IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v53y2019i3d10.1007_s11135-018-00830-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sociological explanation and mixed methods: the example of the Titanic

Author

Listed:
  • Jörg Stolz

    (University of Lausanne)

  • Anaïd Lindemann

    (University of Lausanne)

  • Jean-Philippe Antonietti

    (University of Lausanne)

Abstract

The question of how and with what methods the social sciences should explain phenomena is fiercely contested. While several scholars have argued that mixed methods may help to improve sociological explanations, there is a lack of highly visible examples that show the added value of this methodology. The goal of this paper is to show that the case of the Titanic, and the question of who survived and for what reasons, can be seen as such an example. The Titanic tragedy is the most well-known maritime disaster of modern history, and the Titanic dataset is a widely used and first-rate example for the teaching of mono-method statistical explanation. We demonstrate that a mixed-method explanation is superior to a mono-method explanation in that it clarifies not only the relationships between variables, but also the mechanisms that led to the co-variations. Among the most important mechanisms, we find that the rule “women and children first” was interpreted differently by different actors, and that this, together with the fact that different classes of passengers had different levels of access to the boat deck, explains much of the gender/class differences in terms of survival that we can observe. We conclude by discussing the lessons that can be drawn from the example for sociological explanatory work more generally.

Suggested Citation

  • Jörg Stolz & Anaïd Lindemann & Jean-Philippe Antonietti, 2019. "Sociological explanation and mixed methods: the example of the Titanic," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 1623-1643, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:53:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11135-018-00830-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-018-00830-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-018-00830-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-018-00830-0?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lieberman, Evan S., 2005. "Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(3), pages 435-452, August.
    2. Bruno S. Frey & David A. Savage & Benno Torgler, 2011. "Who perished on the Titanic? The importance of social norms," Rationality and Society, , vol. 23(1), pages 35-49, February.
    3. Thomas, Laine & Reyes, Eric M., 2014. "Tutorial: Survival Estimation for Cox Regression Models with Time-Varying Coe?cients Using SAS and R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 61(c01).
    4. Rino Bellocco & Sara Algeri, 2013. "Goodness-of-fit tests for categorical data," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 13(2), pages 356-365, June.
    5. Hall, Wayne, 1986. "Social class and survival on the S.S. Titanic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 22(6), pages 687-690, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Stefano Costalli & Luigi Moretti & Costantino Pischedda, 2014. "The Economic Costs of Civil War: Synthetic Counterfactual Evidence and the Effects of Ethnic Fractionalization," HiCN Working Papers 184, Households in Conflict Network.
    2. Jonas Tallberg & Thomas Sommerer & Theresa Squatrito, 2016. "Democratic memberships in international organizations: Sources of institutional design," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 59-87, March.
    3. Gustav Lidén, 2013. "What about theory? The consequences on a widened perspective of social theory," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 213-225, January.
    4. Megan Farrell, 2020. "The logic of transnational outbidding: Pledging allegiance and the escalation of violence," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(3), pages 437-451, May.
    5. Alejandro Avenburg & John Gerring & Jason Seawright, 2023. "How do social scientists reach causal inferences? A study of reception," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 257-275, February.
    6. H Zeynep Bulutgil & Neeraj Prasad, 2023. "Inequality, elections, and communal riots in India," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 60(4), pages 619-633, July.
    7. Cacace, Mirella & Ettelt, Stefanie & Mays, Nicholas & Nolte, Ellen, 2013. "Assessing quality in cross-country comparisons of health systems and policies: Towards a set of generic quality criteria," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 156-162.
    8. Diaeldin Osman & Conor O’Leary & Mark Brimble & Dave Thompson, 2019. "Factor That Impact Attrition And Retention Rates Among Accountancy Diploma Students: Evidence From Saudi Arabia," Business Education and Accreditation, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 11(1), pages 89-110.
    9. Tansey, Oisin & Koehler, Kevin & Schmotz, Alexander, 2017. "Ties to the rest: autocratic linkages and regime survival," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 50(9), pages 1221-1254.
    10. Timothy Fraser & Pinar Temocin, 2021. "Grassroots vs. greenhouse: the role of environmental organizations in reducing carbon emissions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 169(3), pages 1-21, December.
    11. Irfan Kanat & Yili Hong & T. S. Raghu, 2018. "Surviving in Global Online Labor Markets for IT Services: A Geo-Economic Analysis," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 893-909, December.
    12. Suraj Jacob, 2015. "Towards a Comparative Subnational Perspective on India," Studies in Indian Politics, , vol. 3(2), pages 229-246, December.
    13. Mark Duckenfield & Mark Aspinwall, 2010. "Private interests and exchange rate politics: The case of British business," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(3), pages 381-404, September.
    14. Achim Goerres & Katrin Prinzen, 2012. "Using mixed methods for the analysis of individuals: a review of necessary and sufficient conditions and an application to welfare state attitudes," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 415-450, February.
    15. Ziaja, Sebastian, 2017. "More donors, more democracy," Working Papers 0640, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    16. Zijing Yang & Chengfeng Zhang & Yawen Hou & Zheng Chen, 2023. "Analysis of dynamic restricted mean survival time based on pseudo‐observations," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(4), pages 3690-3700, December.
    17. Chang, Eric C.C. & Wu, Wen-Chin, 2022. "Autocracy and human capital," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    18. Chen, Songnian, 2019. "Quantile regression for duration models with time-varying regressors," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 209(1), pages 1-17.
    19. Jack S. Levy, 2008. "Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 25(1), pages 1-18, February.
    20. Ellen Mastenbroek & Tim Veen, 2008. "Last Words on Delegation?," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(2), pages 295-311, June.

    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:spr:qualqt:v:53:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11135-018-00830-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.