Mixed methods designs combining survey data and qualitative data 2
|Convenor||Professor Mark Trappmann (Institute for Employment Research (IAB) )|
|Coordinator 1||Dr Andreas Hirseland (Institute for Employment Research (IAB))|
Three major surveys conducted by Statistics Austria include questions on housing which refer to similar housing characteristics, but vary according to the legal frameworks, context, aim and interest of the particular survey. A mixed method design was used as basis for adaptation and harmonisation of survey questions: The existing survey data of the Microcensus, the Household Budget Survey and EU-SILC was analysed; different documents including legal regulations were examined; expert interviews and respondent debriefing have been carried out. The results of this approach are finally used for the adaptation of questions as well as for data analysis and reporting.
The role of community (dis)organizational processes is a major issue in contemporary criminology. As a consequence, researchers have been increasingly eager to measure community-level social mechanisms such as social cohesion and disorder. However community inhabitants are predominantly used to measure (dis)organizational processes, this approach requires large numbers of respondents to generate reliable and valid measures. In this article, the use of key informants, observation checklists and administrative data are discussed as alternative methods of measuring community processes. Our findings suggest that these methods can provide reliable and valid measures of specific dimensions of social cohesion and disorder.
The Norwegian Institute of Public Health Public conducted a study of how Norway’s 428 municipalities used the Municipal Data Bank and the Municipal Public Health Profiles.
Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted; informants also filled in questionnaires and were observed while using the MDB.
Data from these sources were used in a mixed methods study.
The informants appreciated the MPHPs, while MDB results were ambiguous. The indicators were used for planning, in collaborations, and to evaluate interventions.
Further indicators and training are needed, and to involve municipal leaders in public health work and gain support for their public health