This article traces methodological discussions of a multidisciplinary team of researchers located in universities and community settings in Ontario. The group designed and conducted a research project on the enforcement of labor standards in Ontario, Canada. Discussions of methodological possibilities often began with “nots”—that is, consensus on methodological approaches that the team collectively rejected. Out of these discussions emerged suggestions and approaches through which we navigated dilemmas in research design. The purpose of this article is to illustrate the following: (a) epistemological tensions around mixed methods and the politics of mixing, (b) the attempt to capture the relationships between research and its impact, and, (c) the need to develop interviews which both establish respondents as knowers, and simultaneously focus on that which is unsaid/normalized.
AbsalonK.WilletC. (2005). Putting ourselves forward: Location in aboriginal research. In BrownL.StregaS. (Eds.), Research as resistance: Critical, indigenous, and anti-oppressive approaches (pp. 97-126). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Scholars Press.
BernhardtA.BousheyH.DresserL.TillyC. (Eds.). (2008). The gloves off economy: Problems and possibilities at the bottom of America’s labor market. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
4.
CherryD. J.ShefnerJ. (2004). Addressing barriers to university-community collaboration: Organizing by experts or organizing the experts?Journal of Community Practice, 123, 219-233.
5.
CollinsP. H. (2009). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
CornwallA.JewkesR. (1995). What is participatory research?Social Science & Medicine, 41, 1667-1676.
7.
CreswellJ.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
CreswellJ. W.ShopeR.Plano ClarkV. L.GreenD. O. (2006). How interpretive qualitative research extends mixed methods research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 1-11.
9.
DamacenaG. N.SzwarcwaldC. L.Barbosa JuniorA. (2011). Implementation of respondent-driven sampling among female sex workers in Brazil,2009. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 27(Suppl. 1), s45-s55.
10.
DelaneyK. (2007). Methodological dilemmas and opportunities in interviewing organizational elites. Sociology Compass, 1, 208-221.
11.
DenzinN. K. (2010). Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 1-9.
12.
Federal Labour Standards Review Commission. (2006). Fairness at work: Federal labour standards for the 21st century. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Government of Canada.
13.
FisherR.FabricantM.SimmonsL. (2004). Understanding contemporary university-community connections: Context, practice, and challenges. Journal of Community Practice, 12(3/4), 13-34.
14.
GalabuziG. E. (2006). Canada’s economic apartheid: The social exclusion of racialized groups in the new century. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Scholars Press.
15.
GileK. J.HandcockM. S. (2010). Respondent-driven sampling: An assessment of current methodology. Sociological Methodology, 40, 285-327.
16.
GoelS.SalganikM. J. (2010). Assessing respondent-driven sampling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 6743-6747.
17.
GrovesJ. M.ChangK. A. (1999). Romancing resistance and resisting romance: Ethnography and the construction of power in the Filipina domestic worker community in Hong Kong. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 23, 235-265.
18.
HardingS. (1987). The method question. Hypatia, 2(3), 19-35.
19.
HartsockN. (2004). The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In HardingS. (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 35-54). New York, NY: Routledge.
20.
HawkesworthM. (2006). Grappling with claims of truth. In HawkesworthM. (Ed.), Feminist inquiry: From political conviction to methodological innovation (pp. 54-75). London, England: Rutgers University Press.
21.
HeckathornD. D.JeffriJ. (2001). Finding the beat: Using respondent-driven sampling to study jazz musicians. Poetics, 28, 307-329.
22.
Hesse-BiberS. (2012). Feminist approaches to triangulation: Uncovering subjugated knowledge and fostering social change in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 137-146.
23.
HodgkinS. (2008). Telling it all: A story of women’s social capital using a mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(4), 296-316.
24.
HubermanA. M.MilesM. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428-444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
Human Resources Development Canada. (1997). Evaluation of federal labour standards (Phase 1): Final report. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Government of Canada.
26.
JacksonA. (2010). Are wage supplements the answer to the problems of working poor women? In CohenM. G.PulkinghamJ. (Eds.), Public policy for women: The state, income, security and labour market issues (pp. 291-310). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
27.
JanesickV. J. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design: Metaphor, methodolatry, and meaning. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. A. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 209-219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
JohnstonL. G.ThurmanT. R.MockN.NanoL.CarcaniV. (2010). Respondent-driven sampling: A new method for studying street children with findings from Albania. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, 5(1), 1-11.
29.
JonesS. (1985). Depth interviewing. In WalkerR. (Ed.), Applied qualitative research (pp. 45-55). Aldershot, England: Gower.
30.
KabeerN. (1999). Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment. Development and Change, 30, 431-464.
31.
KirbyS.McKennaK. (1989). Experience, research, social change: Methods at the margins. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Garamond.
32.
KovachM. (2005). Emerging from the margins: Indigenous methodologies. In BrownL.StregaS. (Eds.), Research as resistance: Critical, indigenous, and anti-oppressive approaches (pp. 19-36). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Scholars Press.
33.
LavauxD.ChristopherS. (2009). Contextualizing CBPR: Key principles of CBPR meet the indigenous research context. Pimatisiwin, 7, 1-25.
34.
LeckenbyD.Hesse-BiberS. N. (2007). Feminist approaches to mixed-methods research. In Hesse-BiberS. N.LeavyP. L. (Eds.), Feminist research practice (pp. 249-292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
LuginaH. I.NyströmL.ChristenssonK.LindmarkG. (2004). Assessing mothers’ concerns in the postpartum period: Methodological issues. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48, 279-290.
36.
MasonJ. (2006). Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 9-25.
37.
MaynesM. J.PierceJ. L.LaslettB. (2008). Telling stories: The use of personal narratives in the social sciences. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
MillsJ. H.ThomasR.MillsA. J. (2012). Identity politics at work: Resisting gender, gendering resistance. New York, NY: Routledge.
41.
MitchellH. (2009). Gathering berries in Northern contexts: A Woodlands Cree metaphor for community-based research. Pimatisiwin, 7(1), 65-73.
42.
Moran-EllisJ.AlexanderV.CroninA.DickinsonM.FieldingJ.SlenevJ.ThomasH. (2006). Triangulation and integration: processes, claims and implications. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 45-59.
43.
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.
44.
NastasiB. K.BergM. J. (1999). Using ethnography to strengthen and evaluate intervention programs. In SchensulJ. J.LeCompteM. D. (Eds.), The ethnographer’s toolkit: Book 7 (pp. 1-56). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
45.
NeufeldA.HarrisonM. J.RempelG. R.LarocqueS.DublinS.StewartM.HughesK. (2004). Practical issues in using a card sort in a study of nonsupport and family caregiving. Qualitative Health Research, 14, 1418-1428.
46.
NoackA.VoskoL. F. (2011). Precarious jobs in Ontario: Mapping dimensions of labour market insecurity by workers’ social location and context. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Law Commission of Ontario.
47.
NoackA.VoskoL. F.GrundyJ. (2015). Measuring employment standards violations, erosion and evasion using a telephone survey. Industrial Relations/Relations Industrielles, 70(1), 86-109.
48.
OlsonK. L.MorseJ. M. (1996). Explaining breast self-examination practice. Health Care for Women International, 17, 575-591.
49.
OngA. (1991). The gender and labour politics of postmodernity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 20, 279-309.
50.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.JohnsonR. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48-63.
51.
PattonM. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
52.
ParkP. (1993). What is participatory research? A theoretical and methodological perspective. In ParkP.Brydon-MillerM.HallB.JacksonJ. (Eds.), Voices of change: Participatory research in the United States and Canada (pp. 1-20). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: OISE Press.
53.
PollertA.CharlwoodA. (2009). The vulnerable worker in Britain and problems at work. Work, Employment and Society, 23, 343-362.
54.
QiuP.YangY.MaX.WuF.YuanP.LiuQ.CaineE. (2012). Respondent-driven sampling to recruit in-country migrant workers in China: A methodological assessment. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 40(1), 92-101.
55.
ReidC. (2004). Advancing women’s social justice agendas: A feminist action research framework. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(3), 1-15.
56.
RiceG. (2010). Reflections on interviewing elites. Area, 42(1), 70-75.
57.
SchulzA. J.IsraelB. A.LantzP. (2003). Instrument for evaluating dimensions of group dynamics within community-based participatory research partnerships. Evaluation and Program Planning, 26, 249-262.
58.
SohngS. S. L. (1996). Participatory research and community organizing. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 23(4), 77-97.
59.
SuttonB. (2001). Playful cards, serious talk: A qualitative research technique to elicit women’s embodied experiences. Qualitative Research, 11, 177-196.
60.
SweetmanD.BadieeM.CreswellJ. W. (2010). Use of the transformative framework in mixed methods studies. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 441-454.
61.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (2006). Introduction to mixed method and mixed model studies in the behavioral sciences. In BrymanA. (Ed.), Mixed methods (Vol. 2, pp. 75-95). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
62.
VoskoL. F. (2006). Precarious employment: Understanding labour market insecurity in Canada. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
63.
WeilD. (2012). “Broken windows”: Vulnerable workers, and the future of worker representation. Forum, 10(1), 1-21.
64.
Workers’ Action Centre. (2007). Working on the edge. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Author.
65.
WylieJ. L.JollyA. M. (2013). Understanding recruitment: Outcomes associated with alternate methods for seed selection in respondent driven sampling. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13, 93. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-93
66.
YinR. K. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are the methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel?Research in the Schools, 13(1), 41-47.
