Correction to: Mixed methods research: what it is and what it could be (Theory and Society, (2019), 48, 2, (193-216), 10.1007/s11186-019-09345-5);Mixed methods research: what it is and what it could be

Theory and Society

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2019, Pages 193-216

  Timans, Rob ^a   Wouters, Paul ^b   Heilbron, Johan ^c  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne   (France)

Author keywords

Data, field analysis; Mixed methods research; Multiple methods; Reflexivity; Sociology of science

Indexed keywords

EID: 85064010485     PISSN: 03042421     EISSN: 15737853     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11186-019-09348-2     Document Type: Erratum

References (69)

1. Bijker, W. (1987). The social construction of bakelite: Toward a theory of invention. In W. Bijker, T. Hughes, T. Pinch, & D. Douglas (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
2. Bijker, W. (1997). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Bourdieu, P. (1975). La spécifité du champ scientifique et les conditions sociales du progrès de la raison. Sociologie et Sociétés, 7(1), 91–118.
4. Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
5. Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
6. Bourdieu, P. (1999). Les historiens et la sociologie de Pierre Bourdieu. Le Bulletin de la Société d'Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine/SHMC, 1999(3&4), 4–27.
7. Bourdieu, P. (2002). Les conditions sociales de la circulation internationale des idées. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 145(5), 3–8.
8. Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of science and reflexivity. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
9. Bourdieu, P. (2007). Sketch for a self-analysis. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
10. Bourdieu, P., Chamboredon, J., & Passeron, J. (1991). The craft of sociology: Epistemological preliminaries. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
11. Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (2006). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. London, UK: Sage.
12. Bryman, A. (2009). Sage Methodspace: Alan Bryman on research methods. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHzM9RlO6j0. Accessed 3/7/2019.
13. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
14. Burrows, R., & Savage, M. (2014). After the crisis? Big data and the methodological challenges of empirical sociology. Big Data & Society, 1(1), 1–6.
15. Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.
16. Chapoulie, J. (1984). Everett C. Hughes et le développement du travail de terrain en sociologie. Revue Française de Sociologie, 25(4), 582–608.
17. Collins, R. (1998). The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18. Creswell, J. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Creswell, J. (2011). Controversies in mixed methods research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Creswell, J. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21. Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Creswell, J., Plano Clark, V., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. Denscombe, M. (2008). Communities of practice a research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 270–283.
24. Desrosières, A. (2008a). Pour une sociologie historique de la quantification - L’Argument statistique I. Paris, France: Presses des Mines.
25. Desrosières, A. (2008b). Gouverner par les nombres - L’Argument statistique II. Paris, France: Presses des Mines.
26. Edge, D. (1995). Reinventing the wheel. In D. Edge, S. Jasanof, G. Markle, J. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Fielding, N. (2012). Triangulation and mixed methods designs data integration with new research technologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 124–136.
28. Fielding, N., & Cisneros-Puebla, C. (2009). CAQDAS-GIS convergence: Toward a new integrated mixed method research practice? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(4), 349–370.
29. Fleck, C., Heilbron, J., Karady, V., & Sapiro, G. (2016). Handbook of indicators of institutionalization of academic disciplines in SSH. Serendipities, Journal for the Sociology and History of the Social Sciences, 1(1) Retrieved from http://serendipities.uni-graz.at/index.php/serendipities/issue/view/1. Accessed 10/10/2018.
30. Freeman, L. (2004). The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociology of science. Vancouver, Canada: Empirical Press.
31. Gingras, Y., & Gemme, B. (2006). L’Emprise du champ scientifique sur le champ universitaire et ses effets. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 164, 51–60.
32. Goertz, G., & Mahony, J. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
33. Greene, J. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7–22.
34. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35. Heilbron, J., Bedecarré, M., & Timans, R. (2017). European journals in the social sciences and humanities. Serendipities, Journal for the Sociology and History of the Social Sciences, 2(1), 33–49 Retrieved from http://serendipities.uni-graz.at/index.php/serendipities/issue/view/5. Accessed 10/10/2018.
36. Hesse-Biber, S. (2010). Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
37. Jahoda, M., Lazarsfeld, P., & Zeisel, H. (1933). Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal. Psychologische Monographen, 5.
38. Johnson, R., & Gray, R. (2010). A history of philosophical and theoretical issues for mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. Johnson, R., Onwuegbuzie, A., & Turner, L. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.
40. Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London, UK: Routledge.
41. Leech, N. (2010). Interviews with the early developers of mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42. Leech, N., & Onwuegbuzie, T. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43(2), 265–275.
43. Levallois, C., Steinmetz, S., & Wouters, P. (2013). Sloppy data floods or precise social science methodologies? In P. Wouters, A. Beaulieu, A. Scharnhorst, & S. Wyatt (Eds.), Virtual knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44. Lipset, S., Trow, M., & Coleman, J. (1956). Union democracy: The internal politics of the international typographical union. Glencoe, UK: Free Press.
45. MacKenzie, D. (1981). Statistics in Britain: 1865–1930: The social construction of scientific knowledge. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
46. Morgan, D. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76.
47. Morgan, D. (2018). Living with blurry boundaries: The values of distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 268–276.
48. Mullins, N. (1973). Theories and theory groups in contemporary American sociology. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
49. Nagy Hesse-Biber, S., & Leavy, P. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of emergent methods. New York, NY and London, UK: Guilford Press.
50. Nastasi, B., Hitchcock, J., & Brown, L. (2010). An inclusive framework for conceptualizing mixed method design typologies. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51. Onwuegbuzie, A., Leech, N., & Collins, K. (2011). Toward a new era for conducting mixed analyses: The role of quantitative dominant and qualitative dominant crossover mixed analyses. In M. Williams & P. Vogt (Eds.), Handbook of innovation in social research methods. London, UK: Sage.
52. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53. Plano Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (Eds.). (2007). The mixed methods reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54. Plano Clark, V., & Ivankova, N. (2016). Mixed methods research: A guide to the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55. Platt, J. (1996). A history of sociological research methods in America: 1920–1960. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
56. Plowright, D. (2010). Using mixed methods – Frameworks for an integrated methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57. Sandelowski, M. (2014). Unmixing mixed methods research. Research in Nursing & Health, 37(1), 3–8.
58. Sapiro, G., Brun, E., & Fordant, C. (2018). The rise of the social sciences and humanities in France: Iinstitutionalization, professionalization and autonomization. In C. Fleck, M. Duller, & V. Karady (Eds.), Shaping human science disciplines: Institutional developments in Europe and beyond. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
59. Savage, M. (2013). The ‘social life of methods’: A critical introduction. Theory, Culture and Society, 30(4), 3–21.
60. Savage, M., & Burrows, R. (2007). The coming crisis of empirical sociology. Sociology, 41(5), 885–899.
61. Steinmetz, G. (2016). Social fields, subfields and social spaces at the scale of empires: Explaining the colonial state and colonial sociology. The Sociological Review, 64(2_suppl). 98-123.
62. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
63. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2010a). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010b). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
65. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010c). Epilogue. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
66. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2011). Mixed methods research: Contemporary issues in an emerging field. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
67. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2008). Foundations of mixed methods research – Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
68. Timans, R. (2015). Studying the Dutch business elite: Relational concepts and methods. Doctoral dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
69. Wacquant, L. (2013). Bourdieu 1993: A case study in scientific consecration. Sociology, 47(1), 15–29.