Using mixed methods for the analysis of individuals: A review of necessary and sufficient conditions and an application to welfare state attitudes

Quality and Quantity

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 415-450

  Goerres, Achim ^a   Prinzen, Katrin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Individuals; Mixed methods; Multi method approach; Welfare state attitudes

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855710382     PISSN: 00335177     EISSN: 15737845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11135-010-9379-8     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Adcock R., Collier D.: Measurement validity: a shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 95, 529-546 (2001).
2. Almond, G. A., Verba, S.: The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1989 [1963]).
3. Andreß H.-J., Heien T.: Four worlds of welfare state attitudes? A comparison of Germany, Norway, and the United States. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 17, 337-356 (2001).
4. Andreß H.-J., Heien T., Hofäcker D.: Wozu brauchen wir noch den Sozialstaat?. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen (2001).
5. Bengtson V. L., Roberts R. E. L.: Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: an example of formal theory construction. J. Marriage Fam. 53, 856-870 (1991).
6. Busemeyer M. R., Goerres A., Weschle S.: Demands for redistributive policies in an era of demographic aging: the rival pressures from age and income in 14 OECD countries. J. Eur. Soc. Policy 19, 195-212 (2009).
7. Campbell A., Converse P. E., Miller W. E., Stokes D.: The American Voter. Wiley, New York/London (1960).
8. Campbell A. L.: How Policies Make Citizens. Princeton University Press, Princeton/Oxford (2003).
9. Campbell D. T., Fiske D. W.: Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol. Bull. 56, 81-105 (1959).
10. Coppedge M.: Thickening thin concepts and theories: combining large N and small in comparative politics. Comp. Politics 31, 465-476 (1999).
11. Daatland S. O., Lowenstein A.: Intergenerational solidarity and the family-welfare state balance. Eur. J. Ageing 2, 174-182 (2005).
12. Ebbinghaus B.: When less is more: selection problems in large- N and small- N cross-national comparisons. Int. Sociol. 20, 133-152 (2005).
13. Esping-Andersen G.: The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Polity, Cambridge (1990).
14. Faletti T. G., Lynch J. F.: Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis. Comp. Political Stud. 42, 1143-1166 (2009).
15. Goerres A., Tepe M.: Age-based self-interest, intergenerational solidarity and the welfare state: a comparative analysis of older people's attitudes towards public childcare in 12 OECD countries. Eur. J. Political Res. 49, 818-851 (2010).
16. Groves R. M., Fowler F. J., Couper M. P., Lepkowski J. M., Singer E., Tourangeau R.: Survey Methodology. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken (2004).
17. Hanson B.: Wither qualitative/quantitative? Grounds for methodological convergence. Qual. Quant. 42, 97-111 (2008).
18. Iversen T., Soskice D.: An asset theory of social policy preferences. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 95, 875-893 (2001).
19. Kelle U.: Die Integration qualitativer und quantitativer Methoden in der empirischen Sozialforschung. Theoretische Grundlagen und methodologische Konzepte. VS, Wiesbaden (2007).
20. Kelle U., Erzberger C.: Integration qualitativer und quantitativer Methoden. Methodologische Modelle und ihre Bedeutung für die Forschungspraxis. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 51, 509-531 (1999).
21. King G., Keohane R. O., Verba S.: Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994).
22. Kittel B.: A crazy methodology?: On the limits of macro-quantitative social science research. Int. Sociol. 21, 647-677 (2006).
23. Kohli M.: Private and public transfers between generations: linking the family and the state. Eur. Soc. 1, 81-104 (1999).
24. Künemund H., Rein M.: There is more to receiving than needing: theoretical arguments and empirical explorations of crowding in and crowding out. Ageing Soc. 19, 93-121 (1999).
25. Lau R. R.: Models of decision-making. In: Sears, D. O., Huddy, L., Jervis, R. (eds) Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003).
26. Leahey E.: Convergence and confidentiality? Limits to the implementation of mixed methodology. Soc. Sci. Res. 36, 149-158 (2007).
27. Leech N. L., Onwuegbuzie A. J.: A typology of mixed methods research designs. Qual. Quant. 43, 265-275 (2009).
28. Lieberman E. S.: Race and Regionalism in the Politics of Taxation in Brazil and South Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003).
29. Lieberman E. S.: Nested analysis as mixed-method strategy for comparative research. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 99, 435-452 (2005).
30. Lin A. C.: Bridging positivist and interpretivist approaches to qualitative methods. Policy Stud. J. 26, 162 (1998).
31. Lin, A. C., Loftis, K.: Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods in political science: a primer. In: APSA Annual Conference. Washington, DC (2005).
32. Lipset S. M., Trow M. A., Coleman J. S.: Union Democracy: The Internal Politics of the International Typographical Union. Free Press, Glencoe (1956).
33. Lobe B., Vehovar V.: Towards a flexible online mixed method design with a feedback loop. Qual. Quant. 43, 585-597 (2009).
34. Mahoney J.: Toward a unified theory of causality. Comp. Political Stud. 41, 412-436 (2008).
35. Meijer P. C., Verloop N., Beijaard D.: Multi-method triangulation in a qualitative study on teachers' practical knowledge: an attempt to increase internal validity. Qual. Quant. 36, 145-167 (2002).
36. Miller S. I., Gatta J. L.: The use of mixed methods models and designs in the human sciences: problems and prospects. Qual. Quant. 40, 595-610 (2006).
37. Munck G. L., Snyder R.: Debating the direction of comparative politics: an analysis of leading journals. Comp. Political Stud. 40, 5-31 (2007).
38. Ong B. N., Dunn K. M., Croft P. R.: "Since You're Asking . . .": Free Text Commentaries in an Epidemiological Study of Low Back Pain Consulters in Primary Care. Qual. Quant. 40, 651-659 (2006).
39. Pappi, F. U., Shikano, S.: Die gesundheitspolitischen Präferenzen der deutschen Wählerschaft. MZES Working Papers 87 (2005).
40. Rohlfing I.: What you see and what you get. Comp. Political Stud. 41, 1492-1514 (2008).
41. Roller E.: Einstellungen der Bürger zum Wohlfahrtsstaat der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen (1992).
42. Sale J. E. M., Brazil K.: A strategy to identify critical appraisal criteria for primary mixed-method studies. Qual. Quant. 38, 351-365 (2004).
43. Sale J. E. M., Lohfeld L. H., Brazil K.: Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: implications for mixed-methods research. Qual. Quant. 36, 43-53 (2002).
44. Sieber S. D.: The integration of fieldwork and survey methods. Am. J. Sociol. 78, 1335-1359 (1973).
45. Smith G., Hirst A.: Strategic political segmentation: a new approach for a new era of political marketing. Eur. J. Mark. 35, 1058-1073 (2001).
46. Vanhuysse, P., Goerres, A. (eds.): Generational Politics and Policies: Comparative Studies of Aging Postindustrial Democracies. Routledge, London (2011) (forthcoming).
47. Verba S., Nie N. H., Kim J.-o.: Participation and political equality. A seven-nation comparison. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1978).
48. Verba S., Schlozman K. L., Brady H. E.: Voice and equality: civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1995).
49. Williams R.: Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables. Stata J. 6, 58-82 (2006).