The experiences of settlement in a new country (e.g., securing housing and employment, language barriers) pose numerous challenges for recent immigrants that can impede their health and well-being. Lack of social support upon arrival and during settlement may help to explain why immigrant mental health status declines over time. While most urban centers in Canada offer some settlement services, little is known about how the availability of social supports, and the health statuses of recent immigrants, varies by city size. The objective of this mixed-methods study was to examine the relationship between self-perceived mental health (SPMH), social support availability, and urban center size, for recent immigrants to Canada. The quantitative component involved analysis of 2009–2010 Canadian Community Health Survey data, selecting for only recent immigrants and for those living in either large or small urban centers. The qualitative component involved in-depth interviews with managers of settlement service organizations located in three large and three small urban centers in Canada. The quantitative analysis revealed that social support availability is positively associated with higher SPMH status, and is higher in small urban centers. In support of these findings, our interviews revealed that settlement service organizations operating in small urban centers offer more intensive social supports; interviewees attributed this difference to personal relationships in small cities, and the ease with which they can connect to other agencies to provide clients with necessary supports. Logistic regression analysis revealed, however, that recent immigrants in small urban centers are twice as likely to report low SPMH compared to those living in large urban centers. Thus, while the scope and nature of settlements services appears to vary by city size in Canada, more research is needed to understand what effect settlement services have on the health status of recent immigrants to Canada, especially in smaller urban centers.

A review of 31 empirical and 18 substantive papers by qualitative social geographers mainly using in-depth interviews reveals little explicit reference to the principle(s) adopted to enhance ‘rigour’ and to ensure meaningful inference. Given the modest explicit discussion of evaluative criteria in these papers, a scheme from evaluation research itself is critically reviewed. A set of evaluation questions derived from this review and their application to an empirical piece of qualitative work frame an argument for a general set of criteria rather than rigid rules for assessing qualitative work. Such criteria can serve as anchor points for qualitative evaluation.

A mixed method approach was adopted to study the experiences of lone fathers, using a classic triangulation approach of interview and questionnaire data. This study utilised an empirical realist framework of scientific inquiry, with the ‘soft’ individual interview data seen as an adjunct to the ‘hard’ aggregate quantitative methods. A review of this study found that the interviews worked well as a pilot study in a classic mixed methods framework. The questionnaires provided a range of information about the characteristics of this group of lone fathers, but it was the interviews which provided astonishing depth on the causes of marital breakdown and post-marital conflict, and on the discourses and other structures which sustain social processes. In this study, the interview techniques could have been used differently, in a different framework of analysis (that of critical rather than empirical realism) without the support of other mixed methods.

The use of qualitative data analysis software has been increasing in recent years. A number of qualitative researchers have raised questions concerning the effect of such software in the research process. Fears have been expressed that the use of the computer for qualitative analysis may interfere with the relationship between the researcher and the research process itself by distancing the researcher from both the data and the respondent. Others have suggested that the use of a quantitative tool, the computer, would lead to data dredging, quantification of results, and loss of the "art" of qualitative analysis. In this study of 12 qualitative researchers, including both faculty members and graduate students, we have found that these fears are exaggerated. Users of qualitative data analysis software in most cases use the computer as an organizational, time-saving tool and take special care to maintain close relationships with both the data and the respondents. It is an open question, however, whether or not the amount of time and effort saved by the computer enhance research creativity. The research findings are mixed in this area. At issue is the distinction between creativity and productivity when computer methods are used. Computer packages targeted at qualitative and mixed methods research data are readily available and the methodology sections of research articles indicate that they are being utilised by some health researchers. The purpose of this article is to draw together concerns which have been expressed by researchers and critics and to place these within the perspective of 'framing' (MacLachlan & Reid, 1994). Here, the focus becomes the frame that these computer programs impose on qualitative data. Inevitably, all data sets are disturbed by the techniques of collection and the conceptual and theoretical frames imposed, but computer framing not only distorts physically but also imposes an often minimally acknowledged frame constructed by the metaphors and implicit ideology of the program. This frame is in opposition to most of the recent changes in qualitative data interpretation, which have emphasized context, thick description and exposure of the minimally disturbed voices of participants.

How do you decide whether to use a qualitative or a quantitative approach for the design of a research study? How do you write up the results of a study for a scholarly journal article or dissertation? This book addresses these issues by providing a guide to major design decisions, such as deciding a paradigm, stating a purpose for the study, identifying the research questions and hypotheses, using theory, and defining and stating the significance of the study. Research Design is aimed at upper division to graduate level research methods courses that are taught to prepare students to plan and write up independent research studies. In the past two decades, research approaches have multiplied to a point at which investigators or inquirers have many choices. For those designing a proposal or plan, I recommend that a general framework be adopted to provide guidance about all facets of the study, from assessing the general philosophical ideas behind the inquiry to the detailed data collection and analysis procedures. Using an extant framework also allows researchers to lodge their plans in ideas well grounded in the literature and recognized by audiences (e.g., faculty committees) that read and support proposals for research. What frameworks exist for designing a proposal? Although different types and terms abound In the literature, I will focus on three: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches. 'The first has been available to the social and human scientist for years, the second has emerged primarily during the last three or four decades, and the last is new and still developing in form and substance. This chapter introduces the reader to the three approaches to research. I suggest that to understand them, the proposal developer needs to consider three framework elements: philosophical assumptions about what constitutes knowledge claims; general procedures of research called strategies of inquhy and detailed procedures of data collection, analysis, and writing. called methods. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches frame each of these elements differently, and these defiances are identified and discussed in this chapter. 'Then typical scenarios that combine the three elements are advanced, followed by the reasons why one would choose one approach over another in designing a study. 'This discussion will not be a philosophical treatise on the nature of knowledge, but it will provide a practical grounding in some of the philosophical ideas behind research.

Introduces consensus analysis as useful technique for analyzing structured interview data and producing results that: a) measure the degree of agreement amont informants, b) identify "culturally correct" information, and c) assign scores for each informant on how knowledgeable they are with respect to the "correct" response.

This paper focuses on the question of sampling (or selection of cases) in qualitative research. Although the literature includes some very useful discussions of qualitative sampling strategies, the question of sampling often seems to receive less attention in methodological discussion than questions of how data is collected or is analyzed. Decisions about sampling are likely to be important in many qualitative studies (although it may not be an issue in some research). There are varying accounts of the principles applicable to sampling or case selection. Those who espouse ‘theoretical sampling’, based on a ‘grounded theory’ approach, are in some ways opposed to those who promote forms of ‘purposive sampling’ suitable for research informed by an existing body of social theory. Diversity also results from the many different methods for drawing purposive samples which are applicable to qualitative research. We explore the value of a framework suggested by Miles and Huberman [Miles, M., Huberman,, A., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, London.], to evaluate the sampling strategies employed in three examples of research by the authors. Our examples comprise three studies which respectively involve selection of: ‘healing places’; rural places which incorporated national anti-malarial policies; young male interviewees, identified as either chronically ill or disabled. The examples are used to show how in these three studies the (sometimes conflicting) requirements of the different criteria were resolved, as well as the potential and constraints placed on the research by the selection decisions which were made. We also consider how far the criteria Miles and Huberman suggest seem helpful for planning ‘sample’ selection in qualitative research.

A historical antagonism between the proponents of qualitative fieldwork and of survey research has prevented recognition of the benefits to be gained by employing both methods in the same study. Each method can be greatly strenthened by appealing to the unique qualities of the other. Through examination of a number of cases in which the methods have been integrated, it is possible to discern important benefits is design, data collection, and analysis. In order to fully exploit the advantages of integration, however, adjustments in traditional procedures will have to be made, thereby yielding a new style of social research. Others citing this work make clear and strong arguments for the value of work emerging under the frame of 'mixed methods research.' As found in Christense, Robinson, and Simons, 2016 'The Application of Mixed Methods: using a Crossover Analysis Strategy for Product Developement in Real Estate,' 'Although the definition of mixed methods research still remains a contested area, most researchers agree that mixed methods research combines qualitative and quantitative data collection and data analysis within a single study (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003) to better understand research problems by enabling breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration' (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner, 2007: 56). The mixed methods movement is gaining popularity in many disciplines (Patton, 1990; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003) and, emphasizing the value and advantages of mixed methods research, the integration of quantitative and qualitative research methods has been made in sociology (Sieber, 1973), education evaluation (Cook & Reichardt, 1979; Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989; Rossman & Wilson, 1985), health sciences (O'Cathain, 2009), sustainable tourism (McGehee et al, 2013), and management and organizational research (Aguinis et al., 2010; Currall & Towler, 2003; Edmondson & McManus, 2007; Molina-Azorin, 2012). The rise in uptake may be due in part to the methodological pluralism, which frequently results in a better understanding of research problems than a mono-method design (Molina-Azorin, 2012). ABSTRACT: Increasingly, researchers are recognizing the benefits of expanding research designs to include both quantitative and qualitative methods to gain deeper insight into the reasons behind various research phenomena. Entrepreneurial development of market oriented products can benefit from the use of both methods to gain an understanding of complex issues influencing the development of new products. This research offers a philosophical argument for utilizing a mixed methods approach in the development of quantitative instruments and demonstrates how the use of a crossover analysis strategy expands the traditionally applied, linear decision process to improve both the fidelity and validity of market-driven products. The research then demonstrates how a mixed methods crossover analysis strategy enables both quantitative and qualitative data to iteratively inform the revisions, adaptation and development of a (quantitative) market-oriented product.

Written by a long-time authority on focus group, presents a brief history of focus group application up to, and including, information on the variety of current uses across many disciplines. Great section on the uses of focus groups in combination with other methods with a full compare/contrast discussion. Finally, goes into the specifics on ‘how to’ plan and conduct effective group data collection. My own preference (Morgan, 1996) is for a more inclusive approach that broadly defines focus groups as a research technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher. In essence, it is the researcher's interest that provides the focus, whereas the data themselves come from the group interaction. One reason for favoring an inclusive approach is that the exclusive approaches do not really exclude very much. Other than focus groups, the primary categories of group interviews in the existing typologies are things that are manifestly different from focus groups. On the one hand, there are nominal groups and Delphi groups (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990), which do not involve actual group interaction. On the other hand, there is the observation of naturally occurring groups, which typically do not involve the researcher in determining the topic of discussion. Thus, little is gained by excluding these categories of data collection because they already fall outside the broad definition of focus groups offered here. Among the more specific criteria that could be used to distinguish focus groups from other types of group interviews, both Frey and Fontana (1989) and Khan and Manderson (1992) assert that focus groups are more formal. In particular, they argue that focus groups are likely to involve inviting participants to the discussion and they also stress the distinctive role of the moderator. Although there is no doubt that group interviews vary along a continuum from more formally structured interaction to more informal gatherings, I do not believe it is possible to draw a line between formal and informal group interviews in a way that defines some as focus groups and others as something else. Instead, I find it more useful to think that the degree of formal structure in a focus group is a decision that the research makes according to the specific purposes of the research project. In particular, the use of either a more formal or a less formal approach will depend on the researcher's goals, the nature of the research setting, and the likely reaction of the participants to the research topic. Among the other criteria that have been offered as distinguishing features of focus groups are their size and the use of specialized facilities for the interview (McQuarrie, 1996). Again, however, these supposedly exclusive criteria are mostly a matter of degree. Who is to say when a group is too large or too small to be called a focus group or when a setting is too casual to qualify? Rather than generate pointless debates about what is or is not a focus group, I prefer to treat focus groups as a "broad umbrella" or "big tent" that can include many different variations. Of course, this approach requires researchers to make choices about doing focus groups one way rather than another. Fortunately, this need to make explicit decisions about data collection strategies is a familiar concern to social scientists, and it comes under the heading of "research design." As social scientists have gained increasing experience with focus groups, we also have produced insights into the situations in which different research designs are either more or less likely to be effective (e.g., Krueger, 1993; Morgan, 1992.a, 1995).

Internationally, stigma prohibits effective HIV/STD identification, prevention, and care. Interviews with 106 persons in an urban center in Eastern China, some known to have engaged in stigmatized risk acts (sex workers, STD clinic patients) and some vulnerable for stigmatization fears to influence health-seeking behaviors (market employees, rural-to-urban migrants). Interviews focused on community norms, values, beliefs, and emotional and behavioral reactions to HIV/STD stigmatization related events. Attributions for infection were found to mark individual’s failure to adhere to sexuality norms; define a condition warrantingthe avoidance of infected persons and dismissal by medical professionals; and promote anticipation of negative emotions (i.e., shame, fear, and embarrassment) and devalued social roles and status.