What's Your Poison (Research Methodology)?

[SocHope]

Thought I'd start a new "just for fun" topic. So, if you could pursue the research you want to do, what research methodology would you prefer using? And why?

I'm especially interested in those of you who choose mixed methods - how would you do that with your research topic(s)?

EDIT: Hm, I thought I made it so the poll wasn't public, but it might just be lagging right now. Hope that doesn't stop folks from voting!

Edited February 8, 2012 by SocHope

[sleepycat]

I am almost strictly qualitative. I come from an Anthro background, so there is that. I also really like the richness of the type of data I get from the process. One of my most frustrating talents is observation, largely because you can't win trophies with it. I feel mood and environments, so I can pick up what is going on really well. It needs some more work because I can tell you something innately but I can't describe it well. I also have a strong visual memory.

I am a qualitative methodologist. I am currently looking at new ways to process observation data, through the use of social metadata/tags and tag clouds, on which I wrote my thesis on. The idea is still in the development phase, although it is coming together. My other project looks at researcher reflexivity and our relationship with our subjects and seeing if that can be reframed within working with our subjects rather working on, for, or against.

I have a love/hate relationship with quant because numbers make me go a little hazy and I recently learned interpreting regression lines at school, but can see where they would be beneficial.

[Supernovasky]

Strictly quant, I have a HUGE background in math and started in engineering.

[sociolog86]

I do lots of mixed methods. Some I've used for my thesis/publications/empirical class papers/or taken courses on include: GIS, quantitative survey data, qualitative questionnaire data, narrative analysis, and autoethnography. I see methods as a tool kit--I can pull any trick from my bag to examine any particular social phenomenon/a--however some approaches might be easier/better than others depending on any number of variables. I do find quantitative work unsettling at times as a pretty strict social constructionist. The idea that "truth" can be muddled down into a finite set of variables and regression analysis seems a bit off to me. Then again, the quant/qual divide (if such a thing really exists) gives us all something to debate while we're patiently waiting to hear about our offers!

[quantitative]

<--- I think my choice is pretty clear.

[Hege-Money]

The real question is whether there is an inherent paradigmatic contradiction between quantitative and qualitative forms of methodology. Can "truth" - to the extend that we can derive "truth" from bounded empiricism - be coalesced within two distinct forms of investigation? In my opinion, strict adherence to any form of methodology - quantitative or qualitative - results in a limited interpretive framework.

[Darth.Vegan]

I am definitely into mixed methods, although I need to gain a lot more expertise in stats (I am working on it). My honors thesis uses quantitative survey data and qualitative interview data.

[sciencegirl]

i was going to say mixed methods, but felt so cliche doing so... lol

[Darth.Vegan]

i was going to say mixed methods, but felt so cliche doing so... lol

Don't. It's the future of social research in my opinion. The dichotomy of quant vs qual is destructive and needs to be forgotten.

[sciencegirl]

@xdarthveganx - I honestly don't think there's much argument with what you are saying/what most of us younger scholars all think... hence the cliche part. Weren't the quant/qual wars called a truce a few years back? Wasn't there a memo sent out about this at ASA?

[sociology27]

Hege-money... someone's read their Kant/Schopenhauer/Foucault?

[msafiri]

I'm decidedly mixed methods owing to a belief that you should use the methods that the project requires. But, for my current project, I'm drawing primarily on qualitative methods (semi-structured interviews, participant observation, observation, etc.). I had envisioned having a quant component but, due to some limitations of participants, it wouldn't be possible to get a sufficiently random data set for the analyses I'd like to do.

[AaronM]

I put quant because that's what I primarily do, but I agree that the future is in mixed methods. That's one thing I like about Northwestern's program is their emphasis on the question coming first and the method coming second. I do still think it is appropriate for an individual the emphasize in quant or qual but I also think it is inappropriate to say that there is only one way of obtaining "Truth" (if you even believe in capital T Truth). Or maybe I'm just a pragmatist, either or.

[Hege-Money]

Hege-money... someone's read their Kant/Schopenhauer/Foucault?

[calamaria]

Is there anyone who is interested in QCA?

It stands for Qualitative Comparative Analysis. I recently read Daniel M. Cress and David A. Snow's ASR article, MOBILIZATION AT THE MARGINS. They employed a QCA technique to analyze their small sample (n=15) and show pretty interesting results. I guess it's the so-called mixed method mentioned here, but I have never heard this technique before even in classes or meetings.

[allhandsonthebadone]

Other have already touched on the cliches of using methods as tools and having the question take precedent first (and the resulting love of Northwestern; call me ). That is how I feel.

Although qualitative approaches seem more intuitive to me I feel its imperative, especially since I have an interest in social networks as it pertains to the internet, to get a strong background in quantitative methods as well as things like game theory. It just seems like one of those things, like logic classes in undergrad, that will alter the way I think to the point where I'd become a better student.

Edited February 12, 2012 by allhandsonthebadone