Testa et al. (2011:237) claim, “Mixed-methods research can benefit any area of study,” but also argue that this approach is particularly appropriate for the study of violence against women. What makes mixed methods more appropriate for research on the problem of violence against women, in their opinion? What about in your own opinion? Are there other areas that you think are more suited to the use of mixed methods? Explain your reasoning.
Testa describes her own training as quantitative and then highlights some experiences that led her to integrate qualitative methods into her research (Testa et al. 2011). Would you describe your own training in research methods so far as primarily quantitative or qualitative? Have you had any experiences that led you to consider the “other” methodology?
Which of the four types of mixed methods do you feel is likely to be useful for investigating the social world? Would you favor more single-method or more mixed-methods studies? Explain your reasoning.
Has this textbook led you to favor either qualitative or quantitative methods, or has it encouraged you to use mixed methods when possible? As a textbook, why has it had this effect?
Consider how ready you feel to design a mixed-methods research project. Do you think mixed-methods researchers should generally try to collaborate with another researcher who specializes in the methodology they are not so familiar with? Or should researchers seek to become experts in multiple methods so that they can combine them in research projects that they direct themselves?