Kitty Taylor

Across the last few decades, countless scholars have debated the concepts, methods and quality of studies that use a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, across several disciplines such as geography and sociology (Tashakkori & Creswell 2007). Specifically in geography, there has been a cultural turn within the last decade; Alan Latham argues that during this turn, there has been a gap between theory and empirical practice within the discipline (Latham 2003). He states that this cultural turn has been associated with the ‘valorisation’ of qualitative methods, but the actual range of methods used within studies has been narrow. Within cultural geography, there has been an increase in debate over the use of qualitative methods, such as ethnography and creative performance, and its relevance and practicality within the field. Particularly, I have found a pattern of academic geographers having to heavily justify the use of creative methods within their human geography research. This heavily contrasts the spatial and environmental science approach to geography that has been prominent in academic institutions, especially after World War II when the advancements in survey technology resulted in a large ‘positivist boom’ (Pearce 2012, 831). Research in environment and planning has been heavily funded by third-party bodies and governments, and ultimately has been led by quantitative research methods such as GIS. Identifying appropriate methods and tools has been a central challenge for understanding and representing geography for a long time (Millington & Wainwright 2017). Millington & Wainwright (2017) argue that geography has yet to substantially engage with mixed qualitative-simulation methods, for example, but has (recently) successfully developed approaches to use GIS and qualitative methods (Millington & Wainwright 2017, 81). 

In his 1998 article, L. J. Philip (1998) highlighted that recent debates in human geography were emerging, that have considered the ‘merits and problems’ of quantitative and qualitative methods, and there have been distinct methodologies attached to certain epistemologies (Philip 1998, 261). He goes on to explain that within academic geography this phenomenon is best illustrated through the link between positivism and quantitative methods, and humanism and postmodernism to qualitative methods. Ultimately, this is a dichotomy that relies on the differences between deductive approaches and inductive approaches; between ‘scientific’ approaches and ‘humanities’ approaches. Morgan (2007) introduced the ‘metaphysical paradigm’ and called for a ‘pragmatic approach’ to research, with a focus on critical reflexivity and philosophical concerns on the nature of knowledge, and how we use methods to generate that knowledge (Pearce 2012, Tashakkori & Creswell 2007). In Pearce’s paper: ‘Mixed methods inquiry in sociology’ (2012), she objected to use the words ‘qualitative’ or ‘quantitative’ altogether, except in reference to data itself, and refer only to the metaphysical paradigm to explain her epistemological grounding. The idea of mixing methods ‘rests uneasily alongside long-standing debates in geography that have sought to demarcate clear separations between epistemologies’ (Elwood 2010), and new literature in human geography is attempting to integrate many of the conceptual and practical elements produced by these disagreements and entanglements of epistemology and methodology. Philip (1998) first led his article by ensuring the reader understood the difference between mixed methods and multiple methods. Mixed methods being a methodology in which two or more methods are used to explore the same aspect of a research question, at the same time, with the same subjects, and at the same place; whereas mixed methods are when two or more complimentary methods are used to explore the same question from different perspectives. Therein lies the controversy surrounding mixed methods research within human geography, due to the epistemological differences associated with qualitative and quantitative methods.

Contemporary human geography has been associated with socio-political obligations, in which the relationship to quantitative and qualitative methods has been shifted, through structural systems associated with funding and academic institutions. Crang (2005) states that human geography is concerned with ethical and political discourses and its ‘practitioners are deeply concerned by the moral implications of their work’ (Crang 2005, 231). Within human geography and the questions often posed within this field, quantitative methods were found to not be providing a voice to the people, whereas biographical studies and methods which are used to re-create and share these stories are empowering and insightful in the world of human geography. Interviews, ethnographic fieldwork, writing, filmmaking, and performance-based methodologies can all provide deeper and richer data that is able to more thoroughly communicate emotions, actions, and nuances associated with the research questions. In Jones and Walker’s article ‘Transformative learning in community college human geography: a mixed methods study’ (2019), they succinctly address one of the benefits to employing a quantitative and qualitative methods approach. The Transformative Learning Environments Survey (TLES) data that they used explained what, but did not explain why, unlike the qualitative follow up interviews that were conducted. For this study in particular, interviews were able to draw out data related to assignments, discussions, and activities in the classroom, that would not have been pointed to through the quantitative survey data. On this occasion, the qualitative data complimented the quantitative data, ‘to reach beyond numerical outcomes’ (Jones & Walker 2019, 464). There are many more individual reasons as to why quantitative approaches to human geography may not be appropriate in all studies. Within GCSE and A-Level geography studies, it was encouraged to use multiple methods within coursework and use triangulation techniques to assure that the data collected created a correlation that was applicable and complimentary to the research question. However, during my undergraduate dissertation, for example, I rejected this notion and opted for one single method: interviews. For my research this choice was justified, as my study aimed to be biographical and representative, rather than comparative. Although I used secondary sources of statistics from the governing authority of the region I was researching, I did not conduct my own survey research because it did not feel appropriate for such an intimate study. 

Critical reflexive practice in human geography research has an intrinsic link to qualitative methods. An integral part of my undergraduate research was assessing my positionality as a researcher, and being reflexive at all points in the study, in order to socially-situate the knowledge being produced and the analysis that was to follow. Research decisions (about methodology or otherwise) are heavily influenced by our upbringing as researchers, methodological training and the ‘proclivities of one’s audiences’ (Pearce 2012, 830). Pearce highlights the audience as having an impact upon methodologies is just as important as indicating the author’s background. Funders, readers, journals, reviewers, senior faculty, and peers all have an impact on the study that is produced, whether consciously or not. Returning to my undergraduate dissertation, one professor of mine had the impact of instructing me not to engage with multiple or mixed methods for my research. From the very beginning of my study, I was forced to consider the conceptual purpose of mixing methods (Elwood 2010), and after the decision not to, it shaped some of my future research questions and thus the entire purpose, grounding and results of my project. Elwood explains that some researchers may take the position that a mixed methods approach produces new knowledge, not from the use of the complimentary data types or analysis techniques, but through the ‘integration of different methods at analytical, interpretive, and epistemological levels’ (Elwood 2010, 5)

Research methods can engage and reflect with new theoretical positions in a discipline, and creative and intellectual methods can influence and encourage new ways of thinking, feeling, and acting within human geography. Over the course of this essay, I have alluded to the mixing of qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques, but some of the best mixed method studies I know employ the use of multiple qualitative methods only. In ‘The Last Plumassier: storying dead birds, gender and Paraffection at Maison Lemarie’ by Pacault and Patchett (2018), the use of photography and ethnographic fieldwork, brought the fashion archival industry, workshop stories of gender, human avian connections, and broad geographical reflections on skill into human geography seamlessly. Pacault & Patchett argued that where previous work in this subfield has highlighted the ‘geographical significance’ of the art studio or workshop, this combination of image-montage and text emphasises and ‘enables a series of geographical reflections on skill [and] gender’, where ‘skill is not archived to one particular place’ within the workshop (Pacault & Patchett 2018, 11). The use of photographer Marine Pacault’s images, next to text, was extremely successful and succinct in storying the historic and contemporary uses and experiences within the workshop and made the ethnographic material more potent. This article was one of the first ‘creative’ cultural and historic human geography papers I had read, and changed my perspective and understanding of how methodology can form and compliment human geography research within the discipline. 

Mixed methods as a methodological standpoint and concept on its own, certainly has a place to call home within the discipline of human geography. As I mentioned before, at my early stages of education, my understanding of research in geography was that it was entirely based around mixed quantitative and qualitative methods, analysed through triangulation techniques. It was only as I came to the late stages of my undergraduate degree, and the start of my Master of Research that I comprehended the vast array of nuances and (very dividing) discourses surrounding methods within human geography. Following new concepts and cultural trends within academic disciplines, new methods and socio-political obligations will continue to shape what ‘is’ and ‘isn’t’ appropriate, trustworthy, or rich research within human geography. From my own encounter with the debates surrounding mixed method research and the ethical, epistemological, and conceptual negatives and benefits to its employment, I would like to call upon Elwood in ‘Mixed Methods: Thinking, Doing, and Asking in Multiple Ways.’ (2010), from the Sage Handbook of Qualitative Geography (my first introduction to the wonderful world of epistemological and methodological philosophy in human geography); in which she states: 

“The thoughtful and creative development of mixed methods research in geography depends in large part on individual and collective efforts to engage in this critical reflective practice and support the efforts of other scholars who are doing it.” (Elwood 2010, 22)

Altogether, I enjoy the extensive continued debate on mixed methods, and implore its continued discussion as the discipline evolves. However, as a young human geographer, I can’t help but feel the theoretical and philosophical discussion on mixed methods has run its course, and as Elwood implies, support and encouragement should be given to scholars who are actively engaging with these methodologies, particularly within the cultural and creative subdisciplines. 

Bibliography

Crang, M. (2005). Qualitative methods: there is nothing outside the text? Progress in Human Geography 29(2):225-233

Elwood, S. (2010). Mixed Methods: Thinking, Doing, and Asking in Multiple Ways. In Eds. D. DeLyser, S. Herbert, S. Aitken, M. Crang, and L. McDowell Sage Handbook of Qualitative Geography. London: Sage Publications. 94-114

Jones, J., Walker, S. L. (2019). Transformative learning in community college human geography: a mixed methods study. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 43(4):452-467 

Latham, A. (2003). Research, performance, and doing human geography: some reflections on the diary-photography, diary interview method. Environment and Planning: A 35:1993-2017

Millington, J., Wainwright, J. (2017). Mixed qualitative-simulation methods: Understanding geography through thick and thin. Progress in Human Geography 41(1):68-88

Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1):48-76.

Pacault, M., Patchett, M. (2018). The last plumassier: storying dead birds, gender and Paraffection at Maison Lemarie. Cultural Geographies 25(1):123-134

Pearce, L. D. (2012). Mixed methods inquiry in sociology. American behavioural scientist 56 (6):829-848

Philip, L. J. (1998). Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Social Research in Human Geography—An Impossible Mixture? Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 30(2): 261-276

Tashakkori, A., Creswell, J. (2007). The New Era of Mixed Methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(1): 3-7