University of Oslo

The Faculty of Social Sciences

Oslo Summer School in

Comparative Social Science Studies 2016

Mixed Methods:
Towards a Methodological Pluralism
Professor Giampietro Gobo
Department of Social and Political Studies
University of Milan, Italy
Main disciplines: Methodology, Sociology, Political Science,
Psychology, Economics, Geography
Dates: 1 - 5 August 2016
Course Credits: 10 pts (ECTS)
Limitation: PhD students only. 30 participants

Objectives
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.

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currently used in social sciences), aiming to overcome the outdated dichotomy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
University of Oslo
The Faculty of Social Sciences
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) 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.

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
debate.

Research designs/assignments
Students have 2 options in terms of submitting a research design/paper in order to
receive ECTS credits:

 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
administration.
 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 2 o f 1 4
COURSE OUTLINE
Lecture 1: Part A
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.
Readings:

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

Organizations and Management, 3(2), pp. 159-68
 Gobo, Giampietro (2008), Method or methodology? Locating ethnography in the
methodological landscape, in Gobo, G., Doing Ethnography, London: Sage, chap.
2, pp. 15-31.
 Marradi, Alberto (1990), Classification, Typology, Taxonomy, "Quality and
Quantity", XXIV, 2: 129-57.

Lecture 1: Part B
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 and documenting are three different ways of assembling data;
secondly as a basis for re-joining qualitative and quantitative approaches on a new
methodological ground.
Readings:

 Gobo, Giampietro (2008), Designing research, in Gobo, G., Doing Ethnography,

London: Sage, chap. 5, pp. 69-96.
 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, Sage, pp. 409–426.

P age 3 o f 1 4
Lecture 2: 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…
Readings:

 Bryman, A. (2008), The end of the paradigm war?, in P. Alasuutari, J. Brannen

and L. Bickman (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Social Research Methods,
London: Sage, pp. 13-25.
 Gobo, Giampietro (2005) The Renaissance of qualitative methods, in «Forum
Qualitative Social Research», 6(3), http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-
texte/3-05/05-3-42-e.htm
 Gobo, Giampietro (2014), Surveying the survey: back to the past, in Gobo, G. and
Mauceri, S., Constructing Survey Data. An interactional approach, London:
Sage, chap. 1, pp. 3-14
 Johnson, Burke and Gray, Robert (2010), A history of philosophical and
theoretical issues for mixed methods research, in: Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C.
(eds.): The SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research.
Thousand Oaks, CA., Sage, pp. 69 – 94.
 Lazarsfeld, P.F. and Oberschall, A.R. (1965). Max Weber and empirical social
research, in American Sociological Review, 30(2), 185–99.
 Sieber, S.D. (1973). The integration of fieldwork and survey methods, in
American Journal of Sociology, 6, 1335–59.

P age 4 o f 1 4
Lecture 2: Part B
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 skein.
Readings:

 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, in Journal of Mixed Methods Research,
1(2), 112–33.
 Johnson, R. B. (2015). Toward an inclusive multi 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, 3(4), pp. 293-311.
 Leech, N.L., and 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.
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:
Blackwell.
 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.
P age 5 o f 1 4
Lecture 3: Beyond mixed methods I: two techniques
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).
Readings:

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

interviewing: A theoretical and empirical rationale, in R. F. Belli, F. P. Stafford
and 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.

Lecture 4: Beyond mixed methods II: two other techniques

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

 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.
 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 5: 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.
Readings:

 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. S. 208-222.
 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.

P age 6 o f 1 4
Lecture 6: 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.
Readings:

 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-
39.
 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.
 Haliker 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.
 Williams, Malcolm (2000), 'Interpretivism and generalisation', Sociology 34(2),
pp. 209–24.

P age 7 o f 1 4
Lecture 7: Decolonizing and glocalizing 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
http://www.rangahau.co.nz/method/), designing indigenous methodologies (IM),
implementing a participatory action research (PAR), and inventing a multicultural and
creole methodology, where the global and local can cohabit.
Readings:

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

Qualitative Inquiry, 20(9): 1064-1073.
 Flick, Uwe and Röhnsch, Gundula (2014), Migrating Diseases: Triangulating
Approaches—Applying Qualitative Inquiry as a Global Endeavor, in Qualitative
Inquiry, 20(9): 1096-1109
 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, participatory action research, and white studies in an urban
aboriginal research agenda", Qualitative Research, 15(5), 893–910.
 Weaver, Lesley Jo and Kaiser, Bonnie N. (2015), "Developing and Testing Locally
Derived Mental Health Scales: Examples from North India and Haiti", in Field
Methods 2015: 27(2):115-130

P age 8 o f 1 4
Lecture 8: Controversies
The final lecture revises the main contents considered in the course, focusing 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.
Readings:

 Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of
mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A.Tashakkori and C.
Teddlie (eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research
(pp. 3–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 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.
 Symonds, J., and Gorard, S. (2010). The death of mixed methods: Research
labels and their casualties. Paper presented at the British Educational Research
Association Annual Conference, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland,
September, 3-6.
 Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22.

Lecture 9 and 10: Student research design presentations and critique

See introduction for details

P age 9 o f 1 4
Complete reading list:

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

interviewing: A theoretical and empirical rationale, in R. F. Belli, F. P. Stafford
and D. F. Alwin (Eds.), Calendar and time diary methods in life course research
(pp. 31-52). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
 Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22.
 Bryman, A. (2008), The end of the paradigm war?, in P. Alasuutari, J. Brannen
and L. Bickman (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Social Research Methods,
London: Sage, pp. 13-25.
 Bryman, Alan (2008), 'Of methods and methodology', in Qualitative Research in
Organizations and Management, 3(2), pp. 159-68
 Creswell John W. (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, fourth edition.
 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-
39.
 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.
 Edwards P. & Bélanger J. (2008): "Generalizing from Workplace Ethnographies:
From Induction to Theory". Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 37 (2008):
291-313.
 Evans, M., Hole, R., Berg, L.D., Hutchinson, P., and Sookraj, D. (2009).
"Common insights, differing methodologies. Toward a fusion of indigenous
methodologies, participatory action research, and white studies in an urban
aboriginal research agenda", Qualitative Research, 15(5), 893–910.
 Fielding, Nigel G. (2014), Qualitative Research and Our Digital Futures, in
Qualitative Inquiry, 20(9): 1064-1073.
 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.
 Flick, Uwe and Röhnsch, Gundula (2014), Migrating Diseases: Triangulating
Approaches—Applying Qualitative Inquiry as a Global Endeavor, in Qualitative
Inquiry, 20(9): 1096-1109
 Gobo, Giampietro (2005) "The Renaissance of qualitative methods", in Forum
Qualitative Social Research, 6(3), http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-
texte/3-05/05-3-42-e.htm
 Gobo, Giampietro (2008), Designing research, in Gobo, G., Doing Ethnography,
London: Sage, chap. 5, pp. 69-96.
 Gobo, Giampietro (2008), Method or methodology? Locating ethnography in
the methodological landscape, in Gobo, G., Doing Ethnography, London: Sage,
chap. 2, pp. 15-31.
 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.

P age 1 0 o f 1 4
 Gobo, Giampietro (2011) Glocalizing methodology? The encounter between local
methodologies, in International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(6):
pp. 417-437.
 Gobo, Giampietro (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, Giampietro (2014), Surveying the survey: back to the past, in Gobo, G.
and Mauceri, S., Constructing Survey Data. An interactional approach, London:
Sage, chap. 1, pp. 3-14
 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.
 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.
 Haliker B. 2011: "Methodological Practicalities in Analytical Generalization".
Qualitative Inquiry 17 (9):787-797
 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, Sage, pp. 409–426.
 Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., & Onghena, P. (2013). Mixed methods research
synthesis: Definition, framework, and potential. Quality & Quantity, 47, 659–76.
 Johnson, Burke and Gray, Robert (2010), A history of philosophical and
theoretical issues for mixed methods research, in: Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C.
(eds.): The SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research.
Thousand Oaks, CA., Sage, pp. 69 – 94.
 Johnson, R. Burke, Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J., & Turner, L.A. (2007), Toward a
definition of mixed methods research, in Journal of Mixed Methods Research,
1(2), 112–33.
 Johnson, R. B. (2015). "Toward an inclusive multi 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, 3(4), pp. 293-311.
 Lazarsfeld, P.F. and Oberschall, A.R. (1965). Max Weber and empirical social
research, in American Sociological Review, 30(2), 185–99.
 Leech, N.L., and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods
research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43, 265–75.
 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. S. 208-222.
 Marradi, Alberto (1990), "Classification, Typology, Taxonomy", Quality and
Quantity, XXIV, 2: 129-57.
 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

P age 1 1 o f 1 4
 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.
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:
Blackwell.
 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.
 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.
 Sieber, S.D. (1973). The integration of fieldwork and survey methods, in
American Journal of Sociology, 6, 1335–59.
 Symonds, J., and Gorard, S. (2010). The death of mixed methods: Research
labels and their casualties. Paper presented at the British Educational Research
Association Annual Conference, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland,
September, 3-6.
 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.
 Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of
mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A.Tashakkori and C.
Teddlie (eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research
(pp. 3–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 Weaver, Lesley Jo and Kaiser, Bonnie N. (2015), "Developing and Testing Locally
Derived Mental Health Scales: Examples from North India and Haiti", in Field
Methods 2015: 27(2):115-130
 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.
 Williams, Malcolm (2000), 'Interpretivism and generalisation', Sociology 34(2),
pp. 209–24.

Recommendations 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

P age 1 2 o f 1 4
  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.

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 for Political Sciences 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, 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, Qualitative methods, Quantitative methods,
Marketing research, Organization studies, Management studies, Computer supported
cooperative work, Ergonomics.

Selected publications:
Quantitative methods
2001 Best practices: rituals and rhetorical strategies in the “initial telephone contact”,
in «Forum Qualitative Social Research», vol. 2(1), http://www.qualitative-
research.net/fqs-texte/1-01/1-01gobo-e.htm
2006 Set them free. Improving data quality by broadening interviewer’s task, in
International Journal of Social Research Methodology. Theory & Practice, 9(4), pp.
279–301

P age 1 3 o f 1 4
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 ,
2014 (with Mauceri, S.), Constructing Survey Data. An interactional approach,
London: Sage.

Qualitative methods
2004 Sampling, representativeness and generalizability, in Seale C., Gobo G,
Gubrium J.F, Silverman D., (eds.), Qualitative Research Practice, London, Sage.
2005 The Renaissance of qualitative methods, in «Forum Qualitative Social
Research», 6(3), http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-05/05-3-42-e.htm
2008 Re-conceptualizing generalization. Old issues in a new frame, in Alasuutari
Pertti, Brannen Julia and Bickman Leonard (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Social
Research Methods, London, Sage, pp. 193-213.
2008 Doing Ethnography, London: Sage (transl. in Arabic)
2011 Ethnography, in Silverman, David (ed.), Qualitative Research, (third edition),
London, Sage, pp. 15-34.
2011 Ethnographic methods, in Badie Bertrand, Berg-Schlosser Dirk e Morlino
Leonardo, Encyclopedia of Political Science, London, Sage (on behalf of International
Political Science Association - IPSA ).
2011 Glocalizing methodology? The encounter between local methodologies, in
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(6): pp. 417-437.

Epistemology and Social Theory

1993 Class: stories of concepts. From ordinary language to scientific language, in
“Social Science Information”, 32 (3), pp. 467-89.
1995 Class as metaphor. On the unreflexive transformation of a concept in an object,
in “Philosophy of the Social Sciences”, 25 (4), pp. 442-67.

Organization studies
2008 Crafting blindness: Its organizational construction in a first grade school, in
Qualitative Sociology Review, 4(1), pp. 92-108
http://www.qualitativesociologyreview.org/ENG/Volume9/QSR_4_1_Gobo.pdf
(transl. in Polish)
2010 Garzone G., Catino M., Gobo, G., Bait M., Catenaccio P., Degano C. and Rozzi S.
Towards an Integrated Model for the Understanding of Communication Failures in
Aviation Accidents: Tenuous Identities under Pressure, in Giuliana Garzone and James
Archibald (eds.), Discourse, Identities and Roles in Specialized Communication, Bern:
Peter Lang, pp. 209-44.

P age 1 4 o f 1 4