The Problem of “Cameo Appearances” in Mixed-methods Research: Implications for Twenty-first-century Ethnography

Abstract

Amid ongoing controversies in ethnography concerning representation, reproducibility, and generalizability, social scientific scholarship has increasingly taken a mixed-methods turn. While studies that blend qualitative and quantitative data promise to enhance the validity of representations of social worlds under analysis, they cannot escape contending with foundational dilemmas of scientific translation, integration, and commensurability across methodological paradigms. Recent debates have ignited a new line of inquiry about the integration of multiple methods in ethnography. In this paper, we argue that "cameo appearances"-the summoning of either qualitative or quantitative analyses in separate, purely mono-method studies-amounts to a form of methodological tokenism under the guise of methodological pluralism. We articulate sampling design, enhanced training, and curriculum development as crucial for arbitrating these debates as mixed-methods research emerges as a distinct innovation in twenty-first-century ethnography.

Taking a critical stance towards mixed methods research: A cross-disciplinary qualitative secondary analysis of researchers’ views

“…Furthermore, as Maxwell, Chmiel, and Rogers [ 54 ] have suggested, a better understanding on the part of mixed methods researchers of the perspectives of others in the field who embrace a differing approach should facilitate the process of integrating quantitative and qualitative methods in studies where different ontological positions coincide. In a similar vein, such an understanding could also help overcome a form of methodological tokenism described by Hancock, Sykes and Verma [ 59 ]. This can occur when mixed methods researchers fail to attend to, and therefore align, the distinct epistemological and ontological premises that underlie the methodological orientations that are integrated in a mixed methods design.…”

Trust-building vs. “just trust me”: reflexivity and resonance in ethnography

“…We need to match that commitment with institutional changes in training. Hancock et al ( 2018 ) report that only 20% of top-20 sociology departments require a qualitative methods course of its graduate students—of which ethnography might occupy 1–3 weeks—while all of them require a quantitative course. Improved qualitative training would better enable fruitful methodological debate and strengthen peer review processes.…”

“…Implicit within the discourse on reforming ethnographic practice is an anxiety about trust. Hancock et al ( 2018 ) clearly articulate this apprehension while reviewing challenges to validity in ethnographic research, writing, “the reader is (often implicitly) expected to trust the accuracy of the observer and trust that he or she rendered or translated experiences faithfully” (321). While weighing the benefits and risks of identifying participants, Contreras' ( 2019 ) reveals how the impact of the discourse, whether intended or not, brings ethnographers' trust into question.…”

Blending the Focused Ethnographic Method and Case Study Research: Implications Regarding Case Selection and Generalization of Results

“…These propositions anticipate the vision of the problem studied, determine which data are relevant for responding to the research problem, and ensure the greatest possible relevance of the units or cases selected for answering the research questions. Therefore, by using the existing theoretical knowledge, the representativeness of the sample can be ensured in advance in terms of the characteristics of its units of analysis or cases so that it is feasible to generalize the findings beyond the cases chosen (Hancock et al 2018:322–25; Handwerker and Wozniak 1997; Maxwell and Chmiel 2014:540).…”

“…The idea of Yin (2014) is that the choice of contrasting or controlling cases will help identify the causal role of the factors identified initially as relevant in the theoretical framework of the research. Furthermore, only a few ethnographic and qualitative studies have tried replication in its conventional sense, probably because, as Hancock et al (2018:322–25) state, it is a controversial question whether the difficulties of reproducibility of qualitative research make it feasible (see Hancock et al [2018:322–25] for a brief summary on the debate).…”