Qualitative Inquiry

http://qix.sagepub.com/

Qualitative Approaches to Mixed Methods Practice

Sharlene Hesse-Biber
Qualitative Inquiry 2010 16: 455 originally published online 15 April 2010
DOI: 10.1177/1077800410364611

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://qix.sagepub.com/content/16/6/455

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Qualitative Inquiry can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://qix.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://qix.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://qix.sagepub.com/content/16/6/455.refs.html

Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at Stockholms universitet on March 4, 2011

 Qualitative Inquiry

Qualitative Approaches 16(6) 455­–468

© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission:
to Mixed Methods Practice sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1077800410364611
http://qix.sagepub.com

Sharlene Hesse-Biber1

Abstract
This article discusses how methodological practices can shape and limit how mixed methods is practiced and makes
visible the current methodological assumptions embedded in mixed methods practice that can shut down a range of
social inquiry. The article argues that there is a “methodological orthodoxy” in how mixed methods is practiced that
currently favors quantitative methodologies, with a mixed methods praxis that positions qualitative methods second and
quantitative methods as primary with an overall mixed methods design that is in the service of testing out quantitatively
generated theories about the social world.This article upends the current methodological focus on positivism by centering
qualitative approaches to mixed methods practice. A qualitative approach seeks to empower individuals’ stories with the
goal of understanding how they how make meaning within their social world. Through intensive case studies this article
demonstrates the synergy of combining methods in the service of qualitatively driven approaches.

Keywords
mixed methods, qualitative approaches, case studies

A qualitative approach to research aims to understand how
individuals make meaning of their social world. The social
world is not something independent of individual percep-
tions but is created through social interactions of individuals
with the world around them. This approach is committed
to multiple views of social reality whereby a researcher’s
respondent becomes “the expert”—it is his or her view of
reality that the researcher seeks to interpret. Social reality is
assumed to be subjective and varied; there is not just one
story but multiple stories of lived experience. One primary
method of a qualitative approach involves values reflection
and listening with the goal of empowering and giving voice
to respondents’ experiences. Most of all, a qualitative
approach privileges the exploration of the process of human
meaning making.
A qualitative approach encompasses several research tra-
ditions that hold as their core assumption that reality is
socially constructed and multiple. There are theoretical vari-
ations among these approaches. Denzin and Lincoln (2007)
note these variations can be grouped into three categories:
(1) constructivist-interpretive, (2) critical (Marxist, emancipa-
tory), and (3) feminist (2007, p. 31).
A constructivist or interpretative approach assumes a
subjective reality that consists of stories or meanings
grounded in “natural” settings. Constructivists in particular
note that there is no “objective” social reality “out there.”
A critical paradigm centers on examining issues of power,
control, and ideology that are said to dominate one’s under-
standing of the social world (e.g., how power dynamics
within a social system serve to generate a given set of mean-
ings [dominant ideologies] about social reality and lived
experiences). One example comes from postmodern tradi-
tions of research that question foundational assumptions
about the nature of social reality. Postmodern perspectives
look at how social life is reproduced and privileged by those
who occupy positions of power. An important goal of the
critical paradigm is to liberate and expose social injustice.1
The search for “truth” is not a goal of this perspective;
rather reality is assumed to always be “representational”
rather than “real” or “truthful.” Feminist perspectives seek
to understand the lived experiences of women and other
oppressed groups. Feminist standpoint theories (Collins,
2007; Harding, 2004; Smith, 1989) are critical of many of
the central tenets of positivism, especially the idea of “objec-
tivity” within the research process, whereby a researcher
attempts to place his or her values aside while conducting
his or her research project. A core assumption of feminist
perspectives is that knowledge does not exist outside of the
1
Boston College, Department of Sociology
Corresponding Author:
Sharlene Hesse-Biber, Boston College, Department of Sociology, 140
Commonwealth Avenue, McGuinn Hall, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467
E-mail: hesse@bc.edu

Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at Stockholms universitet on March 4, 2011

456 Qualitative Inquiry 16(6)

Table 1. Philosophical Perspectives on Knowledge Building

Perspectives Subjective Objective

Ontological: What is the nature of reality? Social reality is multiple. There is a concrete social world.
Epistemological: What can we know Goal is to understand multiple Goal is to find truth to predict/uncover laws of
and who can know?    subjectivities. Individuals are    human behavior through objective social enquiry.
   experts. No definitive    Scientists are the experts.
   subject–object split.

Note: Adapted from Hesse-Biber, (2010, p. 105)

In the methods-centric mixed methods design, methodol-

Methods
(methods drive
the research)
Data
Research
Question
Methodology
(theory)
Figure 1. Methods-centric mixed methods design (Hesse-Biber,
2010, p. 105)
social world. There is no view from “nowhere”; instead, all
knowledge contains a perspective. Feminist empiricists
(Leckenby, 2007) seek to uncover the androcentric (male)
bias in knowledge building, especially as practiced by early
positivists, who ignored the concerns and issues of women
and failed to take into account the diversity of women’s lives
in terms of how their gender intersected with race, class, eth-
nicity, sexual preference, and so on (see Bhavnani, 2007).
Feminist perspectives seek to get at “subjugated” knowl-
edge of women’s lives, which traditional research approaches
have neglected (Hesse-Biber, 2010, pp. 128-153).
A Mixed Methods Qualitative
Methodology
Methodology provides the theoretical perspective that links
a research problem with a particular method or methods.
Methodologies are derived from a researcher’s assumptions
about the nature of existence (ontology). Our ontology leads
to our philosophy on the nature of knowledge building
(epistemology). Table 1 depicts a researcher’s philosophical
standpoint as lying along a continuum ranging from subjec-
tive to objective assumptions about knowledge building and
the nature of the social world.
The practice of mixed methods research has often been
characterized by a “methods-centric approach” (see Figure 1).
ogy (theoretical perspective) is isolated from the rest of the
research model and appears last in the design sequence. It is
not clear how theory (whether it is implied or explicit) is
linked to a specific methods design. Miller and Fredericks
(2006) suggested that such a misplacement of theory in a
mixed methods project becomes a “problem of logic” and
noted that this type of placement often characterizes mixed
methods design choices.
In addition, the deployment of a qualitative methodology
does not rule out the use of quantitative methods. The same
idea applies for quantitative methodologies such as positiv-
ism. Some positivists employ qualitative methods in their
research project. Methods are tools; a researcher’s method-
ology determines the way in which a tool will be utilized.
This can make the issue of which design to use confusing
and problematic for researchers working from a qualita-
tive or quantitative methodological perspective. Early on,
Lincoln and Guba (1985) noted that naturalistic inquiry,
which is the study of groups or individuals in their natural
surroundings, was not necessarily antipositivistic and that
though qualitative data allow for the experiences of respon-
dents to be voiced within the research project, there may be
many ways for quantitative data to be incorporated into this
type of research approach (pp. 198-199).
The following are some of the major goals/rationales
for employing a mixed methods qualitative methodology:
Qualitative approaches offer a range of insights into the
ongoing discussion of mixed methods research, especially
as it relates to arguments concerning the mixing of research
paradigms, issues of power, and authority inside and out-
side the research process. Qualitative methodologies offer a
multilayered view of the nuances of social reality, one that
does not privilege the interests of those who occupy posi-
tions of authority and power within a given society. There is
a transformative quality to many of these perspectives in that
they speak to social justice and social change as primary
research objectives. Qualitatively driven praxis promotes a
deep listening between the researcher and the researched, to
get at “deeper and more genuine expressions of beliefs and
values that emerge through dialogue [and] foster a more
accurate description of views held” (Howe, 2004, p. 54). In
addition, qualitative approaches tend to be open to new

Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at Stockholms universitet on March 4, 2011

Hesse-Biber 457
information—they are less confirmatory (hypothesis testing)
than exploratory and theory generating.
The Neglect of Qualitative Approaches
to Mixed Methods Research
The practice of mixed methods research has leaned toward
a more positivist methodological orientation, one that
employs qualitative data as “handmaiden” or “second
best” to the quantitative data; the qualitative data’s job is
to illustrate quantitative results or to assist with the build-
ing of more robust quantitative measures, such as survey
research questions. Some researchers fear that using
mixed methods in this way leads to an “adding and stir-
ring” of qualitative methods that often takes the form of
sprinkling in some vignettes to provide narrative exam-
ples of the conclusions already reached by means of
quantitative methods. In this case, what one perceives as
employing an approach to a problem is nothing more than
reducing research to a set of auxiliary techniques for vari-
ously supplementing, humanizing, or illustrating a
primarily “expert” quantitative research design (see, for
example, Giddings, 2006). Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutmann,
and Hanson (2003) noted that a common mixed methods
design aims for triangulation (QUAN + QUAL), whereby
the motive is to validate quantitative statistical findings
with qualitative data results. Yet contained in this mixed
methods design is the assumption of a positivistic view
that social reality is objective. The goal in such a design is
to confirm the original QUAN findings. In addition,
Brannon (2005) pointed out that the most frequent design
among sequential mixed methods studies places the qual-
itative component in a secondary role, “where qualitative
pilot work is likely to precede and be subservient to a
larger survey” (p. 15). Bahl and Milne (2007) also pointed
out that within the field of marketing research, most
studies employ a “positivist orientation” whereby the
qualitative component plays a “supportive role” (p. 198).
Bryman’s (2006) content analysis study of mixed methods
research articles also noted the dominance of the quantita-
tive component in most mixed methods designs, as well as
a lack of integration of researchers’ findings. Subsequently,
Bryman (2007) interviewed mixed methods researchers to
understand their motivation for using a mixed methods
approach and why there was such a paucity of mixed
methods studies that involved an integration of findings.
His research revealed that researchers tend to lean toward
a specific methodology, often positivism, which makes it
difficult to see both sets of findings in dialogue with one
another on an equal footing. In fact, some researchers
noted that they had trouble figuring out how to do this
because many were not trained in a qualitative approach to
research. Another important finding was that the structure
Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at Stockholms universitet on March 4, 2011
of mixed methods studies, especially sequential studies,
might have a built in “time lag,” especially with the quali-
tative component.
The Practice of a Qualitative
Approach to Mixed Methods
Research: Case Studies of Qualitatively
Driven Mixed Methods Designs
This section presents several case study examples of
qualitative approaches to mixed methods research. In the
analysis of each study, we are guided by two sensitizing
questions for contemplating a mixed methods study from
a qualitative perspective:
• How does the mixed methods design further the
goals of a qualitative approach to understanding
social reality?
• Why and how do qualitative researchers employ
mixed methods research?
Case Study 1: Fostering Social Change
for Women—Studying Gender Inequality
in the Workplace
Louise Marie Roth’s research, Selling Women Short: Gender
and Money on Wall Street (2006), tackles gender inequality
in the workplace. She was interested in understanding the
gender–wage gap among highly performing Wall Street
MBAs, who on the surface appeared to have the same
“human capital”2 qualifications and were placed in high-
ranking Wall Street securities firms as their first jobs. In
addition, Roth wanted to understand the “structural factors”
within the workplace setting that may contribute to the
gender–wage gap and its persistence over time.
In her study, Roth carried out a nested mixed methods
design. She conducted semistructured interviews, nesting
quantitative closed-ended questions into primarily quali-
tative in-depth interviews (see Figure 2). She gathered a
convenience cohort sample of 76 men and women who
had completed their MBAs in 1991, 1992, or 1993, and
subsequently worked on Wall Street (however, at the
time of the interview, participants may or may not have
been still working on Wall Street). Roth interviewed her
participants between 1998-1999 and primarily concen-
trated on their “career history from before the MBA until
the time of the interview” (p. 203). Interviews were semi-
structured and included closed-ended and open-ended
questions (to elicit quantitative and qualitative data,
respectively).
The qualitative component of Roth’s study consisted of
open-ended questions that asked men and women about
their everyday lived experiences in their workplace. The
458 Qualitative Inquiry 16(6)
QUAL study in the form of open-ended
questions in an in-depth interview
Quan study in the form
of close-ended
questions embedded in
an in-depth interview
Figure 2. Roth’s (2006) nested mixed methods design
questions were intended to provide her with a broader
understanding of the potential ways in which the workplace
environment operates to reproduce gendered inequities.
The quantitative component was nested in the qualitative
and was intended to track respondents’ wages over time,
along with other specific career conditions: job changes,
salary information (including bonuses), and reports on the
“performance evaluations” carried out by their employers.
Roth performed both quantitative and qualitative
analyses of her data. In analyzing the quantitative data
from her sample, she statistically considered all those
factors that might legitimately account for gendered dif-
ferences such as number of hours worked, any human
capital differences, and so on. Her analysis of the quan-
titative data revealed the presence of a significant gender
gap in wages that remained unexplained after controlling
for any legitimate factors that might otherwise make a
difference.
The analysis of the qualitative data was brought into
dialogue with the quantitative. Quantitative findings
showed the extent of the wage gap while providing
numerical understanding of the disparity but did not pro-
vide her with an understanding of the specific processes
within the workplace that might have contributed to the
gender gap in wages. It is the grounded theory analysis of
her respondents’ stories regarding their lived experiences
at work that provided her with subjugated knowledge of
the inner workings of the workplace environment. This
grounded theory analysis also helped explain the gen-
dered wage gap’s persistence over time despite the
general climate on Wall Street in the early 1990s being
one of growing opportunities for women’s advancement.
Roth notes that from listening to men’s and women’s
voices, a picture of structural discrimination in the
workplace began to emerge. It is often the unarticulated
and even unconscious practices and actions of employ-
ers that ensure and perpetuate the gender gap in wages.
She notes,
Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at Stockholms universitet on March 4, 2011
On Wall Street, these interpersonal and organizational
dynamics occur through a bonus system where pay
supposedly reflects performance. Despite a supposed
basis in individual merit, this variable pay system not
only coexists with gender inequality between workers
in the same jobs, it can even help reproduce this
inequality. (p. 10)
Her respondents’ lived experiences over time revealed
the hidden inner structures of the workplace that consist of
discriminatory organizational practices with regard to deci-
sion making in performance evaluations that are tightly tied
to wage increases and promotion.
Through dialoguing with her qualitative and quantitative
findings, the mixed methods nested design allowed Roth to
pinpoint how macrodifferences between men and women’s
wages are connected to specific organizational practices.
Yet the qualitative data were the ones that allowed Roth to
truly delve underneath the surface and explore the experi-
ences of her respondents. To dialogue was not to ask for a
convergence of results but rather to be comfortable residing
on multiple levels and in multiple realities that inform one
another.
Roth’s mixed methods research on the gender gap in
wages uncovered organizational processes that were
structural to the culture of the organization rather than
individual factors that appeared most critical in under-
standing the genesis and perpetuation of workplace
inequality (for a fuller discussion of the “structural
approach,” see Benokraitis & Feagin, 1995; Headlee &
Elfin, 1996; Hesse-Biber & Carter, 2005). By focusing on
the policies and practices of Wall Street securities firms,
Roth helped us better understand the macroprocesses that
tend to confine women to jobs characterized by low
wages, little mobility, and limited prestige. This approach
blames the structure instead of the victim and suggests a
different strategy for improving women’s labor force
status. It is by going under the surface of things that social
change can be implemented.
What Roth’s qualitative data revealed was that the
organizational climate is one that promotes employers’
“taste for discrimination.” Just as women choose certain
jobs that fit the traditional image of appropriate work for
women, employers are also influenced by such cultural
images. Thus, they may choose men or women as workers
because they seek traits believed to be masculine or femi-
nine, regardless of whether specific women or men
possess such traits. To this extent, women’s labor market
situation is a result of employers’ “irrational preferences”
(Becker, 1957).
Roth was able to move her findings on the plight of
women toward a model of gender equality and social change
for women in the workplace. She ends her book with a call
Hesse-Biber 459
Qualitative
Identify qualitative
data collection,
results to test on
analysis, and
larger population
results
Phase One:
In-depth Interviews
Figure 3. Fuentes’ (2008) sequential exploratory mixed methods design
to action based on her findings, including recommendations
that legal authorities should carefully scrutinize perfor-
mance evaluations for bias and that diversity committees
should “tackle unconscious preferences and prejudices in an
affirmative way” (p. 195). She offers a set of strategies for
restructuring women’s career opportunities with the goal of
workplace transformation for women’s empowerment.
Case Study 2: Studying Interpersonal
Violence and the Development of Sexually
Transmitted Infections (STIs) in Women
Catherine M. Fuentes’ (2008) study, “Pathways from
Interpersonal Violence to Sexually Transmitted Infec-
tions: A Mixed Method Study of Diverse Women” wanted
“to delineate the pathways that link experiences of abuse
in women’s lives to heightened risk for [STIs]” (p. 1591).
She selected a mixed method sequential exploratory design
to provide her with a “richer detail than either method can
generate alone” (p. 1592). The quantitative phase was
employed to generalize the results of her qualitative study
(see Figure 3).
For the first phase of her study, Fuentes gathered a con-
venience sample of 28 women of the following race and
ethnicity: White, Latina (primarily Puerto Rican and Mexi-
can), and African American. The participants were more
than 18 years old and had at least one experience of abuse.
These participants were found using Spanish and English
fliers in public places seeking women who had experienced
interpersonal abuse. The second phase consisted of a survey
of 215 women (chosen by purposive and convenience sam-
pling techniques) that represented an even more diverse
population. These women may or may not have had experi-
enced abuse and were sociodemographically diverse.
Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at Stockholms universitet on March 4, 2011
Quantitative
data collection,
Overall
analysis, and
interpretation
results
Phase Two:
Survey
The first phase of the study was a series of in-depth life
history interviews. Participants were asked about their expe-
riences of abuse and “possible outcomes that might constitute
sexual risk” (without the interview explicitly saying “sexual
risk,” which could have possibly biased responses, p. 1593).
The in-depth interviews revealed a multitude of sexual risk
behaviors and factors in women’s life histories. For exam-
ple, many women experienced depression due to their abuse,
which in turn led to affection-seeking behaviors (including
sexual activity at a young age) and self-medication with
drugs and alcohol. Many experienced a “vicious cycle of
abuse and sexually risky responses” (p. 1597).
The second phase of the study was a series of self-
administered structured interviews. The questions for this
phase were generated on the basis of risk factors identified
in the first phase; Fuentes utilized her grounded qualitative
findings to test out her ideas on the link between sexual
abuse and the development of STIs. The structured inter-
view measured risk factors as well as levels of interpersonal
violence (on a violence/affection scale; p. 1593). In her anal-
ysis, she plotted relationships between levels of abuse and
STI risk factors and a correspondence was found between
increasing levels of abuse and increasing sexual risk, which
held true for ethnically diverse women. She found that
“depression was a primary link between experiences of
abuse and subsequent sexual risk” (p. 1599).
The qualitative component of the study, which consisted
of life history interviews, allowed her to have women frame
their own experiences of abuse and sexual risk. The quanti-
tative component consisted of a structured set of questions.
By implementing both qualitative and quantitative compo-
nents in her research, Fuentes was able to generate and test
her theory that was grounded in women’s lived experiences.
She wrote, “Both qualitative and quantitative stages of
research conducted for this study confirmed that abused
460 Qualitative Inquiry 16(6)
Qualitative data
Work-Place-Based
collection, analysis,
Commuting
and results in the
Studies
form of Interviews
Quantitative data
Residential-Based collection, analysis,
Commuting and results in the
Studies form of Suburban
Directory Data
Figure 4. England’s (1993) mixed methods sequential and layered design
women face heightened risk for STI/HIV compared with
their non-abused counterparts” (p. 1599).
Furthermore, Fuentes found, “The greater the severity
or frequency of abuse in a woman’s life, the greater the
sexual risk” (p. 1599). The qualitative component of her
mixed methods design served to uncover the hidden rela-
tionship between sexual abuse and subsequent promiscuity
and other risky coping mechanisms that were coupled with
sexually transmitted infections. Furthermore, the diversity
of her qualitative sampling procedure allowed her to
debunk the idea that sexual risk after sexual abuse was
culturally based. In fact, she showed that the behaviors
associated with abuse cut across all ethnic groups.
Case Study 3: Understanding Women’s
Segregation into “Pink-Collar” Jobs
Kim England (1993) sought to understand why women
become stuck in pink-collar jobs—service occupations
such as waitress and clerical worker. The standard explana-
tion often given for women’s lack of job mobility is
explained by the “spatial entrapment thesis.” This thesis
assumes that firms employing pink-collar workers tend to
be located in suburban areas to attract women workers,
many of whom are wives and mothers, who want to take
advantage of jobs that are close to their homes. Research
supporting this thesis has found significant differences in
commuting patterns by gender of worker.
England wanted to examine the veracity of the “entrap-
ment” thesis further and chose to conduct a mixed methods
Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at Stockholms universitet on March 4, 2011
Quantitative data
collection, analysis,
and results in the
form of Zip-code
Data
Overall
Interpretation
Quantitative data
collection, analysis,
and results in the
form of a Survey
Qualitative data
Identify a
collection, analysis,
representative
and results in the
sub-sample
form of Interviews
study of commuting patterns of working men and women in
the city of Columbus, Ohio, whose industries, she notes,
were “heavily reliant upon pink collar workers” (p. 228).
She employed a complex mixed methods sequential design
that contained multiple levels of analysis of both macro-
and micro-data (see Figure 4).
England’s mixed methods study took several different
steps, divided into workplace-based and residential-based
commuting studies. She first conducted interviews with
managers at 10 firms with large clerical labor forces to
explore the reasons for firms to relocate to the suburbs.
Only three managers confirmed that a primary reason for
relocation was to target spatially entrapped women. From
these 10 firms, she also sought to reach their clerical per-
sonnel. Though none allowed England direct access to
their employees, they did provide some quantitative data.
Three firms provided zip codes of residences of women
who worked as clerical workers’, which she used to
approximate their journey-to-work distances. The mean
commutes were 13 miles, 7.9 miles, and 11.6 miles; these
results were higher than previous studies of women cleri-
cal workers (p. 231).
In addition, 5 firms also allowed England to conduct a
questionnaire survey, which she administered to 100 women
clerical workers. She sought such information as residence
location, marital status, and presence and age of children.
Whereas men’s journeys to work were longer than wom-
en’s, there was variation in journeys to work among women.
Those in two-adult households had longer and more varied
commutes, whereas never-married women had the shortest
Hesse-Biber 461
commutes (p. 232). Thus, married women were actually
more similar to their partners than to women in one-adult
households.
For her residential-based commuting studies, England
first gathered data from R. L. Polk and Company’s Subur-
ban Directory for Columbus, which provided address
listings with occupants’ occupation, employer, housing
tenure, and phone number. From this data she created a
random sample of 200 women clerical workers and calcu-
lated journey-to-work distances. Results were similar to
those from the workplace-based studies; men had a longer
mean journey than women, whereas married women had a
slightly longer journey than unmarried women.
In the next phase of her residential-based studies, she
conducted 30 interviews with women clerical workers
selected from the quantitative sample of 200. These 30
women comprised a purposive sample of women who lived
in suburban towns known to be “popular destinations for
relocating firms” and “whose commutes were representa-
tive of the broader sample” (p. 234). Two thirds of these
women were married, and all but four of them were
mothers. She wanted to “obtain a deeper understanding” of
issues regarding spatial entrapment, including the role of
time–space budgeting in negotiating multiple roles and the
“nature of the forces facilitating the women’s entry into
paid employment” (p. 234).
Overall, in her study, England wanted to understand
how suburban women workers perceive their work and
family lives. She noted,
The central purpose of my research is not to obtain
empirical generalizations; rather it is to develop an
in-depth understanding of a particular local intersec-
tion of the changing geography of office locations,
gender divisions of labor, and urban labor markets,
grounded in an acceptance of people as knowledge-
able agents. The interviews, in particular, allowed
me to develop an understanding based on the inter-
viewee’s frame of reference and to explore specific
issues within the context of the interviewees’ sets of
meanings. (p. 227)
What her qualitative findings revealed was that no one
explanation is sufficient for understanding how women
come to a commuting time decision. Whereas the spatial
entrapment thesis has been used to explain data in previous
studies, England’s interviewees described a more complex
and negotiated decision-making process. She revealed
women as agents of their own lives, not the seemingly pas-
sive victims depicted by the “entrapment thesis.” What she
discovered by listening to women’s lived experiences
through a qualitative lens was women often making employ-
ment and commute decisions not based on the balancing of
roles. England’s work reveals the importance of taking into
Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at Stockholms universitet on March 4, 2011
account the diversity of women’s work and family situa-
tions and the fact that women workers are not the “passive
victims of spatial structures” but active decision makers.
They take into account the costs and benefits of a range of
different work and family factors. She noted, “Women’s
journeys-to-work should be reconceptualized as an effort
to juggle a multiplicity of overlapping and often contradic-
tory roles and spatial factors” (p. 237).
What we see happening in this mixed methods project is
the qualitative data being employed to uncover women’s
subjugated knowledge. By making women’s lives the center
of her research project, England turned her research into a
set of qualitatively driven questions. She sought to under-
stand the lived experiences among the diversity of women
who occupy pink-collar jobs and their motivations for the
selection of these jobs.
Case Study 4: Understanding Rape Culture
Sarah McMahon (2007) wanted to explore the subculture of
college student athletes and specifically the meaning, role,
and salience of rape myths within that culture. McMahon’s
reasons for choosing a mixed methods design had to do
with her concern that this field of research overrelied on
quantitative measures to the detriment of getting at stu-
dents’ understandings of rape. McMahon’s approach was
qualitatively driven in that she sought to “capture the
essence of rape myths that may not materialize through the
use of quantitative surveys” (p. 358). She also sought to
give a voice to students’ views on rape and to compare what
students said on a survey versus what they talked about in a
more open conversation with their peers and one on one
with an interviewer. While she was looking for confirma-
tion between the quantitative (survey) and qualitative (focus
groups and individual interviews) findings, she entered this
study skeptical of whether or not her quantitative and quali-
tative findings would mesh with one another.
McMahon carried out a sequential explanatory design
(see Figure 5). She first administered a survey to 205 soph-
omore and junior student athletes at one Northeast public
university. She followed up with a series of focus groups
conducted with nine sports teams (total of 48 participants)
chosen by purposive sampling (variety of sports, both gen-
ders). The sample for the subsequent individual interviews
was selected purposively to ensure an even distribution of
participants according to the sport played, popularity of the
sport itself, and gender. She interviewed 22 students from
the focus groups who represented all the teams (except for
one) from the focus groups.
She started with a survey that contained the Identifica-
tion of Acquaintance Rape Attitudes Scale and a form of
the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. She
noted that the first scale identifies rape attitudes (specifi-
cally acquaintance rape) and the latter scale indicates
462 Qualitative Inquiry 16(6)
Quantitative Qualitative
data collection, data collection,
analysis, and analysis, and
results results
Survey Focus Groups
Figure 5. McMahon’s (2007) sequential explanatory mixed methods design
response bias (p. 360). The quantitative data revealed a
very low acceptance of rape myths among this student
population but revealed a higher acceptance of violence
among men and individuals who did not know a survivor
of sexual assault.
In the second qualitative (QUAL) phase, “focus groups
were conducted as semi-structured interviews” and facili-
tated by someone of the same gender as the participants
(p. 360). Focus group questions were developed by
McMahon in conjunction with student athletes in the
campus peer education program and university staff that
serve victims of sexual violence. She followed this up with
a third qualitative component (QUAL), individual inter-
views, which were conducted to elaborate on themes
discovered in the focus groups and determine any differ-
ences in students’ responses between situations (i.e., group
setting vs. individual). The interview guide was designed
specifically to address focus group topics that needed “more
in-depth exploration” or clarification (p. 361).
The qualitative findings from the focus groups and indi-
vidual qualitative interviews revealed “subtle yet pervasive
rape myths” that fell into four major themes: “the misunder-
standing of consent, the belief in ‘accidental’ and fabricated
rape, the contention that some women provoke rape, and
the invulnerability of female athletes” (p. 363).
She found that the survey’s finding of a “low accep-
tance of rape myths . . . was contradicted by the findings
of the focus groups and individual interviews, which
indicated the presence of subtle rape myths” (p. 362).
McMahon explained this by affirming the quality of
qualitative data with regard to the answers provided in
the qualitative components of her research project.
McMahon wrote,
Further exploration revealed myriad subtle, yet pow-
erful, beliefs that there are certain situations in which
violence is acceptable, unintentional, or the fault of
the victim. The simple statement that “no means no”
disguises a range of more subtle rape-supportive
beliefs. (p. 366)
Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at Stockholms universitet on March 4, 2011
Identify areas Qualitative
for clarification data collection, Overall
in follow-up analysis, and interpretation
interviews results
Interviews
This qualitative aspect revealed the subtle nuances of
each individual answer, thereby allowing for rape-supportive
beliefs to be exposed in her research.
McMahon’s study is a good example of how mixed
methods can be used to reveal how the opinions of respon-
dents may change based on the type of research methods
used. The survey consisted of closed-ended questions that
limited the breadth of the answers given. By employing a
qualitative component, the research participant was able to
not only answer the questions on rape proposed to him or
her but also elaborate on his or her feelings more compre-
hensively. For example, many of the participants answered
the survey in such a way that the researcher concluded the
majority of respondents felt that sexual coercion was
wrong under all circumstances. However, during the inter-
views, many of the participants generally believed that
rape was wrong but that the victim was also partly to
blame, thereby leading to a partial contradiction of the
quantitative findings. McMahon writes,
The skewed results of the survey indicate that most of
the participants believed that sexual violence is
wrong, and they largely disagreed with many of the
victim-blaming statements. However, once the same
types of questions were posed in a group setting
where the student athletes interacted with their team-
mates, a different set of responses were provided that
included more rape-supportive attitudes and victim-
blaming beliefs. (p. 366).
In essence, two divergent conclusions were derived
based on two types of research.
Case Study 5: Studying Health Disparities
An interdisciplinary team project headed by Stewart,
Makwarimba, Barnfather, Letourneau, and Neufeld (2008)
employed a qualitatively driven participatory approach that
integrated input from a range of stakeholders across all stages
of the project. The goal of this project was to “examine the
Hesse-Biber 463
Identify
Qualitative
important
data collection,
concerns and
analysis, and
ideas for follow-
results
up survey
Interviews
Figure 6. Stewart et al. (2008) sequential exploratory mixed methods design
impact of socio-economic status on key dimensions of social
cohesion (social exclusion/inclusion and isolation/belonging)
and their relationship with health, from the perspectives of
both low-income and higher-income people” (p. 3).
They employed a sequential exploratory mixed methods
research design (see Figure 6). The qualitative component
of the project was carried out first and consisted of indi-
vidual and group interviews. Participants were chosen from
eight neighborhoods in Canadian urban centers, based on
economic prosperity and degree of economic homogeneity.
Purposive sampling was used to select 119 individuals to
interview from high- and low-income situations. The pur-
pose of Phase 1 was to get at subjugated knowledge that had
not been explored in previous research with low-income
populations. The interviews explored topics from individu-
als’ perspectives and provided topics for a broader
quantitative study. Phase 2 consisted of a quantitative
survey used to generalize the findings from the qualitative
component to a wider population. Survey questions were
derived from Phase 1 participants’ responses. For example,
“key challenges preventing people from participating in
activities . . . identified in Phase I interviews, prompted us
to develop three items . . . in the follow-up survey measure”
(p. 3). The quantitative component comprised of 1,671 tele-
phone interviews that were conducted with random
(English-speaking) respondents within random households
(selected using telephone numbers and postal-code data).
The survey also provided researchers with the opportunity
to generalize their findings to a wider population beyond
their original qualitative study. In addition, the survey also
provided the researchers with a way to test out some theo-
ries generated by the qualitative component. For example,
the qualitative findings uncovered some key findings con-
cerning poverty and isolation, for which Stewart et al.
(2008) used a quantitative method to determine if they
applied to the entire subgroup of people who fall into the
lower income brackets.
The researchers followed up their survey with an addi-
tional qualitative component—a series of group interviews
Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at Stockholms universitet on March 4, 2011
Quantitative
Qualitative
Overall
data collection, data collection,
Interpretation
analysis, and analysis, and
results results
Survey Group
Interviews
performed to ensure the collaboration of stakeholders in the
research results, share the findings, and check validity. The
sample for Phase 3 consisted of local policy influencers (in
two group interviews) and national policy makers and pro-
gram planners (in one teleconference; p. 4).
The quantitative data indicated that income was “a con-
sistent predictor of measures of isolation and belonging,
and of inclusion and exclusion” (p. 5). The qualitative
findings revealed more exclusion and isolation among low-
income people because of “poor health, material deprivation,
inability to participate in activities, service fees, and exclud-
ing behaviours” (p. 5). Policy influencers in Phase 3
confirmed these results with their professional understand-
ing of the exclusion and isolation experienced in poverty.
The analysis of the qualitative data also revealed that
participation fostered a sense of belonging and overall
well-being. Phases 1 and 2 provided certain divergent find-
ings as well as new knowledge not represented in the other
phase. For example, the Phase 1 qualitative data found that
the lack of financial resources was the main contributor to
the lower rate of community involvement among lower-
income people; this factor seemed to apply exclusively to
those belonging to lower income brackets. This finding
diverged from Phase 2, in which lack of time was the reason
why both lower-income and higher-income people par-
ticipated less in community activities. In essence, the
quantitative findings did not reveal any income-specific
factors preventing greater community involvement (p. 5).
Furthermore, qualitative methods allowed for the rea-
sons for lower rates of participation in community activities
among lower-income people to be elaborated upon in
greater detail. The narrative structure of Phase 1 allowed
for the research participants to uniquely expand upon their
individual reasons for lower participation in community
activities. Stewart et al. (2008) wrote, “The narratives
linked individual reasons with structural and socio-cultural
causes of poverty. Complex interactions among other con-
tributing factors were uncovered through these qualitative
data” (p. 5).
464 Qualitative Inquiry 16(6)
Quantitative Data Analysis Qualitative Data Analysis
Survey and Findings Interviews and Findings
Test model on New Retention Model
quantitative data
Figure 7.Torres’ (2006) sequential mixed methods design with
testing grounded theory
Case Study 6: Studying Latino/a Students’
College Retention Patterns
Vasti Torres (2006) wanted to develop a model for measur-
ing retention in higher education of commuter and minority
students. She wanted to look at and understand their choices,
specifically the choice to stay in college. As she states, her
motivation was to use a mixed methods design to allow “for
a broader approach in understanding the phenomenon of
interest” (p. 301). She sought to develop a model of student
retention that fits the experience of Latino/a students. She
analyzed data from both components of her project in an
iterative model, as she puts it, by “circular interplay in which
the qualitative data directs the quantitative data and then
feeds back to inform the qualitative data” (p. 302).
She began by administering a survey and then conducted
in-depth interviews. The survey consisted of a sample of
542 Latino/a students from three urban institutions (two
Hispanic Serving Institutions and one pre­dominately
White). The sample comprised 64% women, 59% second-
generation, 18.4% foreign-born, and 77% first-generation
college students (not representative of the broader Latino/a
population in higher education). She conducted a semi-
structured interview with 34 respondents who originally
participated in the survey who attended these same 3 insti-
tutions, asking them about “issues that impact Latino/a stu-
dents’ decision to stay in college” (p. 301): the college
environment, cultural orientation, and family influences.
She conducted an analysis of her qualitative data and found
three themes to describe students’ perceptions of the college
environment:
The first was designated as “come to class and leave”
to describe the hectic nature of students [sic] lives at
urban commuter universities. The second was desig-
nated as “unsure I could make it” to illustrate the
previous expectations towards academics and how
this attitude influenced students’ college experiences.
And the third theme was designated “show me the
way” to illustrate the ways students were able to
create cognitive maps to help them maneuver the
college environment. (p. 304)
Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at Stockholms universitet on March 4, 2011
The grounded analysis of her qualitative data resulted in
the generation of a new model of student retention based on
the application of social cognitive theory as a potential
model for understanding minority students’ retention rates in
college. From these initial insights she went on to develop a
model for “Intent to Persist” based on environmental influ-
ences (family status, family responsibilities, cultural affinity,
satisfaction with faculty, and academic difficulties) and
behaviors, cognitive, and personal influences (academic
integration/behaviors, institutional commitment, and encour-
agement). All of these factors were gleaned from her qualita-
tive results. To test out her theoretically generated model of
retention, she went back to her survey data (collected in
Phase 1 of her data collection design) to put her quantitative
data findings in conversation with her new model of reten-
tion, with the intent to see the goodness of fit of this model
with her larger survey sample results. The results of the sur-
vey, in effect, were used to test her grounded theory model
of retention. She then determined the effect of each influence
on the Intent to Persist (see pp. 313-14).
Among some of her most important results was that the
largest total effect . . . occurred between Cultural
Affinity and Intent to Persist. . . . This total effect
highlights the influence of having Latino/a culture
represented within the environment and among fac-
ulty, staff, and students as an important and significant
role in students’ intent to persist. (p. 316)
This mixed model of data analysis is an important
example of the power of mixed methods to get at subjugated
knowledge. The author is clear about what specific
paradigm she is working from and in fact uses a quantitative
method to place the qualitative data in conversation with
the quantitative data after constructing the model. As Vasti
Torres and her colleagues (Jones, Torres, & Arminio, 2006)
noted in a later book relating this study:
Vasti tested the model to see if it had good model fit.
This example respected both traditions by allowing
the model to emerge from the data and then using a
quantitative technique that tested model fit rather than
manipulated or controlled aspects of the data. (p. 140)
In reflecting on her research journey using mixed meth-
ods to study retention rates of Latino students, Vasti Torres
related some of the most important reasons for employing
a qualitatively driven mixed methods model, even when
much of her training has been within a quantitatively driven
research paradigm:
I was not groomed as a qualitative researcher. . . . In
spite of my quantitative training there was always one
question that kept creeping into my research. Because
Hesse-Biber 465
my research had always been on Latino/a college stu-
dents, I often questioned why I should pay attention to
these quantitative studies if most of them only tell me
about the deficiencies among Latino/as. According to
many quantitative studies (mostly regression) in
higher education, a series of characteristics deter-
mines the likelihood that a student will be retained
and graduate from college. Because I do not have the
demographic characteristics of students who succeed,
I should not have graduated from college (especially
in four years), not completed my master’s, and cer-
tainly not completed my Ph.D. . . . I knew these studies
were not expressing my experiences as an immigrant,
second language learner, Latina who wanted an edu-
cation and wanted to maintain my cultural roots. It is
difficult for quantitative research to capture the com-
plexity of real life. . . . My research to claim my own
world view and methodology also forced me to decide
what role my quantitative training would take within
my research agenda. . . . The defining issue for me
became the research question or, as I prefer to call it, the
question of interest. The question I was interested in was
complex and required multiple methods to attempt to
answer. . . . What are the choices Latino/a students make
that help them succeed in college? . . . I recognize that
because I used mixed methods, some purists (from
both qualitative and quantitative traditions) will always
question me. There is also the reason that . . . I am
often asked which research tradition I “really” prefer.
To this question I respond by saying that it is impor-
tant to respect both traditions and to recognize which
tradition will truly answer the research question. (Jones
et al., 2006, pp. 183-185)
Tying the Strands Together
Our journey through these case studies reveals the variety
of qualitative approaches to mixed methods across the
research process at (a) the data-gathering stage, (b) the data
analysis stage, and (c) the interpretation stage.
If we go back to these studies now and look at the overall
contribution of a qualitative approach to mixed methods
practice, we will notice a variety of reasons why research-
ers take this approach. I will list some of the most prominent
reasons gleaned from these studies. In some cases, there are
multiple reasons for mixing methods from a qualitative
perspective.
To Increase the Representativity and
Generalizability of Research
Using a quantitative study to obtain a representative sample,
with the goal of enhancing the generalizability of qualitative
findings. Conducting a quantitative demographic survey on
Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at Stockholms universitet on March 4, 2011
a random sample of the researcher’s target population
enables the researcher to select a subsample from this popu-
lation that is representative of the target population for a
subsequent qualitative study. This is especially the case
where the researcher samples directly from the quantitative
sample; in this way, both studies are directly linked. Torres’
(2006) case study, for example, allows her to generalize her
findings to a wider population, given the fact that she sam-
ples her respondents for her qualitative study directly from
the larger survey population of minority college students.
This type of targeting of her qualitative sample allows her
to extend the generalizability of her qualitative findings to a
wider population, which also dovetails with a second prom-
inent reason qualitative approaches use mixed methods
designs: locating “hard-to-find” populations of interest.
To Locate a Target Population or Defining
a Population of Interest to Study In Depth
Using a quantitative study for purposive sampling. The
researcher can also employ a quantitative method to cast
a wider net, enabling him or her to target a specific popula-
tion of interest that may be hard to locate. We can note that
in Torres’ study, she also utilized her quantitative survey as
a way to obtain a subsample of the larger population for
further in-depth research on retention rates of minority stu-
dents. Kim England (1993) also used her quantitative
suburban directory sample of pink-collar workers to select
a subsample of women whose commuting times were rep-
resentative of the larger population.
Using a quantitative study to define a population of interest
that was not anticipated. An example of this is when the quan-
titative findings reveal the presence of a subpopulation of
“outliers” who need to be followed up with in greater detail
because they provide the researcher with valuable unantici-
pated information regarding his or her research problem and
in fact may provide him or her with new problems/questions
to explore in a follow-up research project. Kim England’s
(1993) quantitative study uncovered a population whose
commuting patterns differed from the generally accepted
model of previous research. She was led by her anomalous
quantitative results to explore a subset of pink-collar women
workers who were outliers—those whose commuting pat-
terns did not fit the “entrapment thesis” pattern.
To Enhance the Validity and Reliability
of Research Findings
Linking qualitative and quantitative methods. Conducting a
mixed methods study can enhance the validity and reli-
ability of findings as well as allow for the exploration of
contradictions found between the quantitative and qualita-
tive results. By linking the methods at the data-gathering
stage (drawing a sample directly from the quantitative
466 Qualitative Inquiry 16(6)
sample first collected), the researcher can assess the validity
and reliability of the findings. For example, those qualitative
researchers who ask similar questions in both the quantita-
tive and qualitative studies are provided an opportunity to
grapple with issues of reliability and validity of research
findings by ascertaining (a) the extent to which research
findings from similar questions yield similar responses (reli-
ability), and (b) the extent to which their responses appear
to get at the same underlying issues such that there is gen-
eral agreement in their responses (triangulation with the
goal of increasing the validity of a study). Torres’ (2006)
study is a good example of this motivation for mixing meth-
ods. Her goal was to understand the lived experiences of
minority students in college. She conducted a quantitative
study that provided her with some understanding of the
larger context of minority retention rates and concurrently
collected a small sample of individuals to interview from
this particular survey.
To Address Inconsistent Results
Using a qualitative study to explore contradictions found in
quantitative data. Integrating qualitative and quantitative meth-
ods through one overarching research question can some-
times lead to contradictory results. Qualitative approaches
to research are able to traverse contradictory findings. Sprague
and Zimmerman (2004) noted, “When we encounter appar-
ently different findings from each method, we need not imme-
diately assume that one should be refuted and the other
accepted” (p. 53). Researchers can employ a quantitative
(QUANT) study followed by a qualitative study (QUAL) to
explore contradictory results in more depth. In the study
“Understanding Community-Specific Rape Myths,” Sarah
McMahon conducted three phases that yielded contradictory
results. McMahon found that whereas many of the student
athletes initially seemed to reject rape myths and stated that
rape was wrong (in quantitative surveys), the qualitative com-
ponent found that they still supported many of the rape myths
that held the victim as culpable in her rape (2007, p. 366).
To Test the Validity of Qualitative Results
Using a quantitative study to test the validity of qualitative
findings on a wider population. Researchers can conduct a qual-
itative study followed by a quantitative study to test out
pertinent results. In this case, the researcher is interested in
ascertaining whether the qualitative findings are generaliz-
able to a larger population. Catherine Fuentes (2008) found
this to be the case in her study, “Pathways from Interpersonal
Violence to Sexually Transmitted Infections: A Mixed
Method Study of Diverse Women,” in which interviews were
performed with an ethnically diverse group of women who
had experienced childhood sexual abuse. In the second phase
Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at Stockholms universitet on March 4, 2011
of her study, she sought to generalize her findings to a larger,
more diverse population through a quantitative survey.
To Enhance the Understanding of the
Research Problem and Research Findings
Using quantitative research results to generate new qualita-
tive research questions. Mixed methods can assist researchers
in acquiring specific topical issues and concerns they wish
to explore. Here, the quantitative component serves to ini-
tiate or spark new hypotheses or research questions that
researchers can pursue in depth. In addition, researchers
can draw on quantitative findings for issues and discrepan-
cies they may find of interest to explore in more detail.
This was definitely the case in Louise Marie Roth’s (2006)
study of MBAs. She noted that her quantitative data
revealed a gender gap in wages that cannot be explained by
existing economic theories and used her qualitative data to
generate new ways of thinking about the gender–wage gap.
Kim England (1993) used her quantitative results, espe-
cially those that differed from the established literature, to
ask a new set of questions regarding pink-collar women’s
commuting patterns.
To Provide Convergence in Findings: Triangulation
Providing a more robust understanding of results by triangu-
lating results (seeing whether research findings of two studies on
similar topics are in agreement). Sometimes, a researcher’s
goal is to triangulate his or her findings (find convergence);
that is, researchers look at the extent to which results found
using one method agree with the results found using another
method. The goal here is to use mixed methods as a way to
validate their research findings. This was best shown in the
research by Stewart et al. (2008), who studied the relation-
ship between socioeconomic status, social exclusion/
inclusion and isolation/belonging, and health. They con-
ducted individual and group interviews, followed by a wider
quantitative survey used to generalize the findings. In a third
phase, policy influencers in group interviews confirmed the
results of the first two phases. England (1993) also used
mixed methods for the purpose of triangulation: “Triangula-
tion enabled me to interweave the findings of a variety of
overlapping work-place and residential-based community
data. . . . By comparing the different findings, I gained a
more complete picture” (p. 239). In fact, as we noted in the
case study, sometimes triangulation that leads to contradic-
tory results can lead to a goldmine of new findings that are
subsequently explored, and the end result, as in the case of
England’s study, is the discovery of new knowledge. Kim
England did not ignore the anomalies in her data but used
them to interrogate existing theoretical perspectives regard-
ing women’s employment choices.
Hesse-Biber 467
To Advocate for Social Transformation
Promoting social change, social transformation and social jus-
tice. Most of the case studies in this article have as a general
goal social justice and the transformation of society as well
as taking a critical approach to knowledge building that
questions traditional knowledge. These studies tackled
thorny issues such as the gender–wage gap and growing
disparities in health care and education. Along the way,
there is also a movement in some of these case studies
toward providing data grounded in individuals’ lived expe-
riences and situated in a macrocontext. Such data provide
policy makers with a much-needed “dual perspective” on
the social world that uses words and numbers to convey
their findings to social policy makers and in addition seeks
to uncover new knowledge that is critical to those whose
lives have been disempowered.
Conclusion
The case studies presented in this chapter have provided
you a glimpse into the practice of qualitative approaches to
mixed methods research. These case studies are a window
into the “nuts and bolts” aspects of implementing a qualita-
tive approach to mixed methods practice. As we have seen,
qualitative approaches privilege the lived exp­eriences of
individuals with the goals of understanding, promoting
social change, uncovering subjugated knowledge, and pro-
viding a unique venue for qualitative rese­archers to generalize
and test out their ideas. There is no inherent conflict
between qualitative and quantitative methods; qualitative
approaches to research problems use both. It is the meth-
odology, not the method, which determines what types of
research practices will best serve the rese­arch questions
that emanate from a given methodological perspective.
Whereas we have pointed out some important contribu-
tions a qualitative approach to mixed methods can bring to
a mixed methods project, the researcher must always be
cognizant of his or her goal(s) for employing a mixed
methods design. It may be the case that adding a quantita-
tive method to a qualitative project does not advance our
theoretical understanding of a given problem. A researcher
must be willing to be reflective and ask whether adding a
second method will serve to enhance the qualitative under-
standing of his or her project. The same is true for those
researchers who favor a quantitative approach to mixed
methods practice.
Pursuing a qualitatively driven mixed methods design
also requires the addition of new research skills and
resources, and here it behooves the researcher to question
the extent to which they may need to retool his or her
research skills or approach his or her project with a team of
differently skilled researchers. This is particularly the case
Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at Stockholms universitet on March 4, 2011
in analyzing and interpreting data from both the qualitative
and quantitative components of a project.
Qualitative approaches to mixed methods research hold
out a great deal of promise for understanding the social
world. In centering qualitative approaches to mixed methods,
we hope to begin a dialogue across the range of theoretical
approaches to mixed methods research and practices, whose
goals are to unleash the synergy and innovation contained
within this set of methods practices and provide a more
complex view and understanding of the social world.
Acknowledgment
Many thanks to my research assistant, Alicia Johnson, Boston
College undergraduate, Class of 2011. Her editorial advice and
substantive contributions in assisting me with the case study portion
of this manuscript have been invaluable.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with
respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or
authorship of this article.
Notes
1. Some variations on this paradigm are said to include Marxist,
feminist, ethnic, cultural, and queer studies. Denzin and
Lincoln pose a separate paradigm for these variations, which
they term “materialist-realist ontology” (Denzin & Lincoln,
2000, p. 21)
2. The term human capital refers to those dimensions that affect
one’s ability to produce on the job—factors such as educational
level, number of years worked, job training, absenteeism, and
turnover.
References
Bahl, S., & Milne, G. R. (2007). Mixed methods in interpretive
research: An application to the study of the self concept. In
R. W. Belk (Ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods
in Marketing (pp. 198-218). United Kingdom: Edward Elgar.
Becker, G. S. (1957). The economics of discrimination. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Benokraitis, N. V., & Feagin, J. R. (1995). Modern sexism: Bla-
tant, subtle, and covert discrimination. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bhavnani, K. (2007). Interconnections and configurations:
Toward a global feminist ethnography. In S. N. Hesse-Biber
(Ed.), Handbook of feminist research (pp. 639-649). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brannen, J. (2005). Mixed methods research. ESRC National
Centre for Research Methods. Retrieved April, 9, 2009, from
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:7rk3VbaP_g8J:www
468 Qualitative Inquiry 16(6)
.ncrm.ac.uk/research/outputs/publications/documents/Methods
ReviewPaperNCRM-005.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative
research: How is it done? Qualitative Research, 6, 97-113.
Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualita-
tive research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(8), 8-22.
Collins, P. H. (2007). Black feminist thought: Knowledge,
consciousness and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.).
New York: Routledge.
Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1999). Doing qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E.
(2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In
A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed meth-
ods in the social and behavioral research (pp. 209-240).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, I. (2000). The Handbook of qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2007). Collecting and interpret-
ing qualitative materials (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
England, K. (1993). Suburban pink collar ghettos: The spatial
entrapment of women? Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 83, 225-242.
Fuentes, C. M. M. (2008). Pathways from interpersonal violence
to sexually transmitted infections: A mixed method study of
diverse women. Journal of Women’s Health, 17, 1591-1603.
Giddings, L. S. (2006). Mixed methods research: Positivism
dressed in drag? Journal of Research in Nursing, 11, 195-203.
Harding, S. (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader.
New York: Routledge.
Headlee, S., & Elfin, M. (1996). The cost of being female. New York:
Praeger.
Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2010). Mixed method research; Merging theory
with practice. New York: Guilford Press.
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Carter, G. (2005). Working women in America:
Split dreams (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Howe, K. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative
Inquiry, 10, 42-61.
Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at Stockholms universitet on March 4, 2011
Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2006). Negotiating the
complexities of qualitative research in higher education: Fun-
damental elements and issues. New York: Routledge.
Leckenby, D. (2007). Feminist empiricism: Challenging gen-
der bias and setting the record straight. In S. Hesse-Biber &
P. Leavy (Eds.), Feminist research practice: A primer (pp. 27-52).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
McMahon, S. (2007). Understanding community-specific
rape myths: Exploring student athlete culture. Affilia, 22,
357-370.
Miller, S., & Fredericks, M. (2006). Mixed methods and evalua-
tion research: Trends and issues. Qualitative Health Research,
16, 567-579.
Roth, L. M. (2006). Selling women short: Gender and money on
Wall Street. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Smith, D. E. (1989). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist
sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Sprague, J., & Zimmerman, M. K. (2004). Overcoming dualisms:
A feminist agenda for sociological methodology. In S. N. Hesse-
Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research:
A reader on theory and practice (pp. 39-61). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Stewart, M., Makwarimba, E., Barnfather, A., Letourneau, N., &
Neufeld, A. (2008). Researching reducing health disparities:
Mixed methods approaches. Social Science & Medicine, 66,
1406-1417.
Torres, V. (2006). A mixed method study testing data-model fit of
a retention model for Latino/a students at urban universities.
Journal of College Student Development, 47, 299-318.
Bio
Sharlene Hesse-Biber is Professor of Sociology, Boston College.
She is the author of Mixed Methods Research: Merging Theory
with Practice (2010) New York: Guilford Publications. She is
co-author of The Practice of Qualitative Research (2011) Thousand
Oaks, CA.: Sage. Second Edition.