Peril and promise: Multi-method research in practice

There’s no doubt about it: multi-method research is in vogue. Perhaps the most obvious evidence of this comes from the job market. Job candidates who successfully combine multiple approaches get that ineffable “buzz” and are often showered with adulation and, ultimately, job offers. As one faculty friend opined with regard to one particularly exceptional candidate, “she is clearly a new kind of comparativist.” Another remarked that the work was so good, “the talk could have been delivered in Greek.” Graduate students have taken these signals to heart. Increasing numbers are attempting to master qualitative, quantitative, and formal approaches and to formulate methodologically eclectic research proposals. Yet it bears noting that the road to the Promised Land isn’t so easy to navigate. Creatively and effectively combining multiple methods is time-consuming and difficult, as the article in this newsletter by current and recent PhD students doing multi-method research attests (Siegal et al., 2007). It can also be risky. In my experience, search committees prefer candidates with mastery of one method to those with mere facility in multiple methods. Poorly executed research may end up pleasing no one