Using a Theory of Practice to Clarify Epistemological Challenges in Mixed Methods Research: An Example of Theorizing,Modeling,and Mapping Changing West African Seed Systems
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July, 2017
Using a Theory of Practice to Clarify Epistemological Challenges in Mixed Methods Research: An Example of Theorizing,Modeling,and Mapping Changing West African Seed Systems
This article argues that Bourdieu’s theory of practice offers a unified epistemological foundation for mixed methods research by emphasizing the reflexive and iterative nature of knowing, and the relational aspects of knowledge construction. The increasing presence of spatial data and tools in research fields that focus on sociospatial phenomena suggests that visual representation can facilitate the resituating of objective patterns within a subjective context of geographic and symbolic space. The article presents the foundations of the theory of practice as a unifying framework for mixed methods research that incorporates spatiality. The article then offers an example of empirical research that characterizes changing seed systems in West Africa using the theory of practice to guide mixed methods research and analysis.
BentleyJ. W.Van MeleP.David ReeceJ. (2011). How seed works. In Van MeleP.BentleyJ. W.GuéiR. G. (Eds.), African seed enterprises: Sowing the seeds of food security (pp. 8-24). Cambridge, MA: CABI.
2.
BishawZ.TurnerM. (2008). Linking participatory plant breeding to the seed supply system. Euphytica, 163, 31-44.
3.
BollenK. A.CurranP. J. (2006). Latent curve models: A structural equation perspective. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
4.
BormanK. M.LeCompteM. D.GoetzJ. P. (1986). Ethnographic and qualitative research design and why it doesn’t work. American Behavioral Scientist, 30, 42-57.
5.
BourdieuP. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BourdieuP. (1979). Algeria 1960. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BourdieuP. (2005). The social structures of the economy. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
BrymanA. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8-22.
10.
ChambersR. (1991). Shortcut and participatory measures for gaining social information for projects. In CerneaM. M. (Eds.), Putting people first (pp. 515-537). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
11.
CoffeyA.AtkinsonP. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
De JanvryA.DustanA.SadouletE. (2010). Recent advances in impact analysis methods for ex-post impact assessments of agricultural technology: Options for the CGIAR. Berkeley, CA: CGIAR.
14.
DjurfeldtA. A. (2013). African re-agrarianization? Accumulation or pro-poor agricultural growth?World Development, 41, 217-231.
15.
DowneyL. (2006). Using ethnographic information systems to reconceptualize spatial relationships and ecological context. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 567-612.
16.
DunlapR. E. (2010). Climate change and rural sociology: Broadening the research agenda. Rural Sociology, 75, 17-27.
17.
EspelandW.StevensM. (2008). A sociology of quantification. European Journal of Sociology, 49, 401-436.
18.
FieldingN. (2012). Triangulation and mixed methods designs: Data integration with new research technologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 124-136.
19.
FieldingN.Cisneros-PueblaC. A. (2009). CAQDAS-GIS convergence: Toward a new integrated mixed method research practice?Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(4), 349-370.
20.
FortmannL., (Ed.). 2008. Participatory research in conservation and rural livelihoods. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
21.
FranzosiR. (2012). The difficulty of mixed-method approaches. Sociological Methodology, 42, 79-81.
22.
FriesC. J. (2009). Bourdieu’s reflexive sociology as a theoretical basis for mixed methods research: An application to complementary and alternative medicine. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(4), 326-348.
23.
GalpinC. J. (1918). Rural life. New York, NY: Century.
24.
GillespieG. W.SinclairP. R. (2000). Shelves and bins: Varieties of qualitative sociology in rural studies. Rural Sociology, 65, 180-193.
25.
GreeneJ. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology?Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7-22.
26.
HarritsG. S. (2011). More than method? A discussion of paradigm differences within mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(2), 150-166.
27.
JacobS.LuloffA. E. (1995). Exploring the meaning of rural through cognitive maps. Rural Sociology, 60, 260-273.
28.
JallohA.NelsonG. C.ThomasT. S.ZougmoréR.Roy-MacauleyH. (Eds.). (2013). West African agriculture and climate change. Washington, DC: IFPRI.
29.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J.TurnerL. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
30.
JonesK.GlennaL. L.WeltzienE. (2014). Assessing participatory processes and outcomes in agricultural research for development from participants’ perspectives. Journal of Rural Studies, 35, 91-100.
31.
KrenzC.SaxG. (1986). What quantitative research is and why it doesn’t work. American Behavioral Scientist, 30, 58-69.
32.
KwanM.-P. (2002). Feminist visualization: Re-envisioning GIS as a method in feminist geographic research. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92, 645-661.
33.
KwanM.-P. (2010). A century of method-oriented scholarship in the Annals. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100, 1060-1075.
34.
KwanM.-P.DingG. (2008). Geo-narrative: Extending geographic information systems for narrative analysis in qualitative and mixed-method research. Professional Geographer, 60, 443-465.
35.
KwanM.-P.SchwanenT. (2009). Quantitative revolution 2: The critical (re)turn. Professional Geographer, 61, 283-291.
36.
LangC.BarrettC. B.NascholdF. (2013). Targeting maps: An asset-based approach to geographic targeting. World Development, 41, 232-244.
37.
LawsonV. (1995). The politics of difference: Examining the quantitative/qualitative dualism in post-structuralist feminist research. Professional Geographer, 47, 449-457.
38.
LewisD. J.BarhamB. L.ZimmererK. S. (2008). Spatial externalities in agriculture: Empirical analysis, statistical identification, and policy implications. World Development, 36, 1813-1829.
39.
LipperL.DaltonT. J.Leigh AndersonC.KelemanA. (2010). Agricultural markets and the sustainable use of crop genetic resources. In LipperL.AndersonC. L.DaltonT. J. (Eds.), Seed trade in rural markets: Implications for crop diversity and agricultural development (pp. 3-14). Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
40.
LobaoL.SaenzR. (2002). Spatial inequality and diversity as an emerging research area. Rural Sociology, 67, 497-511.
41.
LouwaarsN. P.Simon de BoefW. (2012). Integrated seed sector development in Africa: A conceptual framework for creating coherence between practices, programs, and policies. Journal of Crop Improvement, 26, 39-59.
42.
MasseyD. (1992). Politics and space/time. New Left Review, 196, 65-84.
43.
McMichaelP. (1997). Rethinking globalization: The agrarian question revisited. Review of International Political Economy, 4, 630-662.
44.
PeckJ. (2005). Economic sociologies in space. Economic Geography, 81, 129-175.
45.
PolanyiK. (1944). The great transformation. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
46.
PolanyiK. (1957). The economy as instituted process. In PolanyiK.ArensbergC. M.PearsonH. W. (Eds.), Trade and market in the early empires (pp. 243-269). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
47.
PoteeteA. R.OstromE. (2005, September1-5). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Strategies for building large-n databases based on qualitative research. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
48.
RabinowP.SullivanW. M. (Eds.). (1979). Interpretive social science: A reader. Berkeley: University of California Press.
49.
SchreiberJ. B.StageF. K.KingJ.NoraA.BarlowE. A. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 323-337.
50.
SechrestL.SidaniS. (1995). Quantitative and qualitative methods: Is there an alternative?Evaluation and Program Planning, 18, 77-87.
51.
Shannon-BakerP. (2015). Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1558689815575861
52.
SmaleM.DiakitéL.KeitaN. (2012). Millet transactions in market fairs: Millet diversity and farmer welfare in Mali. Environment and Development Economics, 17, 523-546.
53.
SmallM. L. (2011). How to conduct a mixed methods study: Recent trends in a rapidly growing literature. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 57-86.
54.
SperlingL.McGuireS. J. (2010). Understanding and strengthening informal seed markets. Experimental Agriculture, 46, 119-136.
55.
TeddlieC.YuF. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.
56.
TrippR. (2001). Seed provision and agricultural development. London, England: Overseas Development Institute.
57.
van der PloegJ. D. (2010). The peasantries of the twenty-first century: The commoditisation debate revisited. Journal of Peasant Studies, 37, 1-20.
58.
vom BrockeK.TroucheG.WeltzienE.Barro-KondomboC. P.GozéE.ChantereauJ. (2010). Participatory variety development for sorghum in Burkina Faso: Farmers’ selection and farmers’ criteria. Field Crops Research, 119, 183-194.
59.
WeltzienE.vom BrockeK.TouréA.RattundeF.ChantereauJ. (2008). Revue et Tendances pour la Recherche en Sélection Participative en Afrique de l’Ouest [Review and outlook for participatory plant breeding research in West Africa]. Cahiers Agricultures, 17, 165-171.
60.
WoodsM. (2009). Rural geography: Blurring boundaries and making connections. Progress in Human Geography, 33, 849-858.
61.
YeungH. W.-c. (2003). Practicing new economic geographies: A methodological examination. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93, 442-462.
62.
ZolnikE. J. (2009). Context in human geography: A multilevel approach to study human-environment interactions. Professional Geographer, 61, 336-349.
