![\"DFG](\"https:\/\/www.hsu-hh.de\/methoden\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/735\/2018\/01\/DFG-Logi-1-300x63.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
back to welcome page<\/a><\/p>\n Videos of selected conference presentations will soon be available here<\/a>.<\/p>\n On May 23rd to 25th 2019 the fourth workshop of the research network MMMR<\/abbr> took place at Goettingen University with an overall thematic focus on \u201cMethods for Integrative Data Analysis\u201d. The event was organized in cooperation with the Sociological Research Institute Goettingen<\/em> (SOFI)<\/a> and the Goettingen Graduate School of Social Sciences<\/em> (GGG)<\/a>. Sarah Irwin<\/a> (University of Leeds) and Pat Bazeley<\/a> (Western Sydney University) joined the network as international guest experts and provided keynote presentations. The program of the meeting was also complemented by a pre-conference on May 23rd, at which researchers from Universities Freiburg, Kassel, Giessen, and Goettingen presented their MMMR<\/abbr>-related work in the areas of education, organizational, and biographical research. Presentations ranged from multimethod combinations of several qualitative approaches (Sylvia Nienhaus, Maria Pohn-Lauggas, Lisa Gromala, Ina Alber-Armenat) to mixed methods designs discussing the integration of qualitative and quantitative methods (Nicolai G\u00f6tze & Christian Schneijderberg, Lena Wegener & Veronika Philipps). A round of expert consultations concluded the pre-conference program, in which five doctoral students had the opportunity to discuss their MMMR<\/abbr>-projects with senior researchers from the network.<\/p>\n The second conference day started with Pat Bazeley\u2019s<\/a> (Western Sydney University) keynote presentation on mixed methods data analysis. Bazeley presented a comprehensive framework for integrated analysis, which revolves around the notion of \u201cpurposeful interdependence\u201d of combined methods. According to this concept, MMMR<\/abbr> ideally synthesizes a research perspective that goes beyond a mere combination or convergence of different methods\u2019 results, and rather creates a functional reciprocity substantively connecting one mode of analysis to another. Among the methods to achieve such interdependence, Bazeley discussed the possibilities of joint displays, but also highlighted the importance of an ongoing iterative switching between qualitative and quantitative perspectives. Most MMMR<\/abbr>-designs contain a series of mutually dependent steps of data collection, transformation, e.g. in the quantitizing and statistical analysis of unstandardized interview data which are subsequently augmented by interpretive analyses of the initial transcripts. Such iterative sequences of data analysis depend on the systematic organization of their underlying structure or \u2018narrative\u2019, which, as Bazeley pointed out, also concerns the process of writing up results: The conventional format for research reports and articles usually separates different methods approaches and theoretical perspectives, which may impede a close integration of methods and results. Bazeley instead argued for a primary orientation by substantive aspects of a given research question to facilitate a more profound connection.<\/p>\n In her keynote presentation Sarah Irwin<\/a> (University of Leeds) used an array of research examples to show how MMMR<\/abbr> can serve to solve \u201apuzzles\u2018 of data-analysis and interpretation, while at the same time addressing threats to validity. As Irwin pointed out, mixed approaches not only often provide solutions for puzzling research questions, but make possible the discovery of such issues in the first place. This plays an especially important role in addressing the often subtle and unanticipated differences between everyday language and sense making and the concepts and terminology applied by social scientists. Using an example from social stratification research, she showed how standardized research instruments employing the notion of \u2018class\u2019 showed a decreasing salience of socioeconomic classification in participants self-descriptions, while qualitative data revealed that such classifications did in fact play a central role, but were conceived through different everyday concepts. In cases like this, method integration can play a decisive role in reflecting the theory-laden character of ordinary language as well as scientific concepts and operationalizations, helping researchers to discover systematic ambiguities in ostensibly unproblematic everyday concepts and avoiding the danger of distorting the social phenomena under study by superimposing scientific concepts on emic sense making.<\/p>\n