Mixing methods for full-strength results: Two welfare studies

Journal of Mixed Methods Research

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 121-148

  Sosulski, Marya R ^a   Lawrence, Catherine ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Mixed methods designs; Mixed methods research; Social action; U.S. welfare reform

Indexed keywords

EID: 40549132218     PISSN: 15586898     EISSN: 15586901     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1558689807312375     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Abramovitz, M. (1996). Regulating the lives of women: Social welfare policy from colonial times to the present (Revised ed.). Boston: South End Press.
2. Adams St. Pierre, E. (2002). "Science" rejects postmodernism. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 25-27.
3. Becker, G.S. (2002). Human capital. In The Concise Encyclopaedia of Economics, 2004. Retrieved March 23, 2003, from http://www.econlib.org
4. Body-Gendrot, S., & Gittell, M. (2003). Social capital and social citizenship. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
5. Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22.
6. Burawoy, M. (1991). Ethnography unbound: Power and resistance in the modern metropolis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
7. Catlett, B.S., & Artis, J.E. (2004). Critiquing the case for marriage promotion. Violence Against Women, 10(11), 1226-1235.
8. Cohen, M. (1998). Post-secondary education under welfare reform. Welfare Information Network Issue Notes, 2(8).
9. Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. deLeon, P. (1998). Models of policy discourse: Insights vs. Predictions. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 147-161.
11. Elazar, D.J. (1966). American federalism: A view from the states (1st ed.). New York: Crowell.
12. Eliasoph, N., & Lichterman, P. (1999). "We begin with our favorite theory...": Reconstructing the extended case method. Sociological Theory, 17(2), 228-234.
13. Fineman, M., Mink, G., & Smith, A.M. (2003). No promotion of marriage in TANF! Social Justice, 30(4), 126-134.
14. Fischer, F. (1998). Beyond empiricism: Policy inquiry in postpositivist perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 129-146.
15. Gilbert, N., Specht, H., & Terrell, P. (1993). Dimensions of social welfare policy. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
16. Gittell, M., Gross, J., & Holdaway, J. (1993). Building human capital: The impact of post-secondary education on AFDC recipients in five states. New York: Howard Samuels State Management and Policy Center of the City University of New York.
17. Gorarad, S. (2002). Can we overcome the methodological schism? Four models for combining qualitative and quantitative evidence. Research Papers in Education, 17(4), 345-361.
18. Heineman-Pieper, J., Tyson, K., & Heineman-Pieper, M. (2002). Doing good science without sacrificing good values: Why the heuristic paradigm is the best choice for social work. Families in Society, 83(1), 15-28.
19. Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Turner, L.A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
20. King Keenan, E. (2004). From sociocultural categories to socially located relations: Using critical theory in social work practice. Families in Society, 85(4), 539-548.
21. Knox, V., Miller, C., & Gennetian, L.A. (2000). Reforming welfare and rewarding work: A summary of the final report on the Minnesota Family Investment program. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
22. Kondrat, M.E. (2002). Actor-centered social work: Re-visioning "Person-in-environment" through a critical theory lens. Social Work, 47(4), 435-448.
23. Lawrence, C.K. (2007). State responses to the family formation goals of welfare. Social Service Review, 81(1), 129-153.
24. Lurie, I. (2003). Field network studies. In T. Corbett & L. M. Clare (Eds.), Policy into action: Implementation research and welfare reform (pp. 81-105). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
25. Maynard, R., Boehnen, E., Sandefur, G., & Mosley, J. (1998). Changing family formation behavior through welfare reform. In R. A. Moffitt (Ed.), Welfare, the family, and reproductive behavior: Research perspectives (pp. 134-175). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
26. Mertens, D.M. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The transformative-emancipatory perspective. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 135-166). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. Moore, K.A., Zaslow, M.J., Coiro, M.J., Miller, S.M., & Magenheim, E.B. (1996). The JOBS evaluation: How well are they faring? AFDC families with preschool-aged children in Atlanta at the outset of the jobs evaluation. Retrieved September 11, 2002, from http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/cyp/jobchdxs.htm
29. Morgan, D.L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76.
30. Nathan, R.P., & Gais, T.L. (1999). Implementing the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996: A first look. Albany, NY: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
31. Newman, I., & Benz, C.R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
32. Oakley, A. (2000). Experiments in knowing: Gender and method in the social sciences. New York: The New Press.
33. O'Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2007). Integration and publications as indicators of "yield" from mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 147-163.
34. Pedhazur, E.J., & Pedhazur Schmelkin, L. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35. Quint, J.C., Bos, J.M., & Polit, D.F. (1997). New chance: Final report of a comprehensive program for young mothers in poverty and their children. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
36. Rowe, G., & Versteeg, J. (2005). The welfare rules databook: State policies as of July 2003. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
37. Sale, J.E.M., Lohfeld, L.H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and Quantity, 36, 43-53.
38. Saraceno, C. (2001, April). Social exclusion: Cultural roots and diversities of a popular concept. Paper presented at the Conference on Social Exclusion and Children, Columbia University.
39. Smith, D.E. (1999). Writing the social: Critique, theory, and investigations. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
40. Sosulski, M.R. (2004). A road to inclusion: A combined-methods analysis of post-secondary education for women in the Illinois public aid system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin - Madison.
41. State Capacity Study. (2001). Unpublished field report, Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, Albany, NY.
42. Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J.W. (2007). The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3-7.
43. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003a). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003b). The past and the future of mixed methods research: From data triangulation to mixed model designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 671-702). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
45. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46. Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.
47. U.S. DHHS Administration for Children and Families. (2004). Temporary assistance for needy families (TANF): Sixth annual report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
48. Xie, Y. (2005). Methodological contradictions of contemporary sociology. Michigan Quarterly Review, 44(3), 506-512.