Integrating two cultures in mixed-methods research: A tale of the state feminism project

As the growing literature on multi-methods research (MMR) shows, there are distinct advantages and disadvantages to conducting such studies. While some assert that MMR should be the industry standard in political science and is becoming the norm, particularly in the subfield of Comparative Politics (Coppedge 2009), others take a “cautionary perspective,” arguing that the trend toward MMR may actually undermine good political science scholarship. Interestingly, both perspectives play on the differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches, differences that originate from divergent worldviews, concepts and analytical logics—the “two cultures” (Mahoney and Goertz 2006). For advocates, combining qualitative and quantitative methods brings more analytical leverage to studies through, for example, addressing omitted variable bias, identifying causal mechanisms, or developing more valid concepts (e.g., Bennett 2007 or Collier, Brady, and Seawright 2004). For detractors, the fundamental methodological differences undermine the accuracy and validity of mixed-methods studies through unsophisticated and often incorrect use of different methods, differentiated measurement of key concepts and general “epistemological incommensurability” (Ahmed and Sil 2009)