Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-88psn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-24T02:44:28.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Workshopping Mixed Methods: Ten Years of the Southwest Workshop for Mixed Methods Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2025

Marissa Brookes Open the ORCID record for Marissa Brookes [Opens in a new window] ,
Jennifer Cyr Open the ORCID record for Jennifer Cyr [Opens in a new window]  and
Sara Niedzwiecki
Marissa Brookes
Affiliation:
University of California , Riverside, USA
Jennifer Cyr
Affiliation:
Universidad Torcuato Di Tella , Argentina
Sara Niedzwiecki
Affiliation:
University of California , Santa Cruz, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reflects on the first 10 years of the Southwest Workshop for Mixed Methods Research (SWMMR), which was created to foster methodological pluralism and rigor in political science and related fields. Since its founding, SWMMR has helped to develop mixed methods research while prioritizing diversity, equity, inclusion, and mentorship. The article highlights the annual workshop’s role in building an intellectual community while supporting early-career scholars, women, and those from underrepresented backgrounds. We also document SWMMR’s contributions to certain methodological debates through sustaining a supportive space for collaborative growth in political science.

Information

Type
Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 59 , Special Issue 2: The Special Issue on Immigration and Elections , April 2026 , pp. 337 - 344
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Barnes, Tiffany D. 2018. “Strategies for Improving Gender Diversity in the Methods Community: Insights from Political Methodologists and Social Science Research.” PS: Political Science & Politics 51 (3): 580–87.Google Scholar
Brookes, Marissa. 2017. “Introduction.” PS: Political Science & Politics 50 (4): 1015–18.Google Scholar
Büthe, Tim, Jacobs, Alan M., Bleich, Erik, Pekkanen, Robert, Trachtenberg, Marc, Cramer, Katherine, Shih, Victor, Parkinson, Sarah, Wood, Elisabeth Jean, Pachirat, Timothy, Romney, David, Stewart, Brandon M., Tingley, Dustin H., Davison, Andrew, Schneider, Carsten, Wagemann, Claudius, and Fairfield, Tasha. 2015. “Transparency in Qualitative and Multi-Method Research: A Symposium.” Qualitative and Multi-Method Research: Newsletter of the American Political Science Association’s QMMR Section 13 (1): 2–64.Google Scholar
Büthe, Tim, and Jacobs, Alan M.. 2015a. “Introduction to the Symposium: Transparency in Qualitative and Multi-Method Research.” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 13 (1): 2–8.Google Scholar
Büthe, Tim, and Jacobs, Alan M.. 2015b. “Conclusion: Research Transparency for a Diverse Discipline.” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 13 (1): 2–64.Google Scholar
Cameron, Elissa Z., White, Angela M., and Gray, Meeghan E.. 2016. “Solving the Productivity and Impact Puzzle: Do Men Outperform Women, or Are Metrics Biased?” BioScience 66 (3): 245–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caruth, Gail D. 2013. “Demystifying Mixed Methods Research Design: A Review of the Literature.” Mevlana International Journal of Education 3 (2): 112–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Christopher J., Block, Ray Jr., Johnson, Kaneesha, Minta, Michael, and Baumgartner, Frank R.. 2024. “The Intellectual Benefits of Diversity: How Political Science Suffers from Its Lack of Diversity, and How It Can Do Better.” In Oxford Handbook of Engaged Methodological Pluralism in Political Science, ed. Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Christenson, Dino P., and Sinclair-Chapman, Valeria. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cyr, Jennifer, and Goodman, Sara Wallace. 2024. Doi ng Good Qualitative Research. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Data Access and Research Transparency (DA-RT): A Joint Statement by Political Science Journal Editors.” 2015. Political Science Research and Methods 3 (3): 421. DOI:10.1017/psrm.2015.44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goertz, Gary. 2017. Multimethod Research, Causal Mechanisms, and Case Studies: An Integrated Approach. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Alan M., and Büthe, Tim, with Arjona, Ana, Arriola, Leonardo R., Bellin, Eva, Bennett, Andrew, Björkman, Lisa, Bleich, Erik, Elkins, Zachary, Fairfield, Tasha, Gaikwad, Nikhar, Greitens, Sheena Chestnut, Hawkesworth, Mary, Herrera, Veronica, Herrera, Yoshiko M., Johnson, Kimberley S., Karakoç, Ekrem, Koivu, Kendra, Kreuzer, Marcus, Lake, Milli, Luke, Timothy W., MacLean, Lauren M., Majic, Samantha, Maxwell, Rahsaan, Mampilly, Zachariah, Mickey, Robert, Morgan, Kimberly J., Parkinson, Sarah E., Parsons, Craig, Pearlman, Wendy, Pollack, Mark A., Posner, Elliot, Riedl, Rachel Beatty, Schatz, Edward, Schneider, Carsten Q., Schwedler, Jillian, Shesterinina, Anastasia, Simmons, Erica S., Singerman, Diane, Soifer, Hillel David, Smith, Nicholas Rush, Spitzer, Scott, Tallberg, Jonas, Thomson, Susan, Vázquez-Arroyo, Antonio Y., Vis, Barbara, Wedeen, Lisa, Williams, Juliet A., Wood, Elisabeth Jean, and Yashar, Deborah J.. 2021. “The Qualitative Transparency Deliberations: Insights and Implications.” Perspectives on Politics 19 (1): 171–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. Burke, and Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J.. 2004. “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come.” Educational Researcher 33 (7): 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapiszewski, Diana, MacLean, Lauren M., and Read, Benjamin L.. 2022. “Dynamic Research Design: Iteration in Field-Based Inquiry.” Comparative Politics 54 (4): 645–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koivu, Kendra, and Hinze, Annika Marlen. 2017. “Cases of Convenience? The Divergence of Theory from Practice in Case Selection in Qualitative and Mixed-Methods Research.” PS: Political Science & Politics 50 (4): 1023–27.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Evan S. 2005. “Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative Research.” American Political Science Review 99 (3): 435–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Evan S. 2010. “Bridging the Qualitative–Quantitative Divide: Best Practices in the Development of Historically Oriented Replication Databases.” Annual Review of Political Science 13:37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Evan S. 2015. “Nested Analysis: Toward the Integration of Comparative–Historical Analysis with Other Social Science Methods.” In Advances in Comparative–Historical Analysis, ed. Mahoney, James and Thelen, Kathleen, 240–63. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Amy H. 2024. “Process Tracing.” In Doing Good Qualitative Research , ed. Cyr, Jennifer and Goodman, Sara Wallace, 445–56. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lund, Thorleif. 2012. “Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches: Some Arguments for Mixed Methods Research.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 56 (2): 155–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, Melissa A., Chang, Aurora, and Welton, Anjalé D.. 2017. “Assistant Professors of Color Confront the Inequitable Terrain of Academia: A Community Cultural Wealth Perspective.” Race Ethnicity and Education 20 (5): 696–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKim, Courtney A. 2017. “The Value of Mixed Methods Research: A Mixed Methods Study.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 11 (2): 202–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelson, Melissa R., and Wilkinson, Betina Cutaia. 2023. “Best Practices in Diversifying Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics 56 (2): 295–98.Google Scholar
Niedzwiecki, Sara, and Nunnally, David. 2017. “Mixed-Methods Research in the Study of Welfare States.” PS: Political Science & Politics 50 (4): 1028–31.Google Scholar
Oana, Ioana-Elena, Schneider, Carsten Q., and Thomann, Eva. 2021. Qualitative Comparative Analysis Using R: A Beginner’s Guide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pashayan, Angela R., Kehlenbach, E. Stefan, Ye, Huei-Jyun, Mueller, Grace B., and Willis, Charmaine. 2023. “The Realities Facing Graduate Students: Before, During, and After the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic.” PS: Political Science & Politics 56 (3): 391–97.Google Scholar
Ragin, Charles. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Río, Scharrón-Del, María, R. 2020. “Intersectionality Is Not a Choice: Reflections of a Queer Scholar of Color on Teaching, Writing, and Belonging in LGBTQ Studies and Academia.” Journal of Homosexuality 67 (3): 294–304.Google Scholar
Seawright, Jaye. 2016. Multi-Method Social Science: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Tools. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spindel, Jennifer. 2024. “Qualitative Social Network Analysis.” In Doing Good Qualitative Research, ed. Cyr, Jennifer and Goodman, Sara Wallace, 373–84. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teele, Dawn Langan, and Thelen, Kathleen. 2017. “Gender in the Journals: Publication Patterns in Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics 50 (2): 433–47.Google Scholar
Tormos-Aponte, Fernando. 2021. “An Organizing Approach to Diversifying Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics 54 (1): 163–68.Google Scholar
Turner, Robin L. 2024. “Qualitative Research as a Minoritized Scholar.” In Doing Good Qualitative Research, ed. Cyr, Jennifer and Goodman, Sara Wallace, 286–98. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinstein, Tania Islas. 2024. “Discourse Analysis.” In Doing Good Qualitative Research, ed. Cyr, Jennifer and Goodman, Sara Wallace, 410–21. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar