4
Research designs/assignments
Students have two options in terms of submitting a research design/paper in order to
receive ECTS credits:

1. In particular, students have the option of presenting a 2.500 word research

project in the concluding Friday session of the course week for constructive
critiques by course participants as well as the lecturer. Presumably, students will
choose to present the research design for their PhD thesis, though students could
also present a research design for a separate project, article, or edited volume.
Research designs should be crafted according to the guidelines offered, in
advance and in a separate e-mail sent to you, by the lecturer/summer school
2. It is also possible to earn a course certificate together with 10 ECTS credits points
for a PhD program by submitting a short essay (3.000 – 4.000 words) within two
months after the course.

Specific requirements
Since the focus of the course is not on qualitative and quantitative methods itself
(although short summarizing overviews about essentials of qualitative and quantitative
methodology and methods will be given) it is expected that course participants have at
least basic knowledge about qualitative and quantitative research methods.

P age 3 o f 1 4

Lecture 1 (part A): Mixed methods: a historical view

Current mixed methods did not emerge unexpectedly in the late 1980s. They have their
roots in several “ancestral” tradition and practices: the European making of social
surveys, the Chicago School heritage, and the legacy of Weber, Lazarsfeld and Likert.
Recovering these experiences, enable us to better understand the philosophy and
epistemological foundations of contemporary mixed methods research. In addition an
historical viewpoint immunizes us against the ingenuousness (increasingly
commonplace among contemporary social scientists) of presenting as novel theories and
methods which were proposed seventy or eighty years ago. Knowledge of history saves
us from having constantly to reinvent the wheel…


 Bryman, A. (2008b), 'The end of the paradigm wars?', in P. Alasuutari, J.

Brannen and L. Bickman (eds) Handbook of Social Research, London: Sage, pp.
 Gobo, Giampietro (2005) The Renaissance of qualitative methods, in Forum
Qualitative Social Research, 6(3),
 Gobo, Giampietro (2014), Surveying the survey: back to the past, Gobo, G. and
Mauceri, S., Constructing Survey Data. An interactional approach, London:
Sage, chap. 1, pp. 3-14
 Johnson, Burke; Gray, Robert (2010): A history of philosophical and theoretical
issues for mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori, Abbas; Teddlie, Charles
(eds.): Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research.
Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage, pp. 69 – 94.
 Lazarsfeld, P.F., & Oberschall, A.R. (1965). Max Weber and empirical social
research. American Sociological Review, 30(2), 185–99.
 Maxwell, J.A. (2016), Expanding the History and Range of Mixed Methods
Research, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1): 12–27.
 Sieber, S.D. (1973). The integration of fieldwork and survey methods. American
Journal of Sociology, 6, 1335–59.

P age 4 o f 1 4
Lecture 1 (part B): An alternative classification of research methods:
overcoming the dichotomy qualitative-quantitative
The most common classification of current research methods is the dichotomy
qualitative-quantitative. However, besides being outdated, it does not reflect the
plurality and complexity of the contemporary research practices. In order to improve
the understanding of such complexity, the first lecture will discuss three important
issues: 1) what is a classification, 2) what is a methodology, and 3) what is a method.
The answer to these three questions will lead us to formulate a new classification
proposal, which assumes sixth main methodologies in social sciences.


 Bryman, A. (2008a), 'Of methods and methodology', in Qualitative Research in

Organizations and Management, 3, 2: 159-68
 Gobo, Giampietro and Molle Andrea (2017), Method or methodology? Locating
ethnography in the methodological landscape, in Gobo, Giampietro and Molle
Andrea (2017), Doing Ethnography, London: Sage, chap. 2, pp. 15-31.
 Marradi, Alberto (1990), Classification, Typology, Taxonomy, in Quality and
Quantity", XXIV, 2: 129-57.

Lecture 2: Revitalizing the (apparently obsolete) traditional language of

social research
Terms such as 'measurement', 'concepts', 'hypothesis', ‘indicators’, ‘model’, ‘variable',
‘sampling’, ‘generalization’ seem old-fashioned. However, they are, unaware and tacitly,
performed by social scientists in every single research act; because they are properties of
both common—sense and scientist reasoning. Hence, what we need is not to abandon
them but to revitalize within a new agenda. Whereby they will be shortly revisited in the
light of a new epistemological framework, which will serve firstly to understand that
measuring, counting, scaling and classifying are four different ways of assembling data;
secondly as a basis for re-joining qualitative and quantitative approaches on a new
methodological ground.


 Gobo, Giampietro (2018), Upside down. Reinventing research design, in Uwe

Flick (ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection, London, Sage, (Chapter 5),
 Hammersley, Martyn (2010). Is Social Measurement Possible, and is it
Necessary? In: Walford, Geoffrey; Tucker, Eric and Viswanathan, Madhu eds.
Sage Handbook of Measurement. London, UK: Sage, pp. 409–426.
 Maxwell, J. A. (2010) ‘Using numbers in qualitative research’, Qualitative
Inquiry, 16(6): 475–82.
 Maxwell, J. A. (2012) ‘The importance of qualitative research for causal
explanation in education’, Qualitative Inquiry, 18(8): 649–55.

P age 5 o f 1 4
Lecture 3 (part A): What are mixed methods?
Many definitions of mixed methods are available in the literature (e.g. see Johnson,
Onwuegbuzie and Turner, 2007). Sometimes they are in competition; also, there are
doubts about their substance. Whether Morgan (2007) sees mixed methods as a ‘third
paradigm’, with the potential to open a new era in social sciences, others suggest to
discard the term ‘methods’ because it conveys the idea that qualitative and quantitative
methods are independent and in some ways mutually exclusive. For this reason, they
prefer to speak of ‘mixed approaches’ (Johnson and Christensen 2010), ‘mixed research’
(Onwuegbuzie 2007) or ‘mixed methodology’ (Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998). The
lecture will try to unravel this skin.


 Brannen, Julia (2005): Mixing Methods: The Entry of Qualitative and

Quantitative Approaches into the Research Process, International Journal of
Social Research Methodology, 8:3, 173-184
 Creswell, John W. and Plano Clark, Vicki L. (2011), Choosing a Mixed Methods
Design, in Creswell, J.W. and Plano Clark, V.L, Designing and Conducting Mixed
Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage, Chap. 3, pp. 53 – 106, second edition.
 Greene JC and Caracelli VJ. 2003. Making paradigmatic sense of mixed methods
practice. In Tashakkori A and Teddlie C. (eds.) Handbook of Mixed Methods in
Social and Behavioral Research: 91-110.
 Johnson, R. Burke., Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J., & Turner, L.A. (2007). Toward a
definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2),
 Johnson, R. B. (2015). Conclusions: Toward an Inclusive and Defensible
Multimethod and Mixed Science. In S. Hesse-Biber & R. B. Johnson, The Oxford
handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
 Kelle, Udo (2006): Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Research
Practice – Purposes and Advantages. In: Gürtler, Leo; Huber, Günter L. (ed.).
Special Guest Issue on Mixed Methods. Qualitative Research in Psychology,Vol.
3 (4), pp. 293-311.
 Leech, N.L., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research
designs. Quality & Quantity, 43, 265–75.
 Mauceri, Sergio (2014), Back to the ‘golden age’: towards a Multilevel Integrated
Survey Approach, in Gobo, G. and Mauceri, S., Constructing Survey Data. An
interactional approach, London: Sage, chap. 2, pp. 20-48
 Morgan, D.L. (2007). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods
paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of
combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 1, 48–76.
 Newman, I., Ridenour, C.S., Newman, C., & DeMarco, G.M.P., Jr. (2003). A
typology of research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In A.

P age 6 o f 1 4
Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (eds), Handbook of mixed methods in social and
behavioral research (pp. 167–88). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2007). Mixed Methods Research in Sociology and Beyond. In
G. Ritzer (ed.), Encyclopedia of Sociology, Vol. VI (pp. 2978–81). Oxford:
 Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions
in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 207–11.
 Tashakkori, Abbas and Teddlie, Charles (1998), Introduction to mixed methods
and mixed model studies in the social and behavioral sciences, in Tashakkori, A.
and Teddlie, C., Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative
approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage, Chap. 1, pp. 3 – 19.

Lecture 3 (part B): Debates and controversies

The final part of the lecture focuses on the main controversies: should we talk about
mixed methods or mixed strategies? About integration or complementarity? Do mixed
methods really collect better data and improve theory? Participants will end up getting
their own opinion, which will guide their future research.


 Bazeley, Pat (2016), Mixed or merged? Integration as the real challenge for mixed
methods, in Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An
International Journal, 11(3): 189-194
 Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22.
 Flick, Uwe (2016), Mantras and Myths: The Disenchantment of Mixed-Methods
Research and Revisiting Triangulation as a Perspective, in Qualitative Inquiry,
23(1): 1 –12
 Giddings Lynne S. (2006). Mixed-methods research: Positivism dressed in drag?
Journal of Research in Nursing, 11(3), 195–203.
 Gobo, Giampietro (2016), Why “merged” methods realize a higher integration
than “mixed” methods. A reply, in Qualitative Research in Organizations and
Management: An International Journal, 11(3): 199-208.
 Greene, Jennifer C. (2008). Is Mixed Methods Social Inquiry a Distinctive
Methodology?, in Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1): 7-22
 Hesse-Biber, Sharlene (2015), Mixed Methods Research: The “Thing-ness”
Problem, Qualitative Health Research, 25(6), 775–88.
 Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., & Onghena, P. (2013). Mixed methods research
synthesis: Definition, framework, and potential. Quality & Quantity, 47, 659–76.
 John W. Creswell (2011), Controversies in Mixed Methods Research, in Denzin,
N.K. and Lincoln Y.S., The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, chap. 15,
pp. 269-83, forth edition.

P age 7 o f 1 4
 Symonds, J., & Gorard, S. (2010, September). The death of mixed methods:
Research labels and their casualties. Paper presented at the British Educational
Research Association Annual Conference, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh,
 Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of
mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A.Tashakkori & C.
Teddlie (eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research
(pp. 3–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lecture 4: Merged methods I: two techniques (“inter-vey” and the “calendar

The future step in mixed methods research could be “merged methods”, represented by
some little-known techniques, which embody in one single method the advantages of
either approaches or methods (Gobo 2015). Such techniques could be an overpassing of
the qualitative and quantitative divide. The lecture discusses the first two: the “inter-
vey” (survey) and the “calendar interviewing” (life course, life history, autobiographical
research, time diary).


 Belli, Robert F. and Callegaro, Mario (2009), The emergence of calendar

interviewing: A theoretical and empirical rationale, in R. F. Belli, F. P. Stafford,
& D. F. Alwin (Eds.), Calendar and time diary methods in life course research
(pp. 31-52). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
 Gobo, G (2011), Back to Likert. Towards a conversational survey, in Williams,
Malcolm and Vogt, Paul (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Innovation in Social
Research Methods, London, Sage, pp. 228-248.
 Gobo, G. (2015), The next challenge: from mixed to merged methods, in
Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International
Journal, 10: 4, pp. 329-31.

P age 8 o f 1 4
Lecture 5: Merged methods II: two other techniques (“Delphi method” and the”
mystery shopper)

Other integrated techniques are the “Delphi method” (policy studies) and the” mystery
shopper” (market research and business).


 Fletcher Amber J. and Marchildon Gregory P. (2014). Using the Delphi method
for qualitative, participatory action research in health leadership. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 13(1): pp.1-18.
 Michael Bloor, Helen Sampson, Susan Baker, Katrin Dahlgren (2014), Useful but
no Oracle: reflections on the use of a Delphi Group in a multi-methods policy
research study, in Qualitative Research, Vol 15, Issue 1, pp. 57 - 70
 Skulmoski, Gregory J.; Hartman, Francis T.; Krahn, Jennifer (2007), The Delphi
Method for Graduate Research, in Journal of Information Technology
Education, v6 p1-21
 Wiele, A. van der, Hesselink, M.G. & Iwaarden, J.D. van (2005). Mystery
shopping: A tool to develop insight into customer service provision, in Total
Quality Management and Business Excellence, 16(4), 529-541.

Lecture 6: Decolonizing and creolizing methodology

In order to become a “third paradigm” or (simply) fully overcame the
qualitative/quantitative divide, mixed methods need to discharge the colonial elements
still present in either approaches or methods. Critics and opponents of globalization
advocate the ambition of “decolonizing methodologies” (Tuhiwai Smith 1999, see also, designing indigenous methodologies (IM),
implementing a participatory action research (PAR), and inventing a multicultural and
creole methodology, where the global and local can cohabit.


 Fielding, Nigel G. (2014), Qualitative Research and Our Digital Futures, in

Qualitative Inquiry November 2014 20(9): 1064-1073.
 Flick, Uwe and Röhnsch, Gundula (2014), Migrating Diseases: Triangulating
Approaches—Applying Qualitative Inquiry as a Global Endeavor, in Qualitative
Inquiry November 20(9): 1096-109.
 Gobo, G. (2011) Glocalizing methodology? The encounter between local
methodologies, in International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(6):
pp. 417-437.
 Evans, M., Hole, R., Berg, L.D., Hutchinson, P., and Sookraj, D. (2009). Common
insights, differing methodologies. Toward a fusion of indigenous methodologies,

P age 9 o f 1 4
participatory action research, and white studies in an urban aboriginal
research agenda, Qualitative Research, 15(5), 893–910.
 Heath, A. F., Fisher, S., & Smith, S. (2005). The globalization of public opinion
research. Annual Review of Political Science 8: 297–333.
 Weaver, Lesley Jo and Kaiser, Bonnie N. (2015), Developing and Testing Locally
Derived Mental Health Scales: Examples from North India and Haiti, Field
Methods 2015: 27(2):115-130

Lecture 7: Sampling: outlines of a ideographic theory of samples

An important step in the mixed methods design is sampling. The lecture explores the
different concepts of sampling, offering an alternative vision that reconciles quantitative
requests and qualitative needs.


 Lieberson, Stanley (1992): Small N´s and big conclusions: an examination of the
reasoning in comparative studies based on a small number of cases, reprinted in
Gomm, R., Hammersley, M. and Foster, P. (eds.): Case Study Method. Key
Issues, Key Texts. London: Sage, pp. 208-22.
 Onwuegbuzie, Anthony and Collins, Kathleen (2007), A Typology of Mixed
Methods Sampling Designs in Social Science Research, in The Qualitative
Report, 12 (2), pp.281-316.
 Julia L. Sharp, Catherine Mobley, Cathy Hammond, Cairen Withington, Sam
Drew, Sam Stringfield, Natalie Stipanovic (2012), A Mixed Methods Sampling
Methodology for a Multisite Case Study, in Journal of Mixed Methods Research,
Vol 6, Issue 1, pp. 34 - 54
 Charles Teddlie, Fen Yu (2007), Mixed Methods Sampling: A Typology With
Examples, in Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol 1, Issue 1, pp. 77 - 100

P age 1 0 o f 1 4
Lecture 8: Generalizing: a dissent view
As for sampling, also the generalization of the research findings is an important step. On
this issue there are different divergent positions, which will be described and discussed.
The lecture will end up with an alternative proposal.


 Connolly, P. (1998), “Dancing to the wrong tune”: Ethnography, Generalization,

and research on racism in schools, in P. Connolly and B. Troyna (eds.)
Researching Racism in Education, Open University Press, Buckingham, pp. 122-
 Dumez, Hervi (2015), "What Is a Case, and What Is a Case Study?" Bulletin of
Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 127, 1:43-57.
 Edwards P. & Bélanger J. (2008): "Generalizing from Workplace Ethnographies:
From Induction to Theory" in Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 37
(2008); 291-313.
 Gobo, Giampietro (2008): "Re-conceptualizing generalization: old issues in a
new frame." In: Alasuutari, Pertti, Bickman, Leonard, Brannen, Julia (eds.): The
Sage handbook of social research methods. London: Sage, pp. 193 – 227.
 Halkier B. (2011): Methodological Practicalities in Analytical Generalization.
Qualitative Inquiry 17 (9):787-797
 Payne, Geoff and Williams, Malcolm (2005), Generalization in Qualitative
Research, Sociology, Vol. 39, No. 2, 295-314
 Schofield Janet Ward (1990), Increasing the generalizability of qualitative
research, in E.W. Eisner and A. Peshkin (eds.), Qualitative Inquiry in Education:
The Continuing Debate, New York: Teachers College Press.
 Simons, H. (2015), Interpret in context: generalizing from the single case in
evaluation, Evaluation, 21(2) 173–188.
 Williams, Malcolm (2000), 'Interpretivism and generalisation', Sociology 34(2),
pp. 209–24.

Lecture 9 and 10: Student research design presentations

See the introduction on research designs/assignments for details.

P age 1 1 o f 1 4
Some examples of mixed methods empirical research

 Bronwyn Hall, Kirsten Howard (2008), A Synergistic Approach: Conducting

Mixed Methods Research With Typological and Systemic Design Considerations,
in Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2 (3): 248 - 269
 Nataliya V. Ivankova (2014), Implementing Quality Criteria in Designing and
Conducting a Sequential QUAN → QUAL Mixed Methods Study of Student
Engagement With Learning Applied Research Methods Online, Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, Vol 8, Issue 1, pp. 25 - 51
 Monica Reid Kerrigan (2014), A Framework for Understanding Community
Colleges’ Organizational Capacity for Data Use: A Convergent Parallel Mixed
Methods Study, in Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol 8, Issue 4, pp. 341 -
 Mauceri, S, (2014). Teenage homophobia: A multilevel and integrated survey
approach to the social construction of prejudice in high school. SAGE Research
Methods Cases.
 Donald J. Nicolson, Peter Knapp, Peter Gardner, David K. Raynor (2011),
Combining Concurrent and Sequential Methods to Examine the Usability and
Readability of Websites With Information About Medicines, in Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, Vol 5, Issue 1, pp. 25 - 51
 Vicki L. Plano Clark, Nancy Anderson, Jessica A. Wertz, Yuchun Zhou, Karen
Schumacher, Christine Miaskowski (2014), Conceptualizing Longitudinal Mixed
Methods Designs: A Methodological Review of Health Sciences Research, in
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol 9, Issue 4, pp. 297 - 319
 Eleanor Palo Stoller, Noah J. Webster, Carol E. Blixen, Richard A. McCormick,
Andrew J. Hund, Adam T. Perzynski, Stephanie W. Kanuch, Charles L. Thomas,
Kyle Kercher, Neal V. Dawson (2009), Alcohol Consumption Decisions Among
Nonabusing Drinkers Diagnosed with Hepatitis C: An Exploratory Sequential
Mixed Methods Study, in Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol 3, Issue 1, pp.
65 - 86

Issues of integration

 Patricia Bazeley (2009), Editorial: Integrating Data Analyses in Mixed Methods

Research, in Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol 3, Issue 3, pp. 203-7
 Felipe González Castro, Joshua G. Kellison, Stephen J. Boyd, Albert Kopak
(2010), A methodology for conducting integrative mixed methods research and
data analyses, in Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4) 342–60
 Norman K. Denzin (2012), Triangulation 2.0, in Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, Vol 6, Issue 2, pp. 80-8
 Nigel G. Fielding (2012), Triangulation and Mixed Methods Designs: Data
Integration With New Research Technologies, in Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, Vol 6, Issue 2, pp. 124 - 136

P age 1 2 o f 1 4
 Uwe Flick, Vjenka Garms-Homolová, Wolfram J. Herrmann, Joachim Kuck,
Gundula Röhnsch (2012), “I Can’t Prescribe Something Just Because Someone
Asks for It . . .”: Using Mixed Methods in the Framework of Triangulation, in
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol 6, Issue 2, pp. 97 - 110
 Kenneth R. Howe (2012), Mixed Methods, Triangulation, and Causal
Explanation, in Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol 6, Issue 2, pp. 89 - 96
 Sharlene Hesse-Biber (2012), Feminist Approaches to Triangulation: Uncovering
Subjugated Knowledge and Fostering Social Change in Mixed Methods Research,
in Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol 6, Issue 2, pp. 137 - 146
 Donna M. Mertens, Sharlene Hesse-Biber (2012), Triangulation and Mixed
Methods Research: Provocative Positions, in Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, Vol 6, Issue 2, pp. 75 - 79
 Eunice E. Jang, Douglas E. McDougall, Dawn Pollon, Monique Herbert, Pia
Russell (2008), Integrative Mixed Methods Data Analytic Strategies in Research
on School Success in Challenging Circumstances, in Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, Vol 2, Issue 3, pp. 221 - 247
 Maxwell, Joseph, Chmiel Margaret, and Rogers, Silvia E. (2015) ‘Designing
integration in multimethod and mixed methods research’, in Sharlene Nagy
Hesse-Biber, and Burke Johnson (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod
and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.

Recommended for additional reading

The literature on mixed methods is huge and growing. Among the many good books,
four significant collections are:

 Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Johnson, R. B. (Eds.) (2015). Oxford handbook of

multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
 Johnson, R. Burke and Christensen, Larry B. (2014). Educational Research:
Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
Fifth edition, pp. 744
 Plano-Clark, Vicki L. and Creswell, John (2008) (eds.) The mixed methods
reader, Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 640 (a collection of classical contributions on
mixed methods).
 Tashakkori, Abbas and Teddlie, Charles (2010) (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of
Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Sciences, Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage,
second edition, pp. 912.

P age 1 3 o f 1 4
Other books related to the topics of the course are:

 Greene, Jennifer C. (2007): Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA.:
Jossey Bass.
 Jahoda, M., Lazarsfeld, P.F., & Zeisel, H. (1933). Die Arbeitslosen von
Marienthal. Leipzig: Hitzel, transl. Marienthal. Sociography of an Unemployed
Community. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2002.
 Merton, Robert K., Coleman, James S. and Rossi, Peter H. (1976) (eds.),
Qualitative and Quantitative Social Research: Papers in Honor of Paul F.
Lazarsfeld, New York: The Free Press.
 Tuhiwai Smith, Linda (1999), Decolonizing Methodologies. Research and
Indigenous Peoples, London, Zed Books.
 Varma (Ed.), Mystery Shopping - An Introduction. Hyderabad, India: Icfai
University Press, 2008.

The lecturer
Dr. Giampietro Gobo is Professor of Social Research Methods and Evaluation Methods
at the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Milano. He holds degrees in Sociology
(Master) and in Methodology and Social Research (Ph.D.). For many years, he served as
Director of the centre ICONA (Innovation and Organizational Change in the Public
Administration) at the University of Milan. He has taught Research Methods,
Evaluation research, Epistemology, Social Studies of Science, Ethnography and Applied
Ethnography on the undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate level at various
universities in Italy, Germany, Norway, Spain and US.

Areas of specialization: Epistemology, Sociology of Science, Qualitative methods,

Quantitative methods, Marketing research, Organization studies, Management studies,
Computer supported cooperative work, Ergonomics.

P age 1 4 o f 1 4