Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mixed Method Research in Criminology: Why Not Go Both Ways?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Quantitative Criminology

Abstract

This chapter explores mixed method research designs that seek to combine elements of qualitative and quantitative research into a criminological investigation. This is neither a new nor a radical concept. Indeed, the differences between so-called “qualitative” methods and so-called “quantitative” methods in social science have been called “more apparent than real” (Hanson 2008: 97; see also Newman and Benz 1998; Ragin 1994). So, in a very real sense, all criminological research is “mixed methods” research. Yet, the approach remains under-appreciated and under-utilized in contemporary criminological research. The same is not true outside the discipline. First emerging as a concept around three decades ago (see esp. Brewer and Hunter 1989; Jick 1979; Fielding and Fielding 1986), “mixed methods research” has become something of a new buzzword in methodology circles with major international conferences, journals such as the Journal of Mixed method Research, Field Methods, and Quality and Quantity, and a comprehensive handbook all of its own (Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003).

Importantly, the practice of mixed method research has been around much longer than the brand name (see esp. Teddlie and Tashakkori 2003). In the early decades of social scientific research, qualitative and quantitative research coexisted far more peacefully than today, and mixed method designs were a feature of some of the most important research of the time (see e.g., Whyte’s 1943 Street Corner Society; Roethlisberger & Dickson’s 1939 “Hawthorne Effect” studies; Warner and Lunt’s 1941 “Yankee City” research; and much of the Chicago School of Sociology’s output). This happy mixing of qualitative and quantitative approaches to social science continued throughout what Denzin and Lincoln (2005) refer to as the “Golden Age” of qualitative research, post-World War II, with ground-breaking mixed method research such as Festinger’s studies of cults (e.g., Festinger et al. 1956); Short and Strodtbeck’s (1965) gang research; and Zimbardo’s (1969) simulated prison studies (for a history of mixed method research in social science, see Hunter and Brewer 2003).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    I will also drop the quotation marks around the two words for clarity of presentation, although it should be remembered that the terms are being used to refer to fictional constructions.

  2. 2.

    Research by Giordano et al. (2002) might be the second best-known work outside of classics like Short and Strodtbeck (1965). As Giordano’s work covers similar terrain to that of Laub and Sampson, this raises the interesting question of why research on desistance from crime might be so well suited to mixed method designs (see also Burnett 2004; Farrall 2002; Maruna 2001). The answer might have something to do with the ongoing debate in that area of study regarding the relationship between subjective and objective (or cognitive and structural) changes in the desistance process (see LeBel et al. 2008).

  3. 3.

    The reverse process, “qualitizing” quantitative data, is less common but is a possibility as well (see Tashakorri and Teddlie 1998). Here, presumably, the data collected is quantitative in nature (e.g., survey research), but the analysis treats these data both categorically and numerically.

  4. 4.

    The finding that qualitative analysis is more difficult than quantitative analyses (see e.g., Becker, 1996) is ironic considering the presumption of some quantitative practitioners that people who do qualitative research are less intelligent or otherwise inferior researchers (see McElrath, 2001, for a very honest ‘confession’ in this regard).

References

  • Alasuutari P (1995) Beyond the qualitative-quantitative distinction: crosstabulation in qualitative research. Int J Contemp Sociol 2:251–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Alpert G, MacDonald J, Dunham R (2005) Police suspicion and discretionary decision making during citizen stops. Criminology 43:407–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachman R, Schutt RK (2001) The practice of research in criminology and criminal justice. Pine Forge, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskin D (2002) Book review: Robert R. Weidner ‘I Won’t Do Manhattan’: causes and consequences of a decline in street prostitution. Criminol Crim Justice 2:225–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayley D (1978) Comment: perspectives on criminal justice research. J Crim Justice 6:287–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker HS, Geer B, Hughes EC, Strauss A (1961) Boys in white. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker HS (1996) The epistemology of qualitative research. In: Jessor R, Colby A, Shweder RA (eds) Ethnography and human development: context and meaning in social inquiry. University of Chicago, Chicago, 53–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg BL, Lawrence B (1998) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Allyn and Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanck PD (1987) The “process” of field research in the courtroom: a descriptive analysis. Law Hum Behav 11: 337–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanck PD, Rosenthal R, Cordell LH (1985) The appearance of justice: Judges’ verbal and nonverbal behavior in criminal jury trials. Stanford Law Rev 38:89–136, 157–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumer H (1956) Sociolgocial analysis and the “variable”. Am Sociol Rev 21(6):683–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer J, Hunter A (1989) Multimethod research: a synthesis of style. Sage, Newbury Park, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman A (1984) The debate about quantitative and qualitative research: a question of method on epistemology? Br J Sociol 35(1):75–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman A (2007) Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. J Mixed Methods Res 1(1):8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burawoy M (1998) The extended case method. Sociol Theory 16(1):4–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnett R (2004) To re-offend or not to re-offend? The ambivalence of convicted property offenders. In: Maruna S, Immarigeon R (eds) After crime and punishment: pathways to desistance from crime. Willan, Cullompton, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell DT (1984) Foreword to R. K. Yin’s Case study research: Design and methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell DT, Fiske DW (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 56(2):81–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Champion DJ (2000) Research methods for criminal justice and criminology, 2nd Edition. Regents/Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins R (2008) Violence: a micro-sociological theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottrell LS (1971) Covert behavior in interpersonal interaction. Proc Am Philos Soc 115(6):462–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW (2003) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin N (1970) The research act. Chicago, Aldine

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (2005) Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond S, Bermudez R, Schensul J (2006) What’s the rap about ecstasy? Popular music lyrics and drug trends among American youth. J Adolesc Res 21(3):269–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiCristina B (1995) Method in criminology: a philosophical primer. Harrow and Heston, Albany, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmons R (1999) The psychology of ultimate concerns. Guilford, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrall S (2002) Rethinking what works with offenders. Willan, Cullompton, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Felson R, Steadman H (1983) Situational factors in disputes leading to criminal violence. Criminology 21:59–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger L, Riecken HW, Schachter S (1956) When prophecy fails. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fielding NG, Fielding JL (1986) Linking data: the articulation of qualitative and quantitative methods in social research. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddings LS, Grant BM (2007) A trojan horse for positivism?: a critique of mixed methods research. ANS Adv Nurs Sci 30(1):52

    Google Scholar 

  • Giordano PC, Cernkovich SA, Rudolph JL (2002) Gender, crime and desistance: toward a theory of cognitive transformation. Am J Sociol 107:990–1064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene JC, Caracelli VJ, Graham WF (1989) Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educa Eval Policy Anal 11(3):255–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba EG (1990) The alternative paradigm dialog. In: Guba EG (ed) The paradigm dialog. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 17–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba EG, Lincoln YS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, London, pp 105–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagan FE (1997) Research Methods in Criminal Justice and Criminology (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson B (2008) Wither qualitative/quantitative?: grounds for methodological convergence. Qual Quant 42(1): 97–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey JH, Weber AL, Orbuch TL (1990) Interpersonal accounts: a social psychological perspective. Oxford/Blackwell, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe KR (1988) Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educ Res 17:10–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe KR (2004) A critique of experimentalism. Qual Inq 10(1):42–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber AA (2007) How to add qualitative profundity to quantitative findings in a study on cooperative learing. In: Mayring P, Huber GL, Gurtler L, Kiegelmann M (eds) Mixed methodology in psychological research. Sense, Rotterdam, pp 179–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter A, Brewer J (2003) Multimethod research in sociology. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 577–594

    Google Scholar 

  • Jick TD (1979) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Adm Sci Q 24(4):602–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson B, Turner LA (2003) Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 297–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ (2004) Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Res 33(7):14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA (2007) Toward a definition of mixed methods research. J Mixed Methods Res 1(2):112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff K (2004) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage, Newbury Park, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Laub J, Sampson R (2003) Shared beginnings, divergent lives: delinquent boys to age 70. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • LeBel T, Burnett R, Maruna S, Bushway S (2008) The chicken or the egg of subjective and social factors in desistance. Eur J Criminol 5:131–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lofland J (1971) Analysing social settings: a guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Lofland J, Lofland LH (1995) Analyzing social settings: a guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruna S (2001) Making good: how ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. American Psychological Association, Washington

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maruna S (2004) Desistance and explanatory style: a new direction in the psychology of reform. J Contemp Crim Justice 20:184–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maruna S, King A (2004) Public opinion and community penalties. In: Bottoms T, Rex S, Robinson G (eds) Alternatives to prison: options for an insecure society. Willan, Cullompton

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruna S, King A (2009) Once a criminal, always a criminal?: ‘Redeemability’ and the psychology of punitive public attitudes. Eur J Crim Policy Res 15:7–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mastrofski SD, Worden RE, Snipes JB (1995) Law enforcement in a time of community policing. Criminology 33:539–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsueda RL (2006) Criminological implications of the thought of George Herbert Mead. Sociological theory and criminological research: views from Europe and the United States 7:77–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayring P (2007) Arguments for mixed methodology. In:Mayring P, Huber GL, Gurtler L, Kiegelmann M (eds) Mixed methodology in psychological research. Sense, Rotterdam pp 1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle LG, Kadleck C, Roehl J (1998) Controlling drug and disorder problems: the role of place managers. Criminology 36:371–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McElrath K (2001) Confessions of a quantitative criminologist. ACJS Today 24(4):1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin E (1991) Oppositional poverty: the quantitative/qualitative divide and other dichotomies. Sociol Rev 39(2):292–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miethe TD, Drass KA (1999) Exploring the social context of instrumental and expressive homicides: an application of qualitative comparative analysis. J Quant Criminol 15:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB, Huberman AM (1984) Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller J (2008) The status of qualitative research in criminology. Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative Research, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller WR, Benefield RG, Tonigan JS (1993) Enhancing motivation for change in problem drinking: a controlled comparison of two therapist styles. J Consult Clin Psychol 61:455–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan DL (2007) Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J Mixed Methods Res 1(1):48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman I, Benz CR (1998) Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: exploring the interactive continuum. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennebaker JW, Mehl MR, Niederhoffer KG (2003) Psychological aspects of natural language use: our words, our selves. Annu Rev Psychol 54(1):547–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson C (1992) Explanatory style. In: Smith CP (ed) Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis. Cambridge, New York, pp 376–382

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson C, Schulman P, Castellon C, Seligman MEP (1992) The explanatory style scoring manual. In Smith CP (ed) Motivation and personality. Cambridge, New York, pp 383–392

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ragin CC (1994) Constructing social research: the unity and diversity of method. Pine Forge, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss A (1971) Systematic observations of natural social phenomena. In: Costner H (ed) Sociological methodology. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 3–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Rist RC (1977) On the relations among educational research paradigms: from disdain to detente. Anthropol Educ Q 8(2):42–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roethlisberger FJ, Dickson WJ (1939) Management and the Worker. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson RJ, Laub J (1993) Crime in the making: pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW (1999) Systematic social observation of public spaces: a new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. Am J Sociol 105(3):603–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short JF, Strodtbeck FL (1965) Group process and gang delinquency. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith CP (1992) Motivation and personality: handbook of thematic content analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Snizek WE (1976) An empirical assessment of sociology: a multiple paradigm science. Am Sociol 11:217–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Stemler S (2001) An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 7(17):137–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (1998) Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (2003) Handbook of mixed method in the social and behavioral research. Sage, Thousand, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor RB, Shumaker SA, Gottfredson SD (1985) Neighborhood-level links between physical features and local sentiments: deterioration, fear of crime, and confidence. J Archit Plann Res 2(4):261–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor SJ, Bogdan R (1998) Introduction to qualitative research methods: a guidebook and resource. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Teddlie C, Tashakkori A (2003) Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 3–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Toch H (1992) Violent men: an inquiry into the psychology of violence revised edition. American Psychological Association, Washington

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Viljoen JL, Vincent GM, Roesch R (2006) Assessing adolescent defendants’ adjudicative competence: interrater reliability and factor structure of the fitness interview test–revised. Criminal Justice and Behavior 33(4):467–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner WL, Lunt PS (1941) The social life of a modern community. H Milford, Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd D, Waring EJ (2001) White-collar crime and criminal careers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd D, Wyckoff LA, Ready J, Eck JE, Hinkle JC, Gajewski F (2006) Does crime just move around the corner? A controlled study of spatial displacement and diffusion of crime control benefits. Criminology 44:549–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheelock D, Hartmann D (2007) Midnight basketball and the 1994 crime bill debates: the operation of a racial code. The Sociological Quarterly 48(2):315–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whyte WF (1943) Street corner society. University of Chicago, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Woo H, Kim Y (2003) Modern gladiators: a content analysis of televised wrestling. Mass Commun Soc 6(4):361–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimbardo PG (1969) The human choice: individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 17:237–307

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland

    Shadd Maruna

Authors
  1. Shadd Maruna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Criminology, Florida State University, West Call Street 643, Tallahassee, 32306, U.S.A.

    Alex R. Piquero

  2. Inst. Criminology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 91905, Israel

    David Weisburd

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Maruna, S. (2010). Mixed Method Research in Criminology: Why Not Go Both Ways?. In: Piquero, A., Weisburd, D. (eds) Handbook of Quantitative Criminology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77650-7_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation