Social. Research Methods Alan Bryman third edition. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS OXFORD UNIVBRSITY PIlIlSS. Great Clarendon Street, Orlord oX2 60P. Social research methods - Bryman, Alan, Book | Suggested for .. http:// homeranking.info Seminar Task To. Bryman: Social Research Methods, 4 th edition. © Oxford University Press, All rights reserved. Glossary. Abduction. A form of reasoning with strong ties.
|Language:||English, Spanish, French|
|Genre:||Science & Research|
|ePub File Size:||24.58 MB|
|PDF File Size:||17.25 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
Social. Research. Methods. Alan Bryman. Fourth edition. 1 . 27 Mixed methods research: combining quantitative and qualitative research. 28 E-research. Social Research Methods This page intentionally left blank Social Research Methods Alan Bryman Fourth edition 1 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP. This introduction to research methods provides students and researchers with unrivalled coverage of both quantitative and qualitative methods.
They may ask you to do the same. This tendency can result in the writing being left until the last minute and consequentlyrushed. The quantitative and the qualitative findings might be presented either in tandem or sequentially, but, if the latter, they would need to be merged in the Discussion. Nowadays, the for- mat is usually a variation of me Harvard method, such as the one employed for this book. Your supervisor is likely to be the main source offeedback, but institutions vary in what supervi- sors are allowed to comment on.
October 25, June 27, Jeffrey M. McKenzie, Donald I. Siegel, Laura K. Lautz, Martin H. Otz, James Hassett, Ines Otz. January 5, April 18, Carlos E. Restrepo, Jeffrey S. Simonoff, George D. Thurston, Rae Zimmerman. September 27, Why Us? Related Articles: All Rights Reserved. Having enough time for writing up is a common refrain in their questionnaires.
Sarah Hanson's advice is: As it isalways against you,start early. Work chronologically. Lecturers and markers liketo see that you have gone on a journey of exploration into an interesting world and at the end have come out with something worthwhile that has changed your thinking and will hopefullychallenge theirs.
To readmoreabout Gareth's, Isabella's, and Sarah's research experiences. Be persuasive This point is crucial. Writing up your research is not sim- ply a matter of reporting your findings and drawing some conclusions. Writing up your research will contain many other features, such as referring to the literature on which you drew, explaining howyou did your research, and out- lining how you conducted your analysis.
But above all, yoUmust be persuasive. This means that you must con- vince your readers of the credibility of your conclusions. SimPly saying 'this is what I found; isn't it interesting' is not enough. You must persuade your readers that your findings and conclusion are significant and that they are plausible. Get feedback Tryto get as much feedback on your writing as possible and respond positively to the points anyone makes about what they read. Your supervisor is likely to be the main source offeedback, but institutions vary in what supervi- sors are allowed to comment on.
Provide your supervisor with drafts of your work to the fullest extent that regula- tions will allow. Give himor her plenty of time to provide feedback. There will be others like you who will want Writing up social research your supervisor to conunent on their work, and, if he or she feels rushed, the comments may be less helpful. They may ask you to do the same.
Their comments may be very useful,. Avoid sexist, racist, and disablist language Remember that your writing should be free of sexist, racist, and disablist language.
The British Sociological Association provides very good general and specific advice about this issue, which can be found at http: The easiest way of dealing with this is to write in the plural in such circumstances.
Consider, for example: Structure your writing It may be that you have to write a dissertation of around 10,, words for your degree. How might it be Structured? The following is typical of the Structure of a dissertation. Title page You should examine your institution's rules about what should be entered here. Acknowledgements You might want to acknowledge the help of various people, such as gatekeepers who gave you access to an organization, people who have read your drafts and provided you with feedback, or your supervisor for his or her advice.
Not ail institu- tions require this component, so check on whether it is required. Journal articles usually have abstracts, so you can draw on these for guidance on how to approach this task. Saying simply that it interests you because of a long-standing personal interest is not enough. In the case of dissertations based on quali- tative research, it is likely that your research ques- tions will be rather more open-ended than is the case with quantitative research.
But do try to identify some research questions. A totally open-ended research focusis riskyand can lead to the collection of too much data, and, when it comes to writing up, it can result in a lackof focus. Becker advises strongly against opening sentences that he describes as 'vacuous' and 'evasive'. He gives the example of 'This study deals with the problem of careers', and adds that this kind of sentence employs 'a typically evasive manceuvre, pointing to something without saying anything, or anything much, about it.
What about careers? He suggests that such evasiveness often occurs because of concerns about givingawaytheplat. Research methods The term 'research methods' is meant here as a kind of catch-all for several issues that need to be outlined: When discussingeachof these issues, you should describe and defend the choices that you made, such as why you used a postal question- naire rather than a structured interview approach, or why you focused upon that particular population for sampling purposes.
Tips and skills The importance of an argument Inmyexperience, one of the thingsthat studentsfind most difficult about writing up theirresearch isthe formulationof an argument. Thewriting-upof research shouldbe organized aroundan argument that links allaspectsof the researchprocessfrom problem formulation, through literaturereviewand the presentation of researchmethods, to the discussion andconclusion. Toooften,students makea series of pointswithout asking what the contribution ofthose pointsisto the overall argumentthat theyare trying to present.
Consider what yourclaim to knowledge isand tryto organize yourwriting to support and enhanceit. Thatwill be yourargument. Sometimes it isuseful to thinkin termsof seeking to tella storyabout yourresearch and your findings.
Try to avoid tangentsand irrelevant material that maymean that yourreaderswill losethe thread of yourargument. Ifyouare not ableto supply a dear argument, youare very vulnerable to the 'so what? Ask yourself: Theargument isa threadthat runsthrough yourdissertation see Figure M Discussion E N Conclusion.
T Writing up socia l research Results In this chapter you present the bulk of your findings. If you intend to have a separate Discussion chapter, it is likelythat the results will be presented with little com- mentary in terms of the literature or the implications of your findings.
If there will be no Discussion chapter, you will need to provide some reflections on the significance of your findings for your research questions and for the literature. Bear these points in mind. You should present and dis- cuss only those findings that relate to your research questions. This requirement may mean a rather painful process of leaving out many findings, but it is necessary, so that the thread of your argument is not lost see Tips and skills 'The importance of an argument' for more on the significance of having a good argument.
Do not just summarize what a table shows; you should direct the reader to the component or components of it that are especially striking from the point of viewof your research questions. Try to ask yourself what story you want the table to convey and try to relay that story to your readers. However, you must remember the lessons of Chapter 14 concerning the methods of analysis that are appropriate to different types of variable.
As one experienced qualita- tive researcher has put it: He goes on to say that the 'critical task in qualitative research is not to accumu- late all the data you can, but to "can" [i.
You simply have to recognize that much of the rich data you accumulate will have to be jettisoned. If you do not do this, any sense of an argument in your work is likely to be lost. There is also the risk that your account of your findings will appear too descriptive and lack an analytical edge.
This iswhy it is important to use research questions as a focus and to orient the presentation of your findings to them. It is also import- ant to keep in mind the theoretical ideas and the liter- ature that have framed your work.
The theory and literature that have influenced your thinking will also have shaped your research questions. I '1,1. Sophie Masonrecognizedthis. She writes: The great quantity of datameant that I hadto usemy own judgementas to what datawas themostrelevant to the aimsof the research.
I also had to be careful to usevisual aids whenusingcomplicatedstatistics to emphasize the importance of the results. Rebecca Barneswrites: Because somany important and interestingissues haveemergedin theanalysis of my data.
I have hadtobe selective; I havechosento do justiceto asmallernumber of themes, rather than resortingto superficial coverage of alarger number of themes. To read more about Sophie 's ond Rebecca's research experiences, go to the Online Resource Centrethat accompanies this book at http: Student experience The importance of research questions, theory, and the literature in writing up findings Several studentsmentioned how important it wasfor them to keepin mind their researchquestions and the theory and literature that were driving their research while writing up.
For one thing, they help the student to decide which findings to include or to emphasize when writing up. I choseto havethree chaptersof my thesisthat reported my findings. These werenot. Each of these chapters addresses oneof mymain research questionsor aims. Erin Sanders writes: I groupedtogether questionsand responses that concemedsimilaraspects within the childhooddebateand formed threemain chapters: What makes achild achild?: Within thesechapters I interwove themesthat emergedfromthe dataandseemed tobe present in most responses.
For Gareth Matthews the theoretical debatesabout the labour process werecrucial: Cryer recommends show- ing at the beginning of each chapter the particular issues that are being examined in the chapter. You should indicate which research question or questions are being addressed in the chapter and provide some signposts about what will be included in the chapter. In the conclusion of the chapter, you should make dear what your results have shown and draw out any links that might be made with the next results chapter.
Discussion In the Discussion, you reflect on the implications of your findings for the research questions that have driven your research. In other words, how do your results illuminate your research questions? If you have specified hypo- theses, the discussion will revolve around whether the hypotheses have been confirmed or not, and, if not, you might speculate about some possible reasons for and the implications of their refutation.
Conclusion The main points here are as follows. However, it is frequently useful to bring out in the opening para- graph of the Conclusion your argument thus far. This will mean relating your findings and your discussion of them to your research questions. Thus, your brief summary should be a means of hammering home to your readers the significance of what you have done.
Appendices In your appendices you might want to include such things as your questionnaire, coding frame, or observation schedule, letters sent to sample members, and letters sent to and received from gatekeepers where the cooperation of an organization was required. References Include here all references cited in the text. For the format of the References section you should follow whichever one is prescribed byyour department. Nowadays, the for- mat is usually a variation of me Harvard method, such as the one employed for this book.
Finally Remember to fulfil any obligations you entered into, such as supplying a copy of your dissertation, if, for example, your access to an organization was predicated on provid- ing one, and maintaining the confidentiality of informa- tion supplied and the anonymity of your informants and other research participants. Sophie Mason writes: The research project was written in variousstages and split into several differentsections; these were as follows: Condusions and Recommendations.
Appendixand Bibliography. To read more about Sophie's and Erin'sresearch experiences, go to the Online Resource Centrethat accompanies this book at http: Tips andskills Proof reading your dissertation Before SUbmitting your dissertation, make sure that it isspell-checked and check it for grammatical and punctuation errors.
There are many useful guides and handbooks that can be used for this purpose. It mayalso be useful to ask someone else, such as a friend or family member, to proof read your work in case there are errors that you have missed. Aswell as being an important presentational issue, this will affect the ease with which your written work can be read and understood. It therefore has the potential to affect the qualityofyour dissertation significantly. Writing upquantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research In the next three sections, research-based articles that have been published in journals are examined to detect some helpful features.
One is based on quantitative re- search, one on qualitative research, and another on mixed methods research. The presentation of the quantitative and the qualitative research articles raises the question of whether practitioners of the two research strategies em- ploydifferent writing approaches.
It issometimes suggested that they do, though, when I compared two articles based on research in the sociology of work, I found that the dif- ferences were less pronounced than I had anticipated on the basis of reading the literature on the topic Bryman One difference that I have noticed is that, injournals, quantitative researchers often give more detailed accounts of their research design, research methods, and approaches to analysis than qualitative researchers. This is surprising, because, in books reporting their research, qualitative re- searchers provide detailed accounts of these areas.
Indeed, the chapters in Part Three of this book rely heavily on these accounts. Wolcott a: And rightly so, especially for those among them will- ing to accept our contributions if we would only provide more careful data about our data. However, this point aside, in the discussion that Iol- lows, although one article based on quantitative research and one based on qualitative research will be examined, we should not be too surprised if they tum out to be more similar than might have been expected.
In other words,. In addition to looking at examples of writing in quanti- tative and qualitative research, I will examine the matter of how mixed methods research can be written up and explore some guidelines that are being proffered by practitioners. The approach to dealing with the mixed methods research article is slightly different from the other twOin that I will begin with some general sugges- tions for writing up mixed methods research as this is an area that has not been given a great deal of attention.
Writing up quantitative research Toillustrate some of the characteristics of the way quanti- tative research is written up for academic journals, I will take the article by Kelley and De Graaf that was referred to on several occasions in Chapters 1,2,6, and 13 see especially Research in focus 1. I am not suggesting that this article is somehow exemplary or representative, but rather that it exhibits some features that are often regarded as desirable qualities in terms of presentation and structure.
The article is based on a secondary analysis of survey data on religion in fifteen nations and was accepted for publication in one of the most prestigious journals in sociology-the American Sociological Review, which is the official journal of the American Sociological Association.
The vast majority of published articles in academic journals entail the blind refereeing of articles submitted. This means that an arti - cle will be read by two or three peers, who comment on the anicle and give the editors ajudgement about its mer- its and hence whether it is wonhy of publication. Most articles submitted are rejected. With highly prestigious journals, it is common for in excess of 90 per cent of arti- c1es to be rejected.
It is unusual for an article to be accepted on its first submission. Usually, the referees will suggest areas that need revising and the author or authors is expected to respond to that feedback. Revised versions of articles are usually sent back to the referees for funher comment, and this process may result in the author having to revise the draft yet again.
It may even result in rejection. Therefore, an article like Kelleyand De Graafs is not just the culmination of a research process, but is also the outcome of a feedback process. The fact that it has been accepted for publication, when many others have been rejected, testifies to its merits as having met the standards of the journal. That is not to say it is perfect, but the refereeing process is an indication that it does possess certain crucial qualities.
Structure The article has the following components, aside from the abstract: Writing up social research 1. Introduction Right at the beginning of the introduction, the opening four sentences attempt to grab our attention, to give a clear indication of where the article's focus lies, and to provide an indication of the probable significance of the findings.
This is what the authors write: Religion remains a central element of modern life, shaping people's world-views, moral standards, family lives, and in many nations, their politics. But in many Western nations, modernization and secularization may be eroding Christian beliefs, with profound consequences that have intrigued sociologists since Durkheim. Yet this much touted secularization may be overstated-certainly it varies widely among nations and is absent in the United States Benson, Donahue, and Erickson We explore the degree to which religious beliefs are passed on from generation to generation in different nations.
Kelleyand De Graaf Let us look at what each sentence achieves. But this sentence does more than the first sentence: To support this point , one of sociology's most venerated figures-Emile Durkheim- is mentioned. Several fairly recent articles are cited to support the authors' contention that there is a possibility that secularization is being exaggerated by some com- mentators.
In this sentence, the authors are moving towards a rationale for their article that is more in terms of sociological concerns than pointing to social changes, which are the main concern of the two open- ing sentences. So, by the end of four sentences, the contribution that the article is claiming to make to our understanding of reli- gion in modem society has been outlined and situated within an established literature on the topic. This is quite a powerful start to the article, because the reader knows what the article is about and the particular case the authors are making for their contribution to the literature on the subject.
Theory In this section, existing ideas and research on the topic of religious socialization are presented. The authors point to the impact of parents and other people on children's reli- gious beliefs , but then assert that 'a person's religious environment is also shaped by factors other than their own and their parents' religious beliefs, and hence is a potential cause of those beliefs..
This suggestion is thenjustified, which prompts the authors to argue that 'prominent among these "unchosen" aspects of one's religious environment is birthplace' Kelley and De Graaf's rumina- tions on this issue lead them to propose the first of three hypotheses, which is presented in Research in focus 1.
This hypothesis stipulates that contextual factors have an impact on religious beliefs. This leads the authors to suggest in two related hypotheses that, in predominantly secular societies, family background wil1have a greater impact on a person's religious beliefs than in predomin- antly devout societies, because in the former parents and other family members are more likely to seek to iso- late children from secular influences.
However, in devout societies this insulation process is less necessary and the influence of national factors will be greater. Thus, we end up with very clear research questions, which have been arrived at by reflecting on existing ideas and research in this area.
Data In this section, the authors outline the data theydrewOn for their research. This exposition entails a general 0 ut- line of the data sets. The quotation on page is laken from this commentary. The sampling procedures areOUI- lined along with sample sizes and response rates. Measurement In this section, Kelley and De Graaf explain how the main concepts in their research were measured.
The COncepIS were: Methods and models This is a very technical section, which outlines the differ- ent ways in which the relationships between the vari- ables might be conceptualized and the implications of using different mutivariate analysis approaches for the ensuing findings.
Results The authors provide a general description of their findings and then cons ider whether the hypotheses are supported. In fact, it turns out the hypotheses are sup- ported. The significance of other contextual character- istics of nations and individual differences are separately explored.
Conclusion In this final section, Kelley and De Graaf return 10 the issues that have been driving their investigation. These are the issues they had presented in the Introduction and Theory sections. They begin the section with a strong statement of their findings: People living in religious nations acquire, in proportion 10 the orthodoxyof their fellowcitizens, more orthodox beliefs than those living in secular nations' Kelley and DeGraaf They then reflect on the implications of the confirmation of their hypotheses for our understanding of the process of religious socialization and religious beliefs.
They also address the implications of their findings for certain theories about religious beliefs In modem society, whichwere outlined in their Theory section: Our results also speak to the long-running debate about USexceptionalism Warner They support the viewthat the United States is unusually religious. Our results do not support Stark and Iannaccone's 'supply-side' analysis of differences between nations which. Kelley and De Graaf The authors suggest that factors such as modernization arid the growth of educa - don depress levels of religious belief and that their impact tends to result in a precipitous rather than a gradual fall in levelsof religiosity.
In their final three sentences, they go on to write about societies undergoing such change: The offspring of devout families mostly remain devout, but the offspring of more secular families now strongly tend to be secular. Aself-reinforcing spiral of secularization then sets in, shifting the nation's average religiosity ever further away from orthodoxy.
So after generations of stability, religious belief declines abruptly in the course of a few generations to the modest levels seen in many Western nations.
They are clearly extrapolating from their scoring of the fifteen nations in terms of levels of modernization to the impact of social changes on national levels of religiosity.
However, these final sen- tences make for a strong conclusion, which itself might form a springboard for further research.
To some extent, these have been alluded to in the course of the above exposition, but they are worth spelling out. This entails pointing to the continued sig- nificance of religion in many societies and to the litera- ture on religious beliefs and secularization.
In fact, the authors present hypotheses that are a highly specific form of research question. As noted in Chapter 6, by no means all quantitative research is driven by hypotheses, even though outlines of the nature of quantitative research often imply that it is.
Nonetheless, Kelleyand De Graaf chose to frame their research questions in this form. This is an important element. It is easy to forget that you should think of the research process as closing a circle in which you must return unambiguously to your research questions.
There is no point inserting extra- neous findings if they do not illuminate your research questions. Digressions of this kind can be confusing to readers, who might be inclined to wonder about the significance of the extraneous findings. We also see that there is a clear sequential process moving from the formulation of the research questions through the exposition of the nature of the data and the presentation of the findings to the conclusions.
Each stage is linked to and follows on from its predecessor but see Thinking deeply The structure used by Kelley and De Graaf is based on a common one employed in the writing-up of quantitative research for academic journals in the social sciences.
Sometimes there is asepar- ate Discussion section that appears between the Results and the Conclusion. Another variation is that issues of measurement and analysis appear in the same section as the one dealing with research methods, but perhaps with distinct subheadings. Thinking deeply At this point, it isworthrecalling the discussion in Chapter 20of Gilbertand MUlkay's research on scientists. Theauthors drewa distinction between an emairkist repertoire and a contingent repertoire.
The formerderived from 'the observation that the texts of experimentalpapers display certain recurrent stylistic and lexical featureswhichappear to be coherentlyrelated' Gilbert and Mulkay ; We shouldbear in mindthat the same istrue of papers writtenforsocial sciencejournals.
Thesetoodisplay Certain features that suggesta certaininevitability to the outcome of the research. In other words,the readeris given a sense that, in following the rigorous proceduresoutlinedin the article, the researcherslogically arrived at their conclusions. Thecontingent repertoire, withits recognition of the roleof the researcher inthe production of findings, is far lessapparent inscientists' publishedwork.
Thus, we haveto recognize the possibility that the impression ofa seriesof linked stagesleadingto an inescapableculmination isto a largeextent a reconstruction of eventsdesigned to persuade referees who, of course, use the same tactics themselves of the credibility and importance of one's findings.
This means that the conventions about writing up a Quantitativeresearchproject. The wholeissueof the waysinwhichthe writing-up ofresearch representsa means ofpersuadingothers ofthe credibility of one's knowledge claims has been a particular preoccupation amongqualitative researchers see below and has been greatlyinnuencedbythe surge of interest inpostmodernism. However, inThinking deeply Three pointsare worth making about these strategies in the present context. First theyare characteristic of the empiricist repertoire.
Second, whilethe writingof Qualitative research has been a particular focus in recent times see below. Third, when Icompared the writing of Quanti tativeand Qualitative research articles, Ifound theywere not as dissimilar in terms of rhetorical strategiesas issometimesproposed Bryman However,l didfind greater evidenceofa management metaphor see Thinking deeply Writing up qualitative research Nowwe will look at an example of a journal article based on qualitative research, Again, I am not suggesting that the article Is exemplary or representative, but that it exhibits some features that are often regarded as desir- able qualities in terms of presentation and structure.
The article is one that has been referred to in several previous chapters especially Research in focus 2. The study is based on semi-structured interviews and was published in the Sociological Review, a leading Britishjournal. Structure The Structure runs as follows: What is immediately striking about the structure is that it is not dissimilar to Kelley and De Graaf's Nor should this be all that surprising.
After all, a srructure that runs Introduction -4 Literature review -4 Research design! One difference from quantitative research articles is that the presentation of the results and the discussion of them are frequently rather more inter- woven in qualitative research articles. We will see this in the case of Beardsworth and Keil's article.
As with Kelley and De Graaf's article , we will examine the writing in tenDS of the article's structure. Introduction The first four sentences give us an immediate sense of what the article is about and where its focus lies; The purpose of this paper is to offer a contribution to the analysis of the cultural and sociological factors which influence patterns of food selection and food avoidance.
The spedfic focus is contemporary vegetarianism, a complex of inter-related beliefs, attitudes and nutritional practices which has to date received comparatively little attention fromsocial scientists. Vegetarians in western cultures, in most instances, are not life-long practitioners but converts. Theyare individuals who have subjected more traditional foodways to critical scrutiny, and subsequently made a deliberate decision to change their eating habits, sometimes in a radical fashion.
Beardsworth and Kei Wecan look again at what each sentence achieves. Interestingly, this is almost the opposite of the claim made by Kelleyand De Graaf in their second sentence, in that they point to a line of sociological interest in religion going back to Durkheim. Each is a legitimate textual Strategy for gaining the attention of readers. The analysis of the social dimensions of food and eating This and the next section review existing theory and research in this area.
In this section, the contributions of various social scientists to social aspects of food and eat- ing are discussed. The literature reviewed acts as a back- cloth to the issue of vegetarianism. Beardsworth and Keil I This point is important, as the authors note once again at the end of the section that vegetarianism has received little attention from social scientists. Studies of vegetarianism This section examines aspects of the literature on vegetar- ianism that has been carried outby social scientists or that has a social scientific angle.
The review includes: In the final paragraph of this section, the authors indicate the contribution of some of the literature they have covered. The design of the study The first sentence of this section forges a useful linkwith the preceding one: This opening gambit allows the authors to suggest that the literature in this area is scant and that there are many unanswered questions. Also, they distance them- selves from the one sociological study of vegetarians, which in tum leads them to set up the grounds for prefer- ring qualitative research.
The findings of the study The chief findings are outlined under separate headings: The presentation of the results is carried out so that there is some discussion of their meaning or significance in such a way as to lead onto the next section, which provides exclusively a discussion. For example, in the final sentence in the section ' reporting findings relating to nutritional beliefs , the authors write: Just as meat tended to imply strongly negative connotations for respondents.
Explaining contemporary vegetarianism This section discusses the findings in the light of the study's research questions in connection with food selec- tion and avoidance. The results are also related to many of the ideas encountered in the two sections dealing with the literature. The authors develop an idea emerging from their research, which they call 'food ambivalence'. This concept encapsulates for the authors the anxieties and paradoxes concerning food that can be discerned in the interview transcripts for example, food can be con- strued both as necessary for strength and energy and simultaneously as a source of illness.
Vegetarianism is in many respects a response to the dilemmas associated with food ambivalence. Conclusions In ,this section, the authors return to many of the ideas and themes that have driven their research. TheyspellOUt the significance of the idea of food ambiValence,which is probably the article's main conrribution to researchinthis area.
The final paragraph outJines the importance of fOOd ambivalence for vegetarians, but the authors are careful not to imply that it is the sole reason for the adoptionof vegetarianism. In the final sentence they write: This sentence neatly encapsulates one of the article's master themes-the idea of vegetarianism as a response to food ambivalence-and alludes through the reference to 'the carefully arranged message' to semiotic analyses of meat and food.
Toa large extent, this revolves around identifying the soci- ological study of food and eating as a growing area of research but noting the paucity of investigations of vegetarianism. The research questions revolve around the issue of vegetarianism as a dletary choice and the motivations for that choice.
The sec- tion in which these issues are discussed demonstrates greater transparency than is sometimes the case with articles reporting qualitative research. However, section 6 also represents the major opportunity for the idea of food ambivalence and its dimensions to be articulated. The inductive nature of qualitative research means that the concepts and theories that are generated from an investigation must be clearly identified and discussed, as in this case.
It alsoexplores the implications of food ambivalence for vegetarians, so that' one of the"article's major theoret- ical contributions is clearly identified and emphasized. Writing up mixedmethods research partly because interest in and the practice of mixed rnethodsresearch has gained momentumonly in relatively recent times, it has few if any writing conventions.
More particularly, it is difficult to say what an exemplary or model mixed methods research journal article might looklike. Creswell and Tashakkori Iink, or connect these "strands" in some way' Creswell and Tashakkori They actually add a third feature of good mixed methods articles-namely, that they contribute to the literature on mixed methods research in some way.
This seems a rather tali order for many writers and researchers, so that I Wouldtend to emphasize the other two features.
The first implies that the quantitative and the qualita- tive components of a mixed methods article should be at the very least competently executed. This means that interms of the fundamental criteria for conducting good quantitative and good qualitative research, mixed meth- ods research should conform to both quantitative and qualitative research criteria. In terms of writing, it means that, for each of the components, it should be clear what the research questions were, how the sampling was done, Writing up social research what the data collection technique s was or were, and qow the data were analysed.
The second feature implies that a good mixed methods article will be more than the sum of its parts. This issue relates to a tendency that has been identified by some writers e. Bryman c; O'Cathain et al. As Creswell and Tashakkori The expectation is that, by the end of the manuscript, conclusions gleaned from the two strands are integrated to provide a fuller understanding of the phenomenon under study.
Integration might be in the form of comparing. To some extent, when writing up the results froma mixed methods study, researchers might make it easier for themselves to get across the extra yield associated with their investigations if they make clear their rationales for including both quantitative and qualitative components in their overall research strategy.
The issue of rationales for conducting mixed methods research is one that was addressed in Chapter Further advice on writing up mixed methods research can be found in suggestions in Creswell and Plano Clark's They suggest that the structure should be along the following lines. This would include such features as: Morgan's classification of approaches to mixed methods re- search in Thinking deeply This may not be a problemifthe two or more setsoffindings arethen integratedinthe Discussion sections or chapters.
Instead, try to thinkof the quantitative aridthe qualitative findings thematically acrossthe twosetsof results. The quantitative and the qualitative findings might be presented either in tandem or sequentially, but, if the latter, they would need to be merged in the Discussion. Summarize and explain results, emphasiz- ingthe significanceof the mixed methods nature of the research and what is gained from the presence of both quantitative and qualitative findings; draw attention to any limitations of the investigation; and possibly suggest avenues for future research.
In terms of the overall structure, Creswell and Plano Clark's suggestions are more or less the same as for an article based on quantitative research or an art- iclebased on qualitative research see above. It is in the need to oudine the mixed methods nature of the research and to bring the two sets of findings together that the dis- tinctiveness of a mixed methods journal article can be discerned.
An example of mixed methods wr iting Many of these features can be seen in the study of the food-and-mouth crisis by Poortinga et aL This article has been previously encountered in Research in focus 1. It may be worth looking back at these two accounts as a reminder of the study. The following examination of the writing of this article is organized in terms of its structure.
Introduction The article begins with a very strong and clear state- ment of the focus of the article and its methodological leanings: Thirty years of empirical work on publicperceptions have generated an impressive bodyof findings on attitudes to the consequences, benefits and institutional profilesof a range of important riskissues.
However, much of the availableresearch tends to have been conducted when the riskissuesstudiedare not partlcutarlysalient in publicdebate. Although there is some evidence fromopinion polling, risk perception studies are rarelyconducted duringa major riskcrisis. The present study examines public attitudes to riskand its management duringone such crisis: Amixed method study design was employed, specifically a Quantitativesurvey conducted at the height of the epidemicfollowed up.
Recent studies have shown that combiningdifferent research methods can provide a more comprehensive viewon risk issues than can anyone methodology alone..
Poortinga et at. The authors then go on to outline the structure of the arti- cleso that the reader. The British Foot and Mouth Crisis The authors outline the origins of the crisis, its timing, its extent, and its effects.