IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ecolab/v25y2014i2p290-305.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mixed-methods research: What’s in it for economists?

Author

Listed:
  • Therese Jefferson
  • Siobhan Austen
  • Rhonda Sharp
  • Rachel Ong
  • Gill Lewin
  • Valerie Adams

    (University of South Australia, Australia)

Abstract

Empirical studies in economics traditionally use a limited range of methods, usually based on particular types of regression analysis. Increasingly, sophisticated regression techniques require the availability of appropriate data sets, often longitudinal and typically collected at a national level. This raises challenges for researchers seeking to investigate issues requiring data that are not typically included in regular large-scale data. It also raises questions of the adequacy of relying mainly or solely on regression analysis for investigating key issues of economic theory and policy. One way of addressing these issues is to employ a mixed-methods research framework to investigate important research questions. In this article, we provide an example of applying a mixed-methods design to investigate the employment decisions of mature age women working in the aged care sector. We outline the use of a coherent and robust framework to allow the integrated collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. Drawing on particular examples from our analysis, we show how a mixed-methods approach facilitates richer insights, more finely grained understandings of causal relationships and identification of emergent issues. We conclude that mixed-methods research has the capacity to provide surprises and generate new insights through detailed exploratory data analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Therese Jefferson & Siobhan Austen & Rhonda Sharp & Rachel Ong & Gill Lewin & Valerie Adams, 2014. "Mixed-methods research: What’s in it for economists?," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 25(2), pages 290-305, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:ecolab:v:25:y:2014:i:2:p:290-305
    DOI: 10.1177/1035304614530819
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1035304614530819
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1035304614530819?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Julie Nelson, 2003. "Once More, With Feeling: Feminist Economics and the Ontological Question," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 109-118.
    2. John H. Finch & Robert McMaster, 2002. "On categorical variables and non-parametric statistical inference in the pursuit of causal explanations," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 26(6), pages 753-772, November.
    3. Gunseli Berik, 1997. "The Need for Crossing the Method Boundaries in Economics Research," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 121-125.
    4. Julie A. Nelson, 2003. "Confronting the science-value split: notes on feminist economics, institutionalism, pragmatism and process thought," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 27(1), pages 49-64, January.
    5. Commission, Productivity, 2011. "Caring for older Australians," Inquiry Reports, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia, number 53.
    6. Paul Downward & Andrew Mearman, 2007. "Retroduction as mixed-methods triangulation in economic research: reorienting economics into social science," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 31(1), pages 77-99, January.
    7. Sandra Harding, 2003. "Representing Reality: The Critical Realism Project," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 151-159.
    8. Drucilla Barker, 2003. "Emancipatory for Whom? A Comment on Critical Realism," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 103-108.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paula Koskinen Sandberg & Maria Törnroos & Roosa Kohvakka, 2018. "The Institutionalised Undervaluation of Women’s Work: The Case of Local Government Sector Collective Agreements," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 32(4), pages 707-725, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Siobhan Austen & Therese Jefferson, 2006. "Comparing responses to critical realism," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 257-282.
    2. Martha A. Starr, 2014. "Qualitative And Mixed-Methods Research In Economics: Surprising Growth, Promising Future," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 238-264, April.
    3. Giandomenica Becchio, 2018. "Gender, Feminist and Heterodox Economics: Interconnections and Differences in a Historical Perspective," Economic Alternatives, University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria, issue 1, pages 5-24, March.
    4. Karin Astrid Siegmann & Myriam Blin, 2006. "The Best Of Two Worlds: Between-Method Triangulation In Feminist Economics Research," Working Papers 146, Department of Economics, SOAS University of London, UK.
    5. Andrew Mearman & Tim Wakeley & Gamila Shoib & Don J. Webber, 2011. "Does Pluralism in Economics Education Make Better Educated, Happier Students? A Qualitative Analysis," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 10(2), pages 50-62.
    6. Valentinov, Vladislav, 2023. "Stakeholder theory: Toward a classical institutional economics perspective," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 188(1), pages 75-88.
    7. Andrew Mearman, 2006. "Critical realism in economics and open-systems ontology: A critique," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 64(1), pages 47-75.
    8. Andrew Mearman, 2012. "Pluralist economics curricula: do they work; and how would we know?," Working Papers 20121203, Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol.
    9. Necmi Avkiran & Alan McCrystal, 2014. "Intertemporal analysis of organizational productivity in residential aged care networks: scenario analyses for setting policy targets," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 113-125, June.
    10. Nguyen, Ha Trong & Connelly, Luke Brian, 2014. "The effect of unpaid caregiving intensity on labour force participation: Results from a multinomial endogenous treatment model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 115-122.
    11. Mearman, Andrew, 2014. "How should economics curricula be evaluated?," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 16(PB), pages 73-86.
    12. Garofalo, M.R. & Marra, M, 2007. "Work-Life Reconciliation Policies From Well-Being To Development: Rethinking EU Gender Mainstreaming," MPRA Paper 9598, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Jackson Emerson Abraham, 2017. "Theoretical and Methodological Context of (Post)-Modern Econometrics and Competing Philosophical Discourses for Policy Prescription," Journal of Heterodox Economics, Sciendo, vol. 4(2), pages 119-129, December.
    14. Burgess, Teresa & Braunack-Mayer, Annette & Crawford, Gregory B. & Beilby, Justin, 2014. "Australian health policy and end of life care for people with chronic disease: An analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 60-67.
    15. Lindy King & Ann Harrington & Ecushla Linedale & Elizabeth Tanner, 2018. "A mixed methods thematic review: Health‐related decision‐making by the older person," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(7-8), pages 1327-1343, April.
    16. Travers, Max & Liu, Edgar & Cook, Peta & Osborne, Caroline & Jacobs, Keith & Aminpour, Fatemeh & Dwyer, Zack, 2022. "Business models, consumer experiences and regulation of retirement villages," SocArXiv mb2vp, Center for Open Science.
    17. Annika Lorenz & Michael Raven & Knut Blind, 2019. "The role of standardization at the interface of product and process development in biotechnology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1097-1133, August.
    18. Kate M. Gunn & Julie Luker & Rama Ramanathan & Xiomara Skrabal Ross & Amanda Hutchinson & Elisabeth Huynh & Ian Olver, 2021. "Choosing and Managing Aged Care Services from Afar: What Matters to Australian Long-Distance Care Givers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-17, December.
    19. De Silva, Muthu & Howells, Jeremy & Khan, Zaheer & Meyer, Martin, 2022. "Innovation ambidexterity and public innovation Intermediaries: The mediating role of capabilities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 14-29.
    20. Thanos Fragkandreas, 2023. "Case study research on innovation systems: paradox, dialectical analysis and resolution," Working Papers 65, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised 15 May 2023.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Employment conditions; gender; low-paid workers; mixed methods; research methodology;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J21 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Labor Force and Employment, Size, and Structure
    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ecolab:v:25:y:2014:i:2:p:290-305. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.