Quantitative researchers increasingly draw on ethnographic research that may not be generalizable to inform and interpret results from statistical analyses; at the same time, while generalizability is not always an ethnographic research goal, the integration of quantitative data by ethnographic researchers to buttress findings on processes and mechanisms has also become common. Despite the burgeoning use of dual designs in research, there has been little empirical assessment of whether the themes, narratives, and ideal types derived from qualitative fieldwork are broadly generalizable in a manner consistent with estimates obtained from quantitative analyses. We draw on simulated and real-world data to assess the bias associated with failing to align samples across qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Our findings demonstrate that significant bias exists in mixed-methods studies when sampling is incongruent within research designs. We propose three solutions to limit bias in mixed-methods research.

This article explores Foucault's two different notions of power: one where the subject is constituted by power-knowledge relations and another that emphasizes how power is a central feature of human action. By drawing out these two conceptualizations of power, Foucault's work contributes three critical points to the formation of medicalized subjectivities: (1) the issue of medicalization needs to be discussed both in terms of both specific practices and holistically (within the carceral archipelago); (2) we need to think how we as human beings are "disciplined" and "subjectivated" through medicalization, as discourses, practices, and institutions are all crystallizations of power relations; and (3) we need to reflect on how we can "resist" this process of subjectification, since "power comes from below" and patients shape themselves through "technologies of the self." Ultimately, Foucault's work does not merely assist us in refining our analysis; rather, it is essential for conceptualizing medicalization in contemporary society.

Building on observations from ethnography at the fin de siècle (Wellin and Fine, 2001), we address how ethnographers today approach their work tasks, incorporating new technology, emphasizing embodiment, sites of struggle, and increasing public engagement. We use the lens of the sociology of work to examine how ethnography has been shaped over the past 15 years, the lifespan of Qualitative Research. How do the challenges of occupational roles, places of research, and new forms of data gathering shape our collective work?

On the occasion of the re-publication of Erving Goffman's Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order, including the remarkable appendix, "Insanity of Place," the authors propose new ways of reading Goffman's work in order to highlight his attention to havoc and containment. Goffman's "Insanity of Place," explores the phenomenon of mental illness by asserting that it is an instance of havoc, a symbolic and practical condition that disrupts the social order of life, and one that must be contained. By situating this essay at the center of Goffman's oeuvre they examine Goffman's "philosophy of containment," and trace its trajectory from Asylums, Stigma and "The Insanity of Place" to its full crystallization in Frame Analysis. The authors offer a generative reading of havoc and containment in order to understand the incoherence, irrationality, unreason, incomprehensibility and unbearableness of social life and the imperative to preserve social order from collapsing, dissolving or imploding. This reading enables us to see the cracks in the social order and understand containment as the constant effort exerted to recuperate transgressions and deviations back into that order. Goffman's analysis becomes an opening into engagements with the work of Judith Butler and Michel Foucault around the notion of the normative order and the issues of containment and transgression. Thinking through Goffman's philosophy of containment as the framework for an analysis of socialization, normalization, and social ordering affords an approach to thinking macro-micro linkages of order and instability that confront both our contemporary society and the discipline of sociology.

No abstract