Abstract
Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies have positively contributed to the advancement of empirical research in social work. These methodologies have been pivotal in the development of important knowledge, translated into theoretical frameworks, interventions, and evaluation protocols at all levels of our practice. The use of mixed-methods research in social work is not a new practice, however, its utility has been outplaced by the predominant use of separate qualitative and quantitative research methods. The present scholarly work serves as necessary reintroduction of mixed-methods research tradition in social work. Authors Haight and Bidwell used a threefold perspective (historical, empirical, and practical) to validate and pursue the use of mixed-methods research for social work students, practitioners, and scholars.
In Chapter 1, the authors make a compelling case for the richness of mixed methods to address complex issues in social work research. They also reviewed and clarified some historical misconceptions and assumptions social workers encounter in their study programs and later in their practice. The authors labeled these assumptions as “paradigm wars” (p. 1), experienced by our profession throughout the 20th Century. One example of this paradigm war was the notion that social workers have had to compromise their research methods to either a qualitative or a quantitative empirical tradition when conducting social research. These authors therefore posit that social work research has, and still is, positively developing its own field of knowledge through a concerted amalgam of qualitative and quantitative methodologies.
After their introduction, Chapter 2 expands on the text’s central theme by justifying the use of a braided mixed-methods approach in social work research, starting with a description of the seminal work of Jane Addams at Chicago’s settlement houses. The authors shed light on Addams’ multisystem mixed-methods approaches to understand and study the reality of European immigrants in the United States in the late 1890s until the early 1920s. This chapter also emphasized the early use of mixed-methods research embraced by John Dewey and others, as a “pragmatic-while-ethical exercise,” in delivering social justice to those oppressed and marginalized by society at large. Then the next chapter (Chapter 3) expands on these historical milestones underlining the professional identity struggle social workers faced right after Abraham Flexner’s seminal report of 1915, in which he stated that social work was not a profession, a conclusion that still haunts our profession to this day. This transition chapter also discusses the Pittsburgh Survey of 1911, another early important case illustration of the use of mixed methods in social work research.
Part 2 of the text, comprised of Chapters 4–8, is dedicated to outline five recent case examples of how social work researchers have effectively used mixed methods in particular fields of practice. Each chapter provides a much appreciated thematic overview containing specific steps in the planning, design, and implementation processes required for the measurement of parameters and the subsequent analyses of data related to each noted study. The insightful use of selected excerpts from qualitative interviews across all five examples provided a unique richness and illustrative tone that brought a “human voice” to the discussion of each research example.
Chapters 9 and 10 completed the last part of the text. The former emphasized the need to address the limited exposure of social work graduate students to mixed-methods approaches. The authors directly encouraged faculty advisors and students to conduct more mixed-methods research projects. In addition, these authors specifically instruct faculty to take a leading role in helping students find academic mentors willing to conduct and publish mixed-method studies. Finally, Chapter 10 concludes by offering suggestions on how to address the principal challenges social workers face, while conducting mixed-methods research designs. Some noteworthy examples of these challenges are (1) the need for social workers to recognize the full potential of integrated designs and analysis approaches; (2) the intentionality of gaining new insights in social work classes by juxtaposing diverse methodological traditions, especially when performing international and/or collaborative research; (3) the realization that time and financial constraints while attempting mixed-methods studies will necessarily limit the scope of these particular approaches; and (4) the need to expose field practitioners, administrators, funding entities, and other community partners to the benefits and realities of engaging in qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The authors finalized their arguments by recognizing that while this approach is still developing, “… the time is ripe for an explosion of mixed-methods social work research” (p. 176).
The authors emphasized their intention of targeting both social work students and professionals with an introductory text that could also serve as a guide to understand the unfounded dichotomous perceptions of mixed methods. Haight and Bidwell’s ultimate purpose encourages social workers to move beyond this dated paradigm of conducting separate qualitative and quantitative analyses and embrace the development of blended interdisciplinary research approaches, which can effectively inform evaluation processes of their unique research projects. Importantly, Mixed-Methods Research for Social Workers is among the first attempts by and for social workers to write a “step-by-step” guide that encourages students and practitioners to incorporate more mixed methodologies in their current research initiatives.
Among the many strengths of this text was the use of parsimonious and much appreciated user-friendly language, which made it quite an enjoyable reading. The chapters were not necessarily meant to be read in a sequential order, which recasts the text into more of a practical desktop reference guide. Another appealing feature was the summary of each chapter at the beginning of the book, including the enumeration of each Educational Policies and Accreditation Standards (Council on Social Work Education, 2015) guidelines at the end of each summary. Lastly, each of the five illustrative research examples presented contained specific outlines in designing a mixed-methods social work project or dissertation.
It would be somewhat unfair to make distinctive comparisons of this rather “one-of-a-kind” book with existing texts on research methods from other cognate disciplines such as education, psychology, nursing, or sociology, for example. That said, Haight and Bidwell presented quite a convincing case describing uses of qualitative and quantitative methodologies in the examples provided, yet ironically underemphasizing in this reviewer’s opinion, the discussion on when it would not be advised to integrate qualitative and quantitative designs and analyses; in other words, a negative case example was not presented for comparison. Another flaw of the text is the limited use of figures and tables, which could have been an asset for identifying specific combinations of qualitative and quantitative methodologies that work better together. Nevertheless, a future edition could provide a more detailed discussion on recommendations to maximize the integration of quantitative and qualitative designs while conducting mixed methods in social work research. This addition could be of use for readers to strategically decide which approaches work better, when combined with particular populations and/or problems we conduct our research upon.