The study of political and social violence and conflict has expanded in recent decades, concurrent with a rise in the use of mixed methods research (MMR) throughout the social sciences. This article examines how methods are best integrated in studies of violence and conflict, critically reviewing examples from previous prominent works and suggesting directions for future research. I explore the benefits of MMR for understanding structures, agency, and processes related to violence and conflict, and the opportunity MMR offers to influence a broader academic and policy audience. MMR can improve the accordance of theories and empirical studies with the complexities of social reality and enhance understanding of the causes, consequences, and potential remedies of violence and conflict.
AbadieA.DiamondA.HainmuellerJ. (2015). Comparative politics and the synthetic control method. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 495-510.
2.
AchenC. H.SnidalD. (1989). Rational deterrence theory and comparative case studies. World Politics, 41, 143-169.
3.
AhramA. I. (2009). The challenge of conceptual stretching in multi-method research. Qualitative Methods, 7(2), 6-10.
4.
AhramA. I. (2013). Concepts and measurement in multimethod research. Political Research Quarterly, 66, 280-291.
5.
AveyP. C.DeschM. C. (2014). What do policymakers want from us? Results of a survey of current and former senior national security decision makers. International Studies Quarterly, 58, 227-246.
6.
BakkeK. M.CaoX.O’LoughlinJ.WardM. D. (2009). Social distance in Bosnia Herzegovina and the North Caucasus region of Russia: Inter and intra-ethnic attitudes and identities. Nations and Nationalism, 15, 227-253.
7.
BalcellsL.JustinoP. (2014). Bridging micro and macro approaches on civil wars and political violence: Issues, challenges, and the way forward. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58, 1343-1359.
8.
BennettA.CheckelJ. T. (Eds.). (2014). Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BiestaG. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 95-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
BlattmanC. (2009). From violence to voting: War and political participation in Uganda. American Political Science Review, 103, 231-247.
11.
BlattmanC.MiguelE. (2010). Civil war. Journal of Economic Literature, 48, 3-57.
12.
BoyleM. J. (2012). Progress and pitfalls in the study of political violence. Terrorism and Political Violence, 24, 527-543.
13.
BradyH. E.CollierD. (Eds.). (2004). Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
14.
BrandomR. B. (2008). Between saying & doing: Towards an analytic pragmatism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
15.
BrassP. R. (2003). The production of Hindu-Muslim violence in contemporary India. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
16.
BrewerJ.HunterA. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
BrownM. E.CotéO. R.Jr.Lynn-JonesS. M.MillerS. E. (Eds.). (2000). Rational choice and security studies: Stephen Walt and his Critics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
18.
BrymanA. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. London, England: Unwin Hyman.
19.
BrymanA. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22.
20.
CheckelJ. T. (2008). Introduction to Symposium “Bridging the gap? Connecting qualitative and quantitative methods in the study of civil war”. Qualitative Methods, 6(1), 13-15.
21.
CollierP.HoefflerA.SambanisN. (2005). The Collier-Hoeffler model of civil war onset and the case study project research design. In CollierP.SambanisN. (Eds.), Understanding civil war: Evidence and analysis: Volume 1. Africa (pp. 1-33). Washington, DC: World Bank.
22.
CollierP.SambanisN. (Eds.). (2005). Understanding civil war: Evidence and analysis. Washington, DC: World Bank.
23.
CollinsR. (1987). Interaction ritual chains, power and property: The micro-macro connection as an empirically based theoretical problem. In AlexanderJ. C.GiesenB.MünchR.SmelserN. J. (Eds.), The micro-macro link (pp. 193-206). Berkeley: University of California Press.
24.
CollinsR. (1992). The romanticism of agency/structure versus the analysis of micro/macro. Current Sociology, 40(1), 77-97.
25.
CollinsR. (2008). Violence: A micro-sociological theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L.GutmannM. L.HansonW. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
DruckmanD. (2005). Doing research: Methods of inquiry for conflict analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
DurkheimE. (1964). The rules of sociological method (SolovayS. A.MuellerJ. H., Trans.). New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work published 1895)
29.
FearonJ. D.HumphreysM.WeinsteinJ. M. (2009). Can development aid contribute to social cohesion after civil war? Evidence from a field experiment in post-conflict Liberia. American Economic Review, 99, 287-291.
30.
FearonJ. D.LaitinD. D. (2008). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods. In Box-SteffensmeierJ. M.BradyH. E.CollierD. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political methodology (pp. 756-776). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
31.
FinchJ. (1987). The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology, 21, 105-114.
32.
GeddesB. (2003). Paradigms and sand castles: Theory building and research design in comparative politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
33.
GeorgeA. L.BennettA. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
34.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
35.
GlynnA. N.IchinoN. (2015). Using qualitative information to improve causal inference. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 1055-1071.
36.
GoemansH. E. (2007). Qualitative methods as an essential complement to quantitative methods. Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 11-13.
37.
GoertzG. G.MahoneyJ. (2012). A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
38.
GoldstoneJ. A. (1991). Revolution and rebellion in the early modern world. Berkeley: University of California Press.
39.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
40.
GrossN. (2009). A pragmatist theory of social mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 74, 358-379.
41.
HaysS. (1994). Structure and agency and the sticky problem of culture. Sociological Theory, 12, 57-72.
42.
HirschmanA. O. (1970). The search for paradigms as a hindrance to understanding. World Politics, 22, 329-343.
43.
HumphreysM.WeinsteinJ. (2008). Who fights? The determinants of participation in civil war. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 436-455.
44.
JoasH. (1993). Pragmatism and social theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
45.
KalyvasS. N. (2006). The logic of violence in civil war. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
46.
KapurS. P. (2007). Dangerous deterrent: Nuclear weapons proliferation and conflict in South Asia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
47.
KingGKeohaneR. O.VerbaS. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
48.
LaitinD. (2002). Comparative politics: The state of the subdiscipline. In KatznelsonI.MilnerH. V. (Eds.), Political science: The state of the discipline (pp. 630-659). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
49.
LiebermanE. S. (2005). Nested analysis as a mixed-method strategy for comparative research. American Political Science Review, 99, 435-452.
50.
LuytR. (2012). A framework for mixing methods in quantitative measurement development, validation, and revision: A case study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(4), 294-316.
51.
ManiruzzamanT. (1992). Arms transfers, military coups, and military rule in developing states. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36, 733-755.
52.
MansfieldE. D.SnyderJ. (2005). Electing to fight: Why emerging democracies go to war. Cambridge: MIT Press.
53.
MaxcyS. J. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 51-89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54.
McFaulM. (2007). Are new democracies war-prone? (Review). Journal of Democracy, 18(2), 160-167.
55.
McGovernM. (2011). Popular development economics—An anthropologist among the Mandarins. Perspectives on Politics, 9, 345-355.
56.
McLauchlinT. (2014). Desertion, terrain, and control of the home front in civil wars. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58, 1419-1444.
57.
MontgomeryA. H.SaganS. D. (2009). The perils of predicting proliferation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53, 302-328.
58.
MorganD. L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 362-376.
59.
MorganD. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76.
60.
NarangV.NelsonR. M. (2009). Who are these belligerent democratizers? Reassessing the impact of democratization on war. International Organization, 63, 357-379.
61.
NisbettR. E.CohenD. (1996). Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the South. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
62.
NordstromC.RobbenA. C. G. M. (Eds.). (1995). Fieldwork under fire: Contemporary studies of violence and survival. Berkeley: University of California Press.
63.
OakleyA. (1997). Human agents and rationality in Max Weber’s social economics. International Journal of Social Economics, 24, 812-830.
64.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.JohnsonR. B.CollinsK. M. T. (2009). Call for mixed analysis: A philosophical framework for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. International Journal of Mixed Research Approaches, 3, 114-139.
65.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.LeechN. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 375-387.
66.
PaigeJ. M. (1975). Agrarian revolution: Social movements and export agriculture in the underdeveloped world. New York, NY: Free Press.
67.
PetersenR. D. (2001). Resistance and rebellion: Lessons from Eastern Europe. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
68.
RaginC. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
69.
RaleighC.LinkeA.HegreH.KarlsenJ. (2010). Introducing ACLED: An armed conflict location and event data. Journal of Peace Research, 47, 651-660.
70.
RoccoL.BalloZ. (2007). Provoking a civil war. Public Choice, 134, 347-366.
71.
RohlfingI. (2008). What you see and what you get: pitfalls and principles of nested analysis in comparative research. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 1492-1514.
72.
SambanisN. (2004). Using case studies to expand economic models of civil war. Perspectives on Politics, 2, 259-279.
73.
SandelowskiM.VoilsC. I.LeemanJ.CrandellJ. L. (2012). Mapping the mixed methods-mixed research synthesis terrain. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(4), 317-331.
74.
SartoriG. (1970). Concept misinformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64, 1033-1053.
75.
SartoriG. (2004). Where is political science going?PS: Political Science and Politics, 37, 785-786.
76.
ScaccoA. (2010). Who riots? Explaining individual participation in ethnic violence (Doctoral dissertation). Available from UMI/ProQuest Dissertations database. (Accession No. AAT 3400605)
77.
SlaterD.ZiblattD. (2013). The enduring indispensability of the controlled comparison. Comparative Political Studies, 46, 1301-1327.
78.
SleeperR. W. (1986). The necessity of pragmatism: John Dewey’s conception of philosophy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
79.
SmallM. L. (2011). How to conduct a mixed methods study: Recent trends in a rapidly growing literature. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 57-86.
80.
TarrowS. (1995). Bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide in political science. American Political Science Review, 89, 471-474.
81.
TarrowS. (2007). Review: Inside insurgencies: Politics and violence in an age of civil war. Perspectives on Politics, 5, 587-600.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
84.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.). (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
85.
ThalerK. (2012). Norms about intimate partner violence among urban South Africans: A quantitative and qualitative vignette analysis (CSSR Working Paper No. 302). Cape Town, South Africa: Centre for Social Science Research, University of Cape Town.
86.
VarshneyA. (2002). Ethnic conflict and civic life: Hindus and Muslims in India. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
87.
VarshneyA. (2008). Analyzing collective violence in Indonesia: An overview. Journal of East Asian Studies, 8, 341-359.
88.
WeberM. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 1922)
89.
WeeraratneS. (2009). Degrees of “scapegoatability”: Assessing spatial variations in collective violence against the ethnic Chinese in Indonesia (Doctoral dissertation). Available from UMI/ProQuest Dissertations database. (Accession No. AAT NR61810)
90.
WeinsteinJ. M. (2007). Inside rebellion: The politics of insurgent violence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
91.
WhitfordJ. (2002). Pragmatism and the untenable dualism of means and ends: Why rational choice theory does not deserve paradigmatic privilege. Theory and Society, 31, 325-363.
92.
WilkinsonS. I. (2004). Votes and violence: Electoral competition and ethnic riots in India. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
93.
WoodE. J. (2003). Insurgent collective action and civil war in El Salvador. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
