Alan Bryman

Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?

This article seeks to move beyond typologies of the ways in which quantitative and qualitative research are integrated to an examination of the ways that they are combined in practice. The article is based on a content analysis of 232 social science articles in which the two were combined. An examination of the research methods and research designs employed suggests that on the quantitative side structured interview and questionnaire research within a cross-sectional design tends to predominate, while on the qualitative side the semi-structured interview within a cross-sectional design tends to predominate. An examination of the rationales that are given for employing a mixed-methods research approach and the ways it is used in practice indicates that the two do not always correspond. The implications of this finding for how we think about mixed-methods research are outlined.

Barriers to Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research

This article is concerned with the possibility that the development of mixed methods research is being hindered by the tendency that has been observed by some researchers for quantitative and qualitative findings either not to be integrated or to be integrated to only a limited extent. It examines findings from 20 interviews with U.K. social researchers, all of whom are practitioners of mixed methods research. From these interviews, a wide variety of possible barriers to integrating mixed methods findings are presented. The article goes on to suggest that more attention needs to be given to the writing of mixed methods articles.

Analyzing qualitative data.

This major inter-disciplinary collection, edited by two of the best respected figures in the field, provides a superb general introduction to this subject. Chapters include discussions of fieldwork methodology, analyzing discourse, the advantages and pitfalls of team approaches, the uses of computers, and the applications of qualitative data analysis for social policy. Shrewd and insightful, the collection will be required reading for students of the latest thinking on research methods.

Handbook of data analysis

Introduction: Common Threads among Techniques of Data Analysis - Melissa Hardy and Alan Bryman PART ONE: FOUNDATIONS Constructing Variables - Alan Bryman and Duncan Cramer Summarizing Distributions - Melissa Hardy Inference - Lawrence Hazelrigg Strategies for Analysis of Incomplete Data - Mortaza Jamshidian Feminist Issues in Data Analysis - Mary Maynard Historical Analysis - Dennis Smith PART TWO: THE GENERAL LINEAR MODEL AND EXTENSIONS Multiple Regression Analysis - Ross M. Stolzenberg Incorporating Categorical Information into Regression Models: The Utility of Dummy Variables - Melissa Hardy and John Reynolds Analyzing Contingent Effects in Regression Models - James Jaccard and Tonya Dodge Regression Models for Categorical Outcomes - J Scott Long and Simon Cheng Log-Linear Analysis - Douglas L Anderton and Eric Cheney PART THREE: LONGITUDINAL MODELS Modeling Change - Nancy Brandon Tuma Analyzing Panel Data: Fixed- and Random-Effects Models - Trond Petersen Longitudinal Analysis for Continuous Outcomes: Random Effects Models and Latent Trajectory Models - Guang Guo and John Hipp Event History Analysis - Paul Allison Sequence Analysis and Optimal Matching Techniques for Social Science Data - Heather MacIndoe and Andrew Abbott PART FOUR: NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN MODELING Sample Selection Bias Models - Vincent Kang Fu, Christopher Winship and Robert D Mare Structural Equation Modeling - Jodie B Ullman and Peter M Bentler Multilevel Modelling - William Browne and Jon Rasbash Causal Inference in Sociological Studies - Christopher Winship and Michael Sobel The Analysis of Social Networks - Ronald L Breiger PART FIVE: ANALYZING QUALITATIVE DATA Tools for Qualitative Data Analysis - Raymond M Lee and Nigel G Fielding Content Analysis - Roberto P Franzosi Semiotics and Data Analysis - Peter K Manning Conversation Analysis - Steven E Clayman and Virginia Teas Gill Discourse Analysis - Jonathan Potter Grounded Theory - Nick Pidgeon and Karen Henwood The Uses of Narrative in Social Science Research - Barbara Czarniawska Qualitative Research and the Postmodern Turn - Sara Delamont and Paul Atkinson

Effective leadership in higher education: a literature review

This article is a review of the literature concerned with leadership effectiveness in higher education at departmental level. The literature derives from publications from three countries: the UK, the USA and Australia. Surprisingly little systematic research has been conducted on the question of which forms of leadership are associated with departmental effectiveness. The analysis of the studies selected resulted in the identification of 13 forms of leader behaviour that are associated with departmental effectiveness. The findings are considered in relation to the notion of competency frameworks and, in the conclusion, their general implications are explored in relation to the notion of substitutes for leadership.

Women, men and food: the significance of gender for nutritional attitudes and choices

This article reports the results of the re‐analysis of a substantial set of survey based quantitative data relating to food beliefs, practices and preferences. The particular focus of attention was upon gender contrasts. Several statistically significant differences between men and women were identified. These differences occurred in such areas as views on food and health, the ethical dimensions of food production and food selection, nutritional attitudes and choices, dietary change, food work and body image. Two distinctive patterns emerged, which the authors termed “virtuous” and “robust”, the former exhibiting attitudes more typical of women, and the latter attitudes more typical of men.

Paradigm Peace and the Implications for Quality

In this article it is shown that the paradigm wars that raged concerning the incompatibility of quantitative and qualitative research have largely subsided. In the process, discussions of epistemological and ontological issues have become less prominent. The peace that has broken out has proved to be more favourable to research combining quantitative and qualitative research than was the case during the paradigm wars. Drawing on interviews with social researchers who employ a mixed‐methods approach and on the literature, it is shown that a spirit of pragmatism with regard to combining quantitative and qualitative research prevails which encourages researchers to consider using mixed‐methods research when the research question is suited to it. However, the issue of which quality criteria should be employed in investigations combining quantitative and qualitative research has not been given a great deal of consideration. The author argues for a contingency approach, in which issues to do with quality are decided in relation to the nature of the study.

Quality Criteria for Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research: A View from Social Policy

This article reports some findings from an investigation of social policy researchers in the UK. The findings relate to the quality criteria that social policy researchers deem to be appropriate to quantitative research, qualitative research and mixed methods research. The data derive from an e‐survey of researchers which was followed up by semi‐structured interviews with a purposively selected sample from among those e‐survey respondents who agreed to be interviewed. The article emphasises the findings that relate to quality criteria for mixed methods research, since this is an area that has not attracted a great deal of attention. Greater agreement was found regarding the criteria that should be employed for assessing quantitative than qualitative research. The findings relating to mixed methods research point to a preference for using a combination of quantitative and qualitative research criteria and for employing different criteria for the quantitative and the qualitative components.

Contextualizing Methods Choice in Organizational Research

The field of organizational research displays three trends: widening boundaries, a multiparadigmatic profile, and methodological inventiveness. Choice of research methods, shaped by aims, epistemological concerns, and norms of practice, is thus also influenced by organizational, historical, political, ethical, evidential, and personal factors, typically treated as problems to be overcome. This article argues that those factors constitute a system of inevitable influences and that this contextualization of methods choice has three implications. First, it is difficult to argue that methods choice depends exclusively on links to research aims; choice involves a more complex, interdependent set of considerations. Second, it is difficult to view method as merely a technique for snapping reality into focus; choices of method frame the data windows through which phenomena are observed, influencing interpretative schemas and theoretical development. Third, research competence thus involves addressing coherently the organizational, historical, political, ethical, evidential, and personal factors relevant to an investigation.

The Ethics of Management Research: An Exploratory Content Analysis

Management academics have tended to rely on ethics codes developed by social researchers in related fields to inform their research practice. The point of this paper is to question whether this remains a viable approach in the current climate that is characterized by a significant increase in ethical regulation across the social sciences. We suggest that management researchers face ethical issues of a different nature to those most frequently confronted by other social science researchers, and argue for more explicit acknowledgement of contextual factors involved in management research. An exploratory analysis of the content of ethics codes formulated by nine social scientific associations is undertaken to identify the main ethical principles they cover and to analyse their underlying ethical tone. Drawing attention to the principle of reciprocity, which is found in very few codes, we suggest that an ethics code could be used to formulate new ways of thinking about management research relationships. Despite the risk that ethics codes may encourage instrumental compliance with minimal ethical obligations, we suggest they also have the potential to reflect a more aspirational agenda. The development of an ethics code for management research should therefore be seen as a potentially worthwhile project.