Crossley and Edwards (2016) ‘Cases, Mechanisms and the Real.’
Citation: Crossley, Nick and Edwards, Gemma (2016) ‘Cases, Mechanisms and the Real: The Theory and Methodology of Mixed-Method Social Network Analysis,’ Sociological Research Online, 21:2, pp. 1-15.
Time Period Covered:
Theory, Research Question, Hypothesis:
Relationship to Other Research/Ideas Contested/Noted Gaps:
Concepts and Definitions:
Method:
Primary/Original Data:
Argument/Conclusion:
Limitations/Flaws:
Abstract: In this paper we make a methodological case for mixed method social network analysis (MMSNA). We begin by both challenging the idea, prevalent in some quarters, that mixing methods means combining incompatible epistemological or theoretical assumptions and by positing an ontological argument in favour of mixed methods. We then suggest a methodological framework for MMSNA and argue for the importance of ‘mechanisms’ in relational-sociological research. Finally, we discuss two examples of MMSNA from our own research, using them to illustrate arguments from the paper.
Notes:
Crossley and Edwards (2016:2): Disagree with the assertion by some academics that methods cannot be combined because it must involve combining incompatible theoretical and/or epistemological principles. “Methods themselves do not embody epistemological or theoretical assumptions, however, or at least that depends upon what we mean by ‘method’ and indeed by ‘theory’. Implementing any method involves numerous decisions which embed different assumptions within it, potentially also altering and being altered by assumptions imported at other decision points. But different researchers make different decisions, embedding different assumptions in what is, to all intents and purposes, the same method.” [This can justify the use of statistics in combination with other information]