The author addresses the potential of a multiple-methods approach in human geography, an approach to social research which has received little explicit attention in the geographical literature to date. The relationship between epistemology and methodology is outlined, and the similarities and differences between quantitative and qualitative methods are described. Some problems surrounding subjectivity and objectivity in social research are also discussed. In addition, the relationship between methods and to whom the research is communicated is considered. It is hoped that the paper will stimulate future discussion both of the theoretical implications and of the practical use of a mixed-methods approach in human geography.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdornoT, 1957, “Sociology and empirical research”, in Critical Sociology Ed. ConnertonP, (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middx) pp 237–257
2.
BarnesT, 1994, “Probable writing: Derrida, deconstruction, and the quantitative revolution in human geography”Environment and Planning A261021–1040
3.
BennettR J, 1985, “Quantification and relevance”, in The Future of Geography Ed. JohnstonR J, (Methuen, London) pp 211–224
4.
BennettR JWrigleyN, 1981, “Introduction”, in Quantitative Geography: A British View Eds WrigleyNBennettR J, (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London) pp 3–12
5.
BrannenJ, (Ed.), 1992Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research (Avebury, Aldershot, Hants)
6.
BrewerJHunterA, 1989Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles (Sage, Beverley Hills, CA)
7.
BrymanA, 1992, “Quantitative and qualitative research: Further reflections on their integration”, in Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research Ed. BrannenJ, (Avebury, Aldershot, Hants) pp 57–78
8.
BurgessR G, 1984, “Multiple strategies in field research”, in In the Field: An Introduction to Field Research (Routledge, London) pp 143–163
9.
ChapmanPShucksmithM, 1996, “The experience of poverty and disadvantage in rural Scotland”Scottish Geographical Magazine112(2) 70–75
10.
ClokePPhiloCSadlerD, 1991Approaching Human Geography: An Introduction to Contemporary Theoretical Debates (Paul Chapman, London)
11.
ClokePGoodwinMMilbournePThomasC, 1995, “Deprivation, poverty and marginalisation in rural lifestyles in England and Wales”Journal of Rural Studies11351–365
12.
CookICrangM, 1995Doing Ethnographies Concepts and Techniques in Modern Geography number 58, Quantitative Methods Study Group of the Institute of British Geographers; copy available from FlackCMrs, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich
13.
CosgroveD, 1989, “Models, description and imagination in geography”, in Remodelling Geography Ed. MacmillanB, (Basil Blackwell, Oxford) pp 230–244
DanielsS, 1985, “Arguments for a humanistic geography”, in The Future of Geography Ed. JohnstonR J, (Methuen, London) pp 143–156
16.
DavisCM, 1954, “Field techniques”, in American Geography Inventory and Prospect Eds PrestonE JJonesC F, (Association of American Geographers and Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY) pp 496–529
17.
DearM, 1988, “The post-modern challenge: Reconstructing human geography”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series13262–274
18.
DearM, 1994, “Postmodern human geography”Erdkunde482–13
19.
DeutscheR, 1991, “Boys town”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space95–30
20.
EylesJSmithD M, 1988Qualitative Methods in Human Geography (Polity Press, Cambridge)
21.
GouldP, 1970, “Is Statistix Inferens the geographical name for a wild goose?”Economic Geography46439–448
22.
GrahamE, 1995, “Postmodernism and the possibility of a new human geography”Scottish Geographical Magazine111175–178
23.
GregoryD, 1978Ideology, Science and Human Geography (Hutchinson Education, London)
24.
HaggettP, 1994, “Prediction and predictability in geographical systems”Transactions Institute of British Geographers, New Series196–20
25.
HammersleyM, 1992, “Deconstructing the qualitative quantitative divide”, in Mixing Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research Ed. BrannenJ, (Avebury, Aldershot, Hants) pp 39–55
26.
HarveyD, 1972, “Revolutionary and counter revolutionary theory in geography and the problem of ghetto formation”Antipode41–13
27.
HarveyD, 1973Social Justice and the City (Basil Blackwell, Oxford)
28.
HodgeD C, 1995, Editorial introduction to focus debate “Should women count? The role of quantitative methodology in feminist geographic research”The Professional Geographer47426
29.
Holt-JensenA, 1988Geography, History and Concepts (Paul Chapman, London)
30.
JohnstonR J, 1991Geography and Geographers: Anglo-American Human Geography Since 19454th edition (Edward Arnold, Sevenoaks, Kent)
31.
JonesJ PIII, 1995, “Making geography objectively: Ocularity, representation and the The Nature of Geography” in Objectivity and Its Other Eds NatterWSchatzkiT RJonesJ PIII, (Guilford Press, New York) pp 67–92
32.
KirkJMillerM L, 1986Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA)
33.
LawsonV, 1995, “The place of difference: Examining the quantitative/qualitative dualism in post-structuralist feminist research”The Professional Geographer47449–457
34.
LeyD, 1981, “Cultural/humanistic geography”Progress in Human Geography5249–257
35.
LeyD, 1994, “Postmodernism”, in The Dictionary of Human Geography3rd edition, Eds JohnstonR JGregoryDSmithD M, (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 466–467
36.
LeyDCybriwskyR, 1974, “Urban graffiti as territorial markers”Annals of the Association of American Geographers64491–505
37.
LeyDSamuelsM, 1978, “Overview to part two: Methodological implications”, in Humanistic Geography Prospects and Problems Eds LeyDSamuelsM, (Croom Helm, London) pp 121–122
38.
McDowellL, 1986, “Beyond patriarchy: A class-based explanation of women's subordination”Antipode18311–321
39.
McDowellL, 1991, “The baby and the bath water: Diversity, deconstruction and feminist theory in geography”Geoforum22123–133
40.
McGrewJ CMonroeC B, 1993An Introduction to Statistical Problem Solving in Geography (Brown, Dubuque, IA)
41.
McKendrickJ H, 1996a, “Neither quantitative, nor qualitative: The need for multi-method research in social and cultural geography”, presented at the Annual Conference of the Royal Geographical Society with the Institute of British Geographers, Strathclyde University, January; copy available from the author, Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester
42.
McKendrickJ H, (compiler), 1996bMulti-method Research in Population Geography: A Primer to Debate (Population Geography Research Group of the Royal Geographical Society with the Institute of British Geographers)
43.
McKendrickJ H, 1996c, “Why bother with multi-method research?”, in Multi-method Research in Population Geography: A Primer to Debate compiled by McKendrickJ, (Population Geography Research Group of the Royal Geographical Society with the Institute of British Geographers, and the University of Manchester) pp 1–8
44.
McLaffertyS L, 1995, “Counting for women”The Professional Geographer47336–443
45.
MayT, 1993Social Research. Issues, Method and Process (Open University Press, Milton Keynes)
46.
MiesM, 1983, “Towards a methodology for feminist research”, in Theories of Women's Studies Eds BowlesGKleinR Dunelli (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London) p 117–139
47.
MitchellJ C, 1983, “Case and situation analysis”Sociological Review31187–211
48.
MossP, 1995, “Embeddedness in practice, numbers in context: The politics of knowing and doing”The Professional Geographer47442–449
49.
MuirR, 1978, “Radical geography or a new orthodoxy?”Area10322–328
50.
MurdochJPrattA C, 1994, “Rural studies of power and the power of rural studies: A reply to Philo”Journal of Rural Studies1083–87
51.
OpenshawS, 1991, “A view on the GIS crisis in geography”, in Human Geography. An Essential Anthology Eds AgnewJLivingstoneDRogersA, (Blackwell, Oxford) p 675–685
52.
OpenshawS, 1994, “A contents-rich approach to spatial analysis, theory generation, and scientific discovery in GIS using massively parallel computing”, in Innovations in GIS I Ed. WorboysM F, (Taylor and Francis, London) p 123–138
53.
PileS, 1991, “Practising interpretative geography”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series16458–469
54.
RadcliffeS, 1994, “(Representing) postcolonial women: Authority, difference and feminisms”Area2625–32
55.
SayerA, 1985, “Realism and geography”, in The Future of Geography Ed. JohnstonR J, (Methuen, London) pp 159–173
56.
SayerA, 1992Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach2nd edition (Routledge, London)
57.
SchatzkiT R, 1995, “Objectivity and rationality”, in Objectivity and Its Other Eds NatterWSchatzkiT RJonesJ PIII, (Guilford Press, New York) pp 137–160
58.
SeckerJWimbushEWatsonJMilburnK, 1995, “Qualitative methods in health promotion research: Some criteria for quality”Health Education Journal5474–87
59.
ShucksmithMChapmanPClarkG, 1996Life in Rural Scotland Today: The Best of Both Worlds (Avebury, Aldershot, Hants)
60.
ShucksmithMChapmanPClarkGBlackSConwayE, 1994Disadvantage in Rural Scotland. How is it Experienced and how can it be Tackled? (Rural Forum, Perth)
61.
SidawayJ D, 1992, “In other worlds: On the politics of research by ‘First World’ geographers in the ‘Third World’”Area24403–408
62.
SmithS J, 1984, “Crime and the structure of social relations”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series9427–442
63.
SmithS J, 1994, “Qualitative methods”, in The Dictionary of Human Geography3rd edition, Eds JohnstonR JGregoryDSmithD M, (Blackwell, Oxford)
64.
The Professional Geographer1995, “Should women count? The role of quantitative methodology in feminist geographic research”, Focus Debate47(4) 426–466
65.
ThriftN JJohnstonR J, 1993, “The futures of Environment and Planning A”Environment and Planning A Anniversary Issue25s83–sl02
66.
WalfordN, 1995Geographical Data Analysis (John Wiley, Chichester, Sussex)
67.
WoodwardR, 1996, “‘Deprivation’ and ‘the rural’: An investigation into contradictory discourses”Journal of Rural Studies1255–67
68.
WrightJ K, 1947, “Terrae incognitae: The place of the imagination in geography”Annals of the Association of American Geographers371–15
