In this article, the boundary between public health and social science is the focus of a reflexive, sociological analysis of the processes of production, analysis and publication of knowledge resulting from collaboration between sociologists, clinical researchers and public health professionals. We address the epistemological and political issues surrounding the use of qualitative and quantitative data in the field of health research. Having discussed the limitation of the distinction between “qualitative” and “quantitative”, we draw on two of our own examples of mixed methods studies using interviews, observation and questionnaires. This review of our methodological experiences of collaboration between social scientists, epidemiologists and physicians ultimately sheds further light on our primary objects of study: illness and healthcare work.
AguileraTChevalierT (2021) Les méthodes mixtes : Vers une méthodologie 3.0?Revue française de science politique71(3): 361-363.
2.
AxinnWGPearceLD (2006) Mixed Method Data Collection Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BeaudS (1996) L’usage de l’entretien en sciences sociales. Plaidoyer pour l’« entretien ethnographique ». Politix9(35): 226-257.
4.
Canoui-PoitrineFet al. (2019) Inclusion of older patients with cancer in clinical trials: The SAGE prospective multicenter cohort survey. TheOncologist.
5.
CharmazK (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.
6.
ChauvenetAOrlicFBenguiguiG (1994) Le monde des surveillants de prison. Presses universitaires de France.
7.
ChauvenetARostaingCOrlicF (2008) La violence carcérale en question (1–1). Presses universitaires de France Mission de recherche Droit et justice.
8.
CreswellJW (2002) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd edition). London: Sage.
9.
CreswellJWClarkVLP (2010) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. London: Sage.
10.
CurryLAKrumholzHMO’CathainAClarkVLPCherlinEBradleyEH (2013) Mixed methods in biomedical and health services research. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes6(1): 119-123.
11.
DarmonM (2005) Le psychiatre, la sociologue et la boulangère: Analyse d’un refus de terrain. Genèses58(1): 98.
12.
DerbezB (2010) Négocier un terrain hospitalier. Genèses1: 105-120.
13.
DerbezB (2021) Devenir sujet de recherche, l’expérience des malades du cancer en essai clinique. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
14.
DesrosièresA (1989) L’opposition entre deux formes d’enquête: Monographie et statistique. Cahiers du centre d’études de l’emploi33.
15.
DiGiacomoSM (1999) Can there be a “cultural epidemiology”?Medical Anthropology Quarterly13(4): 436-457.
16.
Dietrich-RagonPLoison-LerusteMRoupnel-FuentesM (2010) Articuler les approches quantitative et qualitative. In: PaugamS (ed.) L’enquête sociologique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, pp. 207-222.
17.
EpsteinS (2007) Inclusion. The Politics of Difference in Medical Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
FainzangS (1994) L’objet construit et la méthode choisie: l’indéfectible lien. Terrain23:161-172
19.
FettersMDCurryLACreswellJW (2013) Achieving integration in mixed methods designs –Principles and practices. Health Services Research48(6Pt 2).
20.
FrodemanRKleinJTMitchamC (eds) (2017) The Oxford Handbook of InterdisciplinarityOxford: Oxford Univiversity Press.
21.
GuévelM-RPommierJ (2012) Recherche par les méthodes mixtes en santé publique: enjeux et illustration. Sante Publique24(1): 23-38.
22.
HagègeM (2016) Sortir et s’en sortir? Parcours de santé de détenus qui vivent avec le VIH ou l’hépatite C. Thèse de doctorat, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.
23.
HersantJGajardoAVTrumperMS (2024) Une collaboration entre sociologues et mathématiciennes: entretiens (auto)biographiques, ethos mathématicien et carrières féminines au Chili. Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique163: 108-134.
JeanguiotN (2006) Des pratiques soignantes aux sciences infirmières. Recherche en soins infirmiers75-135.
26.
JohnsonRBOnwuegbuzieAJTurnerLA (2007) Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research1(2): 112-133.
27.
KatzJ (2015) A theory of qualitative methodology: The social system of analytic fieldwork. Méthod(e)s: African Review of Social Sciences Methodology1(1–2): 131-146.
28.
LarueCet al. (2009) Mixed methods: Promising strategies for the evaluation of nursing interventions. Recherche en Soins Infirmiers97: 50-62.
29.
LemercierCOllivierC (2011) Décrire et compter. Du bricolage à l’innovation, questions de méthode. Terrains & travaux19: 5-16.
30.
LemercierCOllivierCZalcC (2013) Articuler les approches qualitatives et quantitatives. Plaidoyer pour un bricolage raisonné. In: HunsmannMKappS (eds) Devenir chercheur: écrire une thèse en sciences sociales. Paris: Editions de l’EHESS.
31.
LouvelS (2021) The Policies and Politics of Interdisciplinary Research. Nanomedecine in France and in the United States. London: Routledge.
32.
MasséR (2007) Public health: New challenges for the social sciences research agenda. Sciences sociales et santé25(1): 5-24.
33.
MahoneyJGoertzG (2006) A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political Analysis14(3): 227-249.
34.
MorganDL (2007) Paradigms land pragmatism regained. Journal of Mixed Methods Research1(1): 48-76.
35.
MurardLZylbermanP (1996) L’hygiène dans la République. La santé publique en France, ou l’utopie contrariée, 1870–1918. Paris: Fayard.
36.
PasseronJ-C (2001) La forme des preuves dans les sciences historiques. Revue européenne des sciences socialesXXXIX(120):31-76.
37.
PasseronJ-CRevelJ (2005) Penser par cas. Raisonner à partir de singularités. In : Penser par cas. Paris: Editions de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.
38.
PearceLD (2012) Mixed methods inquiry in sociology. American Behavioral Scientist56(6) : 829-848.
39.
PiresAP (1997) Échantillonnage et recherche qualitative: essai théorique et méthodologique. In: PoupartJ et al. (eds) La recherche qualitative. Enjeux épistémologiques et méthodologiques Paris: Gaetan Morin, pp. 113-169.
40.
PontilleD (2016) Signer ensemble. Contribution et évaluation en sciences. Paris: Economica.
41.
ScherKSHurriaA (2012) Under-representation of older adults in cancer registration trials : Known problem, little progress. Journal of Clinical Oncology30(17): 2036-2038.
42.
SeawrightJ (2016) Multi-Method Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
SoutrenonE (2005) Le « questionnaire ethnographique » Réflexions sur une pratique de terrain. Genèses60(3): 121-137.
44.
StarSLGriesemerJR (1989) Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science19(3): 387-420.
45.
StrausR (1957) The nature and status of medical sociology. American Sociological Review22(2): 200-204.
46.
TashakkoriATeddlieC (eds) (2010) Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (1–1). London: Sage.
47.
TimmermansSBergM (2003) The Gold Standard: The Challenge of Evidence-based Mand Standardization in Health Care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
48.
WattsG (2012) Why the exclusion of older people from clinical research must stop. BMJ344: e3445.
49.
WeberF (1995) L’ethnographie armée par les statistiques. Enquête. Archives de la revue Enquête1: 153-165.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
