Association for Heterodox Economics Ph D training workshop

Association for Heterodox Economics Ph. D training workshop 2021 Mixed methods research

Many of you have already indicated that you are thinking about or are using mixed methods in your Ph. D Mixed methods Justification – why? Problems – why not? Options – how?

Question: are you using/planning to use mixed methods? Write Y or N or ? in the chat

Question: for those who said Y – what is your justification? Write in the chat

Justification matters • Research is about enquiry, perhaps towards some sort of truth • Research is (also) about persuasion • Who are your audiences? • Ph. D supervisor(s) • Examiners • Discipline • Editors, reviewers • Funders

The literature contains many dichotomies: e. g. The Problem of Mixed Methods • Positivists vs Anti-positivists • Natural vs social science • Progress vs change • QUAN people vs QUAL people (disciplinary boundaries) How, then, to justify mixed methods? • combining quantitative and qualitative methods Danger of combining methods that have incompatible philosophical rationale

Introduction: the Problem of Mixed Methods (2) One way: ‘softer’ versions of positivism/interpretivism Another way: an alternative philosophy • E. g. critical realism

Structures, powers, mechanisms Closed and open systems Realism – key concepts • ICC, ECC (see Downward talk) Retroduction Considerable scepticism about quantitative methods

Lawson argues for a method of retroduction involving ‘demi-regs’ While strict event regularities do not occur in the social realm, rough patterns of events (‘demi-regs’) do arise ‘Demi-regs’ May indicate underlying social structures ‘shining through’ flux of events E. g. German productivity growth regularly higher than that of the UK for much of the last century Lawson has argued that different respective systems of industrial relations in part generated this ‘demi-reg’

‘Demi-regs’ have a quantitative aspect Critical Realism and Mixed Methods • Lawson’s example of contrasting quantity of productivity growth between UK and Germany Demi-regs have been seen as offering a route to quantitative methods, as well as qualitative methods

Critical Realism and Mixed Methods Events Demi-regularities Quantitative analysis cause retroduction Mixed methods Mechanisms Qualitative analysis See Downward and Mearman (2007), Olsen and Morgan (2005) for more detail

From: Retroduction as mixed-methods triangulation in economic research: reorienting economics into social science Cambridge J Econ. 2006; 31(1): 77 -99. doi: 10. 1093/cje/bel 009 Cambridge J Econ | © The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved.

Critical Realism and Mixed Methods However, debate is ongoing and Lawson (2003) argues that quantitative aspect of ‘demi-regs’ remains minimal, offering rationale for little more than descriptive statistics Bigger issue, perhaps is that like strict positivists and strict interpretivists, realsits can be accused of methodological purity Is it better to be eclectic or practical? Do whatever seems to ‘work’

Recognise nuance within quant, qual & therefore overlaps Reject inductive/deductive dual Other justifications Big complex questions require interdisciplinarity Break down disciplinary silos In so doing challenge existing structures Radical vision of MMR: change economics, change research, change reality – method as political

Question: what problems do you anticipate? Write in the chat

Disciplinary mechanisms Existing hierarchies Potential problems Time Expertise How to combine them?

Question: how to combine them? Let’s consider some of your concrete examples

Give primacy to one methodology Standard models (eg Creswell & Plano Clark) Linear structure QUAN qual quan QUAL quan qual QUAN

No approach has primacy Dialectical alternative Interaction of approaches E. g. Mearman, Papa, Webber (2014)