Social Identity Issues for Qualitative and Mixed Methods Scholars-Mentors in a Predominantly Quantitative Environment

The Department’s Identity

Until I arrived in 2007, faculty in my department almost exclusively conducted quantitative research. They were post-positivists who frequently contrasted themselves from critical-cultural scholars. This was not by chance but a strategic choice. In 1984 when the department was founded, its members chose to limit their scope to a few areas to concentrate their resources and achieve a strong reputation in those areas. They designed their program to offer only quantitative methods and trained their doctoral graduates to be experts in quantitative methods. They assumed that any new faculty members also would be “social scientists,” defined by the founders as quantitative researchers.

These early choices helped to establish the unique identity of the department (Cheney, Christensen, & Dailey, 2014)—focused on media, interpersonal, and organizational areas and emphasizing research using quantitative methods. They believed that current and future members of the community would be unified in organizational membership by their identification with similar values and ideals (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Indeed, most current faculty members are equally identified with rigorous social science (i.e., quantitative research). According to Corley and colleagues (2006), a strong individual identity shared by members enhances identification with the department and perceptions of their own individual prestige. Overall, the department is strengthened by our members’ identification.

I was invited to interview and give a job talk; insiders advised me to discuss a study that highlighted my expertise in quantitative methods. I discussed a paper that had recently been accepted for publication in Human Communication Research and used hierarchical linear modeling (Myers & McPhee, 2006). I was excited to come aboard, and I did not anticipate any issues with integrating qualitative methods into my work. As I hoped, my colleagues have accepted and positively evaluated my research in my tenure and other merit reviews. What concerned me was how they would judge the methods and perspectives that I introduced in classes. I also wondered about how my students might have to navigate the tension between being a pragmatic researcher using a variety of methods and being a purely quantitative researcher (i.e., the department’s “social science” identity).

Introducing Mixed and Qualitative Methods to Graduate Students

Before 2007, the department did not offer courses on mixed or qualitative research methods, nor did graduate students in our program tend to enroll in such classes in other departments on campus. Rather, our students took quantitative methods courses, read quantitative articles, and when they worked with their advisors and other professors, they participated in experiments, content analyses, and survey research—all of which they analyzed using quantitative/statistical methods. This focused (but limited) exposure further strengthened the department’s strong quantitative identity.

Soon after 2007, I launched a mixed methods research project (Myers, 2014) and invited graduate students to work with me. Three students joined the research team. The primary data would be qualitative (gathered in focus groups); secondary quantitative data would be gathered via survey. The students knew about questionnaire construction and quantitative data analyses, but they had no training or experience in writing an interview protocol, conducting focus groups, analyzing interview data, and writing a report that included qualitative data. Hence, part of the work involved training the students on qualitative data analyses. We published our findings (Myers, Jahn, Gailliard, & Stoltzfus, 2011), and one of the students asked to use unanalyzed data in a master’s thesis. I thought it a great idea but suspected that some colleagues might not support a qualitative thesis. I asked the graduate advisor about whether it would be accepted by our faculty. Fortunately, our graduate advisor said it would be fine. Thereafter, I wondered whether he would have been so accommodating if the project would have been a doctoral dissertation. This question was answered in due time and is addressed below.

A year and a half later, I proposed a graduate course in mixed methods research. As the students had no background in qualitative research, a few weeks would be devoted to training students on qualitative methods. Fortunately, my colleagues voiced no concerns. Student interest surprised me, as enrollment was double the normal graduate class size. Several students who took the class used a mixed methods design in their dissertations. Admittedly, the qualitative portions of the studies were not focal, but the fact that they were permitted to incorporate qualitative methods into their study was, and still is, encouraging. Without the mixed methods research in the class, it is unlikely that they would have been introduced to these methods or tried mixed methods research on their own.

For the past few years, I have taught a research methods course that is required of all entering graduate students. Generally, students admitted to the program have no training and little knowledge of qualitative research. In this core research methods class, we discuss experimental designs, survey research, content analysis, and mixed methods. In addition, we spend 3 weeks of the 10-week quarter on qualitative data collection methods—interviewing, focus groups, and observation. I have yet to see resistance to qualitative methods. Some students are skeptical but most are curious: “How do you know that your findings are valid?” “How do you know the appropriate sample size?” and “How can you ensure that the findings are not biased?” I tell them these are issues that all researchers must face, not just qualitative researchers. We cover how these and other issues are managed in both methodological realms (Denzin & Giardina, 2008; Levine, 2011). As the class intends a broad view of research, I simply facilitate understanding of qualitative methods, and I hope students will read qualitative studies with openness to their value and contributions. Perhaps they worry about assuming the identity as a qualitative or mixed methods research in our department too?

Not long after I joined the program, a qualitative scholar who is known for her work on discourse analysis and organizational communication came aboard. I was thrilled not only to have a new colleague who uses qualitative methods but also because she would be another strong advocate for methodological diversity. Before she arrived, we discussed the fact that, as scholars who embraced qualitative methods, we were in the minority. I assured her that I did not perceive biases from my colleagues, and I feel free to conduct my research with the method(s) I choose. I think this facilitated her entry and we have collaborated since then, but occasionally, I ponder similar dynamics among students.

Retaining the Quantitative Identity: Effects on Students

My advisees recognize that our department has a strong quantitative identity and that potential employers will expect them to be competent in quantitative methods. I advise they become proficient in quantitative methods but not reluctant to use qualitative methods too. Recently, I asked students who use qualitative methods whether they encounter methodological biases or pressure in our environment and how they have chosen to manage the tension.

The students mentioned our required quantitative methods courses. They reported that they are taught that the only way to do good empirical research is to develop hypotheses. Any findings that do not relate to a priori hypotheses must be discarded. As qualitative researchers, we know that some of the best research findings can emerge from inductive methods in which clear research questions or hypotheses did not initially guide the research (Hallier & Forbes, 2004). In my colleagues’, defense I do not think they mean to criticize inductive approaches by making these statements. Because the classes are focused on quantitative methods, it is quite likely that they do not consider the implications for inductive research. Nevertheless, such broad-based claims could bias students against methods that do not use deductive approaches.

Other student reports are more concerning. Recently, I learned of a student who took a course in which the culminating assignment involved writing a research proposal. She proposed a fairly straightforward research design using qualitative methods. Her paper was returned with a comment indicating that the study she proposed lacked rigor. The professor contrasted her proposed qualitative study with “social scientific research.” The message was clear—qualitative research is not social science. The student was left with a choice: Transform the proposal into a quantitative study or accept a lower grade.

As in most departments, graduate students discuss job candidates. On occasion, students have asked, “[Candidate name] doesn’t do qualitative research does he/she?” The implication is that a new hire would be less useful to graduate students and the program if he/she did not stick to quantitative methods. Thus, many of our students also make an effort to affirm the department’s quantitative identity. I infer that students who perform qualitative research may believe that their peers perceive their research is less valuable.

While these examples do not mean that students who perform qualitative research feel marginalized, there are consequences to receiving the message that researchers/students in our program should strive to fit an idealized quantitative identity. How do students manage these tensions? Mostly, they acknowledge that they were aware of the department’s quantitative identity before they applied for admission and certainly before they enrolled. A former advisee explained, “I knew the reputation of the place, and I’m glad I came here. I never felt pressure about my choice of methods.” Recently, some have indicated that our identity as a strong quantitative program attracted them, because they already felt competent in qualitative methods and hoped to develop competencies in quantitative methods. Students with whom I spoke wished to have the ability to use a variety of methods. One student acknowledged, “The questions I want to answer require qualitative data—interviews. At some point, I know I’m going to want to test my findings quantitatively.” They wanted—and appeared to perceive—that they have the freedom to choose qualitative, quantitative, and especially mixed methods. They were happy to be “methodologically multi-lingual.”

Conclusion

At times, I have been concerned about my own, but especially my students’, ability to feel valued in a program that has long claimed a quantitative identity. Here, I have explored my own ways of bringing qualitative and mixed methods research into a quantitative research department. I also probed how students who are not strictly quantitative manage the tension between the department’s mostly holographic identity and their own methodological openness. The important point is that the students and I willingly entered the environment. We understood the benefits of membership in the department and, in our own ways, we manage any tensions.

My advice to individuals who are considering a shift to a program with a mostly holographic identity—whether that identity is related to epistemology, methods, or research area—is to be respectful of existing traditions but to look for opportunities to introduce differing ideas and practices. In these situations, newcomers can usefully identify occasions to add to, not detract from, the organization’s identity and points of pride. In addition, while one may feel like an outsider, colleagues may see that colleague as one who offers unique, meaningful contributions. Finally, rather than worrying about tensions students may feel when modeling new ideas and practices, ask them about their experiences and whether they perceive negative biases. This offers an opportunity to discuss ways to minimize the tensions and to affirm their identities as budding scholars. I encourage scholars to create opportunities to discuss the benefits of being “methodologically multi-lingual,” someone who uses, understands, and values both.