RobertWSchrauf 2016 11MixedMethodsCrossCu MixedMethodsInterview

11 Mixed Methods Cross-Cultural Comparison
A Discourse-Centered Framework
In this final chapter, I bring together the two central practices of mixed methods
cross-cultural research – data integration and between-groups comparison – in
terms of the discourse-centered framework that I have developed in this book.
All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.
In the first section of the chapter, I ask: How are qualitative and quantitative
data integrated in a discourse-centered framework? This question addresses
the nature of the discourse-centered framework itself. To synthesize this frame-
work, I review and summarize material from previous chapters. The second
section of the chapter is devoted to the question: How are cross-cultural
comparisons made with integrated data? This is the practical question that
addresses making between-groups comparisons with integrated data. To this
point in the book, I have dealt with method-specific, between-groups compar-
isons (quantitative comparisons in Chapters 7 and 8; qualitative comparisons in
Chapters 9 and 10), but I have not discussed the comparison of integrated data.
In this final section, I articulate a methodological strategy for identifying and
interpreting cross-cultural similarities and differences based on seeking out
cultural variation using integrated data, and I describe and demonstrate a joint
display, tabular method for making comparisons and interpreting them.
The two questions articulated earlier are the same two questions that I put to
the four published, mixed methods cross-cultural studies in Chapter 2: (1) What
is the logic and theory of combining qualitative and quantitative methods in this
research? (2) What are the assumptions, nature, and implications of cross-
cultural comparison in this study? These two issues are also captured graphi-
cally in the basic mixed methods cross-cultural design that I articulated in
Chapter 1. (Again, for the sake of illustration, I picture an explanatory sequen-
tial design in Figure 11.1.)
Reading across the rows, we see the sequence of data collection methods.
That sequence is repeated for each cultural group. Reading down the columns
shows that cross-cultural comparisons can be made within methods, for exam-
ple conducting between-groups statistical analyses in the quantitative strand
Copyright 2016. Cambridge University Press.
and between-groups comparisons of transcribed data in the qualitative strand.

Alternatively, cross-cultural comparisons can be made at the end, once all of the
214
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 5/19/2023 8:04 AM via CQUNIVERSITY
AN: 1413747 ; Robert W. Schrauf.; Mixed Methods : Interviews, Surveys, and Cross-Cultural Comparisons
Account: s3716178.main.ehtest
How Are Qualitative and Quantitative Data Integrated 215
Group 1 quan → QUAL Between-Group

Group 2 quan → QUAL Comparison
Cross-Method
Integration
Figure 11.1 Example of a Basic Cross-Cultural Design
data have been collected, by simultaneously integrating the data and making
comparisons. This latter is the subject of this last chapter.
How Are Qualitative and Quantitative Data Integrated in a

Discourse-Centered Framework?
In Chapter 2, I developed a typology of approaches to integrating qualitative
and quantitative data that included theoretical, methodological, and philoso-
phical-ontological emphases. In brief, these are as follows.
Methodological approaches entail particular perspectives about what counts
as data and how data should be handled. For example, ethnography involves the
sustained observation of study participants and participation in their activities,
and this approach to data collection inculcates in the participant-observer an
insider’s view of the social life of the group. Qualitative and quantitative data
are then interpreted through that lens (e.g., Guest 2007).
Theoretical approaches fit the method to the features of the overarching
theory that drives the research. Reflexive sociology, for instance, is a theory
about the relation between society and the individual. Quantitative methods are
used to investigate the structure of the relatively stable social field, comprising
flows of influence within and between institutions and social actors, and
qualitative methods are used to investigate how individuals interiorize and
act out of the values and practices engendered by the social field (e.g.,
Purhonen and Wright 2013).
Philosophical approaches involve the ontological (what is real) and episte-
mological (how we know it) commitments of researchers. Pragmatism, for
instance, acknowledges layers of social reality in which people experience
order, stability, and predictability, and other layers of ambiguity, uncertainty,
and indeterminacy. Within a pragmatic framework, mixed methods researchers
seek to solve practical problems with methods that capture both the regularity
and idiosyncrasy of the social world (e.g., Klassen et al. 2008).
Although these methodological, theoretical, and philosophical-ontological
approaches can be distinguished for heuristic purposes, they are often inter-
twined in practice. In what follows, I review material from previous chapters to
EBSCOhost - printed on 5/19/2023 8:04 AM via CQUNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
show that the discourse-centered framework for integrating data captures

aspects of all three of these approaches (i.e. theory, method, and philosophy).
Theory: Two Levels of Discourse

The term “discourse” has at least two broad meanings. First, at the level of
society and history, we speak of discourses in the plural, as topics or domains.
However, such topics or domains critically include proper speakers or authors,
the distribution of expertise, authoritative institutions, and appropriate circum-
stances and places. Consider these disparate examples of different discourses:
the deliberative talk among lawyers and judges; the exchanges of video gamers
engaged in interactive person-versus-person play; the language of real estate
agents about buying and selling houses; the talk of baseball fans; negotiations
among diplomats at the United Nations, and the taken-for-granted practices
used in Internet chat rooms. In each of these examples, speakers assume the
normativity of language practices within the relevant discourse (i.e., who says
what acceptably to whom, when, where, and how). Over time, these ways of
speaking and writing become patterned, regularized, and variably solidified as
discourse practices that can be used correctly or incorrectly, on the right or the
wrong occasion, and for which speakers become socially responsible (Bloor
1997; Garfinkel 1967; Wittgenstein 1953). Thus, ways of talking are subtly and
pervasively, socially normed, with both direct and indirect ways of enforcing
the norms (e.g., censure and shaming, respectively). By extension, whether an
individual can credibly speak a particular discourse depends on his or her
subject position within that discourse, conditioned by numerous factors such
as expertise, experience, credentials, office, gender, ethnicity, and race
(Foucault 1988). In this way, discourses are differentially distributed through
a society, and they become channels through which power and influence are
represented and exercised (Foucault 1965, 1970). Obviously, there are count-
less forms of discourse, and every human speaker is massively polyglot across
many discourses.
There is a second sense of discourse, used mainly in the field of linguistics,
which refers to instances of actual turn-by-turn communication between speak-
ers. In approaching discourse of this sort, we think of speaking and writing, not
as means of making reports about the world, but as ways of doing things in the
world (Austin 1962). Language is then a form of social action or behavior, and
we examine how people “do” or perform themselves in talk and subtly enact
and justify their versions of the world in the concrete circumstances of real-
time talk (e.g., Sacks 1985, Johnstone 2008). In pursuing their conversational
goals, people make strategic choices from a rich toolkit of linguistic and
discursive devices in their native languages (see Chapters 3, 9, and 10) that
include, for example, words, contextualization cues, prosodic shaping,
indexical reference, reported speech, narrative or storytelling, and a host of

conversational genres (e.g., complaints, jokes, fantasies, memories, com-
mands, arguments, and gossip). Every speaker in his or her native language is
an expert in this kind of discourse, largely unconsciously but nevertheless
strategically pursuing his or her ends in conversations that range from the
trivial to the critically important.
These two levels of discourse are intimately interwoven. At the level of
interpersonal interaction (both spoken and written), individuals construct con-
texts and versions of the world for one another, which are variably taken up,
modified, or rejected in subsequent interactions. However, this micro-level
discourse, though ostensibly shaped entirely by the interlocutors, necessarily
draws on the mutual acknowledgment of linguistic and discursive normativity
– a transpersonal and trans-temporal discourse to which speakers orient them-
selves and to which they fully expect other speakers to do the same. Speakers
are positioned within these discourses, both by their own volition and by
sociopolitical ascription – by historical, social, and cultural factors beyond
their immediate control.
Method: Two Levels of Analysis

In the discourse-centered approach to mixed methods research, these two
meanings of discourse come together at two levels of analysis, where quanti-
tative methods address the societal distribution of discourses and qualitative
methods address how participants select from, reproduce, and modify this
larger discourse in their actual talk from within their position in the discursive
field.
In the case of quantitative data and analysis, we reframe survey responses in
terms of linguistic stance. That is, a person participating in a survey interacts
with an item (rendered in either spoken or written words) toward which he or
she takes a stance and in so doing positions himself or herself relative to that
item, and simultaneously aligns himself or herself with the other people who
take a similar stance toward the same item. As the participant takes stances
toward item after item, he or she builds up a stance profile, and for the analyst it
becomes possible to position each survey taker relative to every other survey
taker in a virtual stance (or discursive) space.
Given this approach to the data, we use graphic layout algorithms to map the
distribution of participant alignment in two-dimensional space. By inspecting
these maps, we find that some individuals occupy more central positions
because they are paired closely with many other individuals, who are also
closely paired one with another, while other persons occupy more peripheral
positions because they share relatively few stances with others and hence have
looser alignments with others. Based on the notion that those who align (agree)
most with one another (i.e., those who all take the same stances) come to
constitute a shared, coherent view, we surmise that persons with greater inter-
connectivity and centrality in this hypothetical network are those with greatest
expertise on the survey topic. These participants are the “cultural experts” – at
least relative to the topic and sample of the specific survey in question.
Consensus analysis – the factor analysis of participants – then makes it
possible to test that picture mathematically. Specifically, the results of the
consensus analysis assess whether the survey topic is a coherent one for the
participants (a tractable topic of talk). If the topic is a coherent one, the analysis
also generates a cultural “answer key” reflecting the responses of the cultural
experts and a knowledge score for each participant. These analyses result in a
textured, nuanced picture of a field of discourse – a discursive map of the
participants in the survey.
In qualitative data and analysis, an interaction-focused analysis of interview
data treats the interview as itself a cross-cultural event in which interviewer and
participant co-construct meaning and culture in their turn-by-turn talk. Over the
course of the interview, the interlocutors position one another and their talk in
various ways: at times working within the standard question–answer frame (the
interviewer frame), at times establishing collaborative or even affable links
with another (the mutual relations frame), and at times negotiating the social
science agenda of the interview itself (the social science and topic-related
frames). Throughout these various frames, both parties employ many of the
common, everyday meaning-making strategies of ordinary conversation.
In addition to making statements and assertions, the interlocutors employ a
wide variety of discursive devices to enact or perform themselves and their
social worlds. Thus, by focusing our analytic attention on the interaction itself –
on how participants index larger macrosocial identities, how they account for
their attitudes and behaviors, and how they enact their lives via narrative and
reported speech – we see the larger societal discourse at work in their talk.
Beyond propositional content, we “hear” in the carefully detailed transcripts
how speakers take up, reproduce, transform, or ignore that societal discourse
according to their position in society. If discourse at the macro-level of society
is composed of ways of speaking, with particular topics, proper speakers or
authors, a distribution of expertise, authoritative institutions, and appropriate
circumstances and places, then discourse at the micro-level of interpersonal
interaction is where individuals embody and display that larger discourse. Both
micro- and macro-worlds are integrated in their talk.
Philosophy: Multiple Levels of Ontology and Epistemology

As I noted in the beginning of the chapter, philosophical approaches to inte-
grating qualitative and quantitative data concern ontological questions about
the nature of reality and epistemological questions about how we know what
we know. As should be obvious, the discourse-centered framework that I have
worked out in this book traces to a large volume of social science theorizing and
practice that has evolved as a result of the “discursive turn” in the latter half of
the twentieth century. From the perspective of social ontology, the discursive
turn reflects the notion that reality (more conservatively, the social world) is a
human construction achieved in, reproduced by, and transformed by the inter-
active discourse of social actors. Methodologically then, socially negotiated
meanings become the proper focus of social and behavioral science (for a
programmatic statement, see Harré and Gillet 1994). It is beyond the scope
of this book to discuss this larger shift in philosophical and social research, and
hence I will restrict myself to drawing out two of its implications for the
discourse-centered approach to cross-cultural comparison.
From an epistemological perspective, all data from interviews and surveys
necessarily derive from discursive interaction, and therefore what we can
reasonably infer from the data must take into account the specific nature of
those original interactions. In the case of survey data, for instance, we carefully
think through the actual interaction that takes place between participant and
interviewer, participant and paper-and-pencil instrument, participant and com-
puterized survey, or participant and Internet survey. Again, one way of thinking
about this original interaction is to reconceive survey response as linguistic
stance (Chapters 4 and 7). Similarly, in the case of the qualitative data,
reframing the interview as a discourse event (Chapters 3 and 4) entails trans-
forming our understanding of the data as intrinsically co-constructed by both
participant and interviewer. “What counts as data” from both surveys and
interviews reflects the essentially social character of the discursive events
that produce them.
From an ontological perspective, there is little novel in saying that discourse
is the fundamental reality of social life, but the implications of this statement
for the practice of research are far reaching. Once we frame all data collection
as originating in a discourse event, we necessarily admit that investigators are
also involved as interlocutors in the discourse of those events. This is true of the
survey, in which (at the very least) investigators are the authors of the items and
therefore active speakers, and in the case of qualitative data, it is undeniable
that investigators are interlocutors in the face-to-face interviews. Given the
distinction between levels of societal and interactional discourse, it is clear that
the research project itself is necessarily one more social practice (among many)
and inherently interactive in nature. In a nontrivial sense, every research
activity (e.g., analyzing spreadsheet data, producing and interpreting tran-
scripts, presenting results at conferences, and publishing the results) is another
discursive event within the overall discourse. Social research on any topic
involves becoming a speaker of the discourse relative to that topic, located
relative to other speakers of the same discourse. We produce the very discourse
that we want to study.
How Are Cross-Cultural Comparisons Made with Integrated

Data?
Given this integrative framework, of what do cross-cultural comparisons con-
sist? In discussing discourse-based approaches to analyzing quantitative and
qualitative data, I presented separate examples of cross-cultural comparisons at
the societal level (Chapter 8) and at the interactional level (Chapter 10);
however, those within-method approaches to comparison do not fully realize
the virtues of mixed methods comparison. The advantage of combining data
types is to produce a more holistic, multilayered account of a research topic.
That is, at the societal level and using quantitative data and analyses, we model
discursive webs of beliefs linked to the networks of socially positioned indivi-
duals who hold them, and at the interactional level, using qualitative
approaches, we see actual performances of individuals selectively and strate-
gically taking up these beliefs. These are integrated data, and the question is:
How can we realize the cross-cultural comparative project with integrated
data?
A Variationist Perspective on Cross-Cultural Comparison

To address this issue of making cultural comparisons with integrated data, I
suggest that we reframe comparison itself as a study of variation within a larger
field of discourse that is shared across groups. A variationist approach to
comparative research begins with the research topic of interest (e.g.,
Alzheimer’s disease) and then aims to document diversity and variation in
beliefs and practices relative to that topic within- and between groups. Such
observed variation may be cultural, social, psychological, and idiosyncratic, as
well as (most likely) various combinations of these. The key to this approach is
to determine how different beliefs and practices relate to the contexts in which
they are found.
This emphasis on variation as the empirical foundation of cultural descrip-
tion and theorizing derives in part from the ethnographic methodology of
Fredrik Barth, whose notion of the emergence of culture in social interaction
was covered in Chapter 9. Barth developed and applied a variationist approach
to data gathering and analysis in extensive ethnographic research in a range of
societies and geographical regions, including small groups of Ok peoples in
New Guinea (Barth 1975, 1987), urban and regional sites in Oman (Barth
1983), and the bewildering array of cultural traditions of Bali (Barth 1993; for
summaries, see Barth 2007).
Cross-Cultural Comparisons with Integrated Data 221
Theorizing about the application of his method to cultural comparison, Barth

notes that, while working among the Baktaman, a tribal society in New Guinea
(Barth 1975, 1987), he made additional excursions to other groups in the
region, not for the explicit purpose of making cross-cultural comparisons but
rather to seek out diversity. Specifically, he intentionally sought for variations
of the practices and beliefs that he had observed among the Baktaman (Barth
1999). His purposes were twofold. On the one hand, the observation of variants
would likely refine and make more specific his descriptions of Baktaman
practices, and on the other hand, such variants would “give me hunches,
tentative intuitions, of what might represent the important and foundational
features of these Baktaman forms and what might be more trivial, insignificant
features representing only a fortuitous, historical event or moment in the flux of
free variation” (1999, p. 83). Thus, he focused attention on how seemingly
similar beliefs and practices covaried with the social contexts in which they
figured, and then, crucially, by reframing comparable beliefs and practices as
contextual variations within a larger field, he was able to distinguish recurring
patterns from either idiosyncratic or historically temporary changes. This latter
is the heart of a variationist approach to cross-cultural comparison: careful
attention to the range of variation of beliefs or practices in context reveals their
likely character as idiosyncratic and temporal versus historical and cultural.
This variationist approach to cross-cultural research begins with a field and
examines a range of diversity within that field. In a discourse-centered
approach, such fields can be conceived of as discourses, in the sense of
interlinked ways of talking, webs of beliefs, and sets of discursive practices,
spread unevenly across groups of people, through which power and influence
are channeled and exercised. In cross-cultural comparison, the central dis-
course for the researcher is the research topic, which is also a topic of interest
for the participants themselves. But the research topic is part of a larger
discourse that reaches across the groups that we compare. For example, the
discourse of Alzheimer’s disease is distributed through many communities
of discourse: biomedical research, clinical medicine, social work, public health
organizations, pharmaceutical companies, senior centers, continuing care
retirement communities, caregivers, families, and the persons who have the
disease. Or, taking an example from Chapter 2 of this volume: Purhonen and
Wright (2013) looked at cultural tastes in Finland and the United Kingdom. The
discourse of cultural tastes is found, for example, in the entertainment sections
of news media, advertisements by marketers of entertainment and recreation
programs and products, companies and establishments that provide entertain-
ment (e.g., music, theater, sports, restaurants), government and private venues
(e.g., museums, libraries, civic festivals), and, of course, their patrons (the
actual focus of the Purhonen and Wright study). These are two examples of
wide-ranging discourses that are international and overlapping while at the
same time culture specific, each with a unique historical path of development
and dissemination.
The larger discourse of interest is obviously broader than the groups that we
investigate, and as researchers we inevitably select some slice of that discourse
for investigation (e.g., beliefs about Alzheimer’s among older ethnic adults;
people’s cultural tastes in Finland and the United Kingdom). In the variationist
approach to comparison, we examine how people who self-identify as culture
members selectively take up and reshape portions and pieces of the larger
discourse in their patterns of mutual belief and interaction. Sometimes these
variations emerge as a group difference related to culture or history, and
sometimes they appear as purely local instantiations, possibly cultural and
enduring but also possibly idiosyncratic and temporary, and sometimes as
purely personal habits or practices of a few participants. In searching for
specifically cultural variations, we make detailed descriptions of the range of
variations in their contexts and ask whether and to what extent they covary with
cultural membership. Because the discursive forms and practices that we
observe usually represent the ongoing local development of the larger dis-
course, we attend to the historical emergence of particular beliefs and practices
among some participants and not among others. By implication, what seems an
idiosyncratic belief or practice in the data might be a nascent form that gains
greater extension as time goes on.
Method-Specific Cross-Cultural Variation

In the mixed methods approach, cross-cultural comparisons are made across
both the societal levels of discourse (represented in the analytics of the surveys)
and the interactional levels (from the qualitative interviews). The discursive
methods for analyzing cross-cultural surveys and intercultural interviews are
based on notions of culture that are fundamentally variationist in inspiration,
namely in the case of quantitative data analysis, the sociocultural field and
intracultural variation, and, in the case of qualitative analysis, the interactional
emergence of culture and interculturality in the interview.
Societal-Level Discourse and the Cross-Cultural Survey

The key conceptual category in the participant-based analysis of the cross-
cultural survey is the notion of sociocultural field (Chapter 7), operationalized
as the patterning of participants’ mutual but variable alignments around the
topic of the survey. As I argued in Chapter 7, consensus analysis is a useful tool
for this purpose. In application to cross-cultural, between-groups comparisons,
the consensus analysis of survey data opens up three questions. First, does the
survey topic represent a coherent discourse domain? In effect, we want to
know if the research domain represents a sensible topic of talk for all partici-
pants, and to answer this question we begin by pooling all participants (irre-
spective of culture membership). Then, precisely because we are interested in
variations due to culture membership, we also ask this same question of each
cultural or ethnic sample individually. Assuming that we find a coherent
discourse domain at the pooled level, we would expect these within-sample
comparisons to give the same result. The second and third questions address
variation by cultural sample. Specifically, the second question asks, are there
between-sample differences in sociodemographic or other predictors of cul-
tural expertise around the discourse topic? Thus, whereas gender might predict
variation in cultural expertise in one cultural sample, education might do so in
another group, and in a third group variation might depend on certain kinds of
prior experiences. Finally, the third question asks, what are the specific webs of
belief on which samples differ? Importantly, the focus is on webs of beliefs
rather than individual beliefs. That is, we look for congeries of several survey
items that hang together in some way that might differ from one cultural sample
to another. The rationale is that, because the survey answer keys are generated
by high levels of pairwise agreement among participants, we know that the
items pattern together among participants.
From a variationist perspective, then, the quantitative phase of a cross-
cultural mixed methods project generates information about variations in dis-
cursive expertise among participants from different cultural or ethnic groups.
We also gain information about the differential social positioning of these
experts, and we know the content differences in their beliefs. We know who
knows what, when, by cultural group. This is not to say that every variation is
strictly speaking a cultural variation, because in a comparison involving only
two or three minority groups within a majority culture, we cannot definitively
disambiguate cultural, social, psychological, and individual idiosyncratic influ-
ences. Rather, in this variationist methodology, we describe as carefully as
possible the variations that we do find, and we draw reflectively on what we
know about the wider discourse domain to contextualize and characterize those
variations.
Interactional-Level Discourse and the Intercultural Interview

Comparisons at the societal level, however, remain incomplete without the
complementary analysis of the interactional data. This is because findings at the
societal level, although immensely valuable as models of local discourse and
knowledge, remain somewhat artificial because survey participants are limited
to taking only cognitive stances (e.g., yes/no; agree/disagree) toward state-
ments of belief as articulated by the investigators in the rarified context of a
survey. Whether and how participants would articulate or act upon these beliefs
in the social contexts of everyday life remains an open question. Further, the
participant alignments from survey data are not actual, observed social inter-
actions, but rather they are modeled as virtual alignments based on participant-
response patterns. What would happen in actual interactions is not available in
those data. In marked contrast, the face-to-face interviews provide more direct
data about social interaction because the interlocutors (both participant and
interviewer) have considerably more latitude to co-construct, enact, display,
and account for their cultural identities and everyday social lives. In this sense,
culture is emergent in the interaction of the interview because the interview
itself is a cultural event and not simply a report about cultural events. More
precisely, cross-cultural interviews are instances of intercultural encounters.
As developed in Chapter 9, the face-to-face interview is intercultural in two
senses. First, the fact of national, regional, or local cultural variation is inevi-
tably signaled in the encounter. Any linguistic sign (word, grammatical form,
accented pronunciation, or gesture) that indexes cultural membership, cultural
belief, or cultural practices makes relevant and salient the larger macrosocial
cultural categories that cross-cut the encounter. Second, interviews are also
intercultural meetings of the professional world of social scientists and the
everyday world of participants. As interviewer and participant move back and
forth across various interview frames (e.g., the mutual relations, social science,
and topic-related frames), they reveal the seams and fissures of the local
instantiation of the wider discourse topic.
In sum, the interview is rife with cultural reference because the interlocutors
are invariably “doing” themselves and their worlds in their talk. The fine-
grained analysis of these specifically intercultural interactions among inter-
viewer-participant dyads from different cultural backgrounds almost inevitably
reveals variations in identity, belief, and practice. Crucially, however, we work
from the ground up, from whatever participants do in the interview, rather than
working from preconceived notions of what counts as cultural. Proceeding in
this fashion, we move from observed variations of various sorts toward possi-
ble patterns (Barth’s “field of variability”).
The Integration of Cross-Cultural Data and Analysis: Joint Display

as Method
How might we merge data from both these strands – the quantitative/socio-
cultural field and the qualitative interactional, intercultural interview? In the
mixed methods literature, some methodologists have suggested that joint dis-
plays of qualitative and quantitative data offer a means of clarifying the
integration, particularly at the publication or reporting stage (e.g., Fetters,
Curry, and Creswell 2013; Creswell 2015). However, I would suggest that in
cross-cultural research such joint displays are especially useful as analytic tools
through which comprehensive tables of both integrated data and between-

groups comparison generate a synoptic view of the findings. In fact, beyond
juxtaposing particular points and data summaries, such tables can be expanded
to include explicit and detailed reflection on the relations between the findings.
Table 11.1 is an example of a table that integrates qualitative and quantitative
findings in a between-groups comparative framework that makes explicit both
cross-cultural variation and the possible rationales or accounts for those
variations.
The first column of the table takes into account the fact that the discourse
topic is both shared across groups and also specific to each group. The first row
represents that portion of the discourse that is the same across groups (i.e.,
Common) and additional rows provide for group-specific discourse about the
topic (i.e., Group 1, Group 2).
The next two Methods columns are devoted to the quantitative and qualitative
findings. Table 11.1 represents a qual → quan design, and I have placed the
quantitative column first, though of course another sequence may be appropriate.
In the Quantitative column are found the findings – summaries, points, or even
individual items – from the analysis of the quantitative data (e.g., survey, check-
list, and scale). The cells in the Qualitative column contain either summaries or
quotations from the qualitative data (e.g., interviews) and some indication of the
relation of the data to the quantitative findings. In Table 11.1, I have used the
words ILLUSTRATION, EXPANSION, and CONTRADICTION and placed
them after the quotation or summary to clarify how the material relates back to
the quantitative finding in the first column.
Next are the Rationale columns. Whether the qualitative findings illustrate,
expand upon, explain, or contradict the quantitative finding, a cultural
researcher will be keen to provide some rationale for the paired qualitative
and quantitative findings. There are two rationale columns: Participants’
Accounts and Researchers’ Accounts. As noted in the section “Normatively
Motivated Descriptions – Accounts” in Chapter 3 of this book, participants
often appeal to cultural and social norms or underlying cultural logics to make
sense of their behaviors. In the Participants’ Accounts column are found
summaries or quotes (or both) of these participant accounts, and the capitalized
words EXPLICIT if the participant clearly articulated the rationale or
IMPLICIT if his or her account is indirect (as, for example, when the partici-
pant speaks ironically or when his or her laughter indicates that something said
is not true). The column entitled Researchers’ Accounts includes the research-
ers’ appeals to theory, the research literature, or historical phenomena that they
believe account for the findings. After these summaries, researchers indicate
whether they believe the variation to be probably PANCULTURAL,
IDIOSYNCRATIC, and HISTORICAL. Separating Participants’ Accounts
from Researchers’ Accounts forces us to test the empirical and theoretical
Table 11.1. Example of an Analysis Table of Cross-Cultural Integrated Data
Method Rationale
Discourse Quantitative Qualitative Participants Researchers
Common • Core model – points or • ILLUSTRATION • EXPLICIT articulations • Theory, literature, history
summaries • EXPANSION • IMPLICIT cultural logic • PANCULTURAL, IDIOSYNCRATIC,
• CONTRADICTION HISTORICAL variation
Group 1 • Group model – points or • ILLUSTRATION • EXPLICIT articulations • Theory, literature, history
Group 2 • Group model – points or • ILLUSTRATION • EXPLICIT articulations • Theory, literature, history
The Alzheimer’s Beliefs Study 227
viability of our own explanations. I might note that not all of the cells in these
columns will be filled, as it is at times entirely possible either that no material is
available in the participant data or that researchers do not have a candidate
explanation for the findings.
As an analytic practice, the preparation of such tables forces us to think
through the relations between quantitative and qualitative findings and in
particular their relative weights. For instance, on one hand, it is a reputed
strength of quantitative data that larger samples are more representative of
the underlying population than the smaller samples of qualitative methods.
However, quantitative findings are necessarily limited by the fact that partici-
pants take exclusively cognitive stances to decontextualized items. On the
other hand, it is a strength of qualitative data that participants appeal to context,
circumstance, nuance, and complexity in accounting for their beliefs and
behaviors. In such cases, the qualitative findings may therefore carry greater
weight in the cross-cultural comparison. Alternately, a qualitative comment
may appear entirely idiosyncratic in the face of a clear result from survey
findings.
There are no hard-and-fast rules for making such determinations, and much
depends on the intuitions of the analyst – presumably fine-tuned over the
processes of repeated and cyclic transcription and translation, content- and
interactional coding, refinement of spreadsheets, multiple transformations of
quantitative data for statistical analyses, and the coordination of the various
statistical procedures that are actually applied to the data. These various
repeated and recursive steps give the researcher an intimacy with the cultural
data and should hone his or her sense of what makes sense – attending, as
always, to the avoidance of our own biases.
A Worked Example of Data Integration: The Alzheimer’s Beliefs

Study
As an example of the variationist approach to cross-cultural comparison and the
use of an analytic display table, I return to the demonstration data from the
Alzheimer’s Beliefs Study. Table 11.2 represents some of the data from that
study, and I will comment on portions of that table later in the chapter.
The Common Discourse

The consensus analysis of the survey data in Chapter 8 showed that the
discourse of Alzheimer’s disease is a coherent domain or topic for the pooled
participants (all groups combined), accounting for 52 percent of the variance in
participant response. The comparison of the separate consensus analyses of
individual groups confirmed that picture. In Table 11.2, I have labeled the
Table 11.2. Sample Table of Integrated Data from the Alzheimer’s Beliefs Study
Discourse Method Rationale
Quantitative – Survey – Beliefs Qualitative – Interviews with Participants’ Accounts Researchers’ Accounts
of “Cultural Experts” “Knowledgeable Locals”
Common Alzheimer’s is a disease (1) P101: “African American culture Difference between street Within-group variation to be
that affects brain cells (2). It cannot distinguish AD, discourse (“somebody jis expected;
is not normal for old age (8) dementia, and senility” / BUT sayin”) and the discourse of Effects of context and interlocutor
and not the same as people who have experience personal experience on conversation; PROBABLY
senility (19) with the disease know more (IMPLICIT) PANCULTURAL
about it. (CONTRADICTS)
African AD is a mental Illness (11) P101: “The community at large is Laughter (contextualization cue)
Americans uh, still kinda in denial about indicates that people should
this whole Alzheimer admit that Alzheimer’s is
phenomenon . . . (laughter). No, mental (IMPLICIT)
no admission that there’s some
mental illness going on, oh my
God, no way (laughs).”
(CONTRADICTS)
Mexican How AD affects a person P 206: “Cuz’ then this is what the Reported speech locates the Concords with some medical
Americans depends on their doctor said to me unfortunately veracity of the statement in research on behavioral
personality (13) people who’ve been violent get institutional medicine symptoms of AD. POSSIBLY
more violent with this type of (EXPLICIT) PANCULTURAL
illness.” (ILLUSTRATES)
Refugees/ Alzheimer’s is not a mental P 303: in story about wife putting Appeal to literature: mental illness
Immigrants illness (11) and mental husband in hospital, narrator was stigmatized in the Soviet
from FSU activities (e.g., crossword insists that husband’s physical Union, people preferred
puzzles) cannot prevent (not memory) problems somatic explanations of
behavioral problems motivated the wife’s decision memory problems
associated with the (ILLUSTRATES) HISTORICAL ISSUE
disease (31)
Quantitative column “Survey – Beliefs of Cultural Experts” to capture the

fact that the results in these cells are not necessarily majority responses but
rather those of the smaller group of individuals with greatest levels of inter-
agreement about the list of the survey items. These are the cultural experts.
The preferred answers of cultural experts in each group (the cultural answer
keys) showed considerable overlap of Alzheimer’s discourse ranging from 63
percent for African Americans and Mexican Americans, 67 percent for
African Americans and refugees/immigrants from the former Soviet Union,
and 74 percent among refugees/immigrants from the former Soviet Union and
Mexican Americans.
As I noted in Chapter 8, the common discourse or core model of the disease
was fundamentally consistent with the medical model articulated and dissemi-
nated by community and national public health agencies and pharmaceutical
companies. There are good historical reasons for this. Alzheimer’s disease is a
relatively recently identified syndrome, and public health messages about it
plus clinical approaches to diagnosing and treating it circulated throughout the
world during the latter half of the twentieth century. Over time, several inter-
related sources of authoritative discourse have evolved, for example the bio-
medical community, advocacy groups such as the Alzheimer’s Association,
government public health programs, and pharmaceutical companies. As news
of the disease spread and it became a part of medical education, people grafted
knowledge of this new disease onto their experience of memory loss in aging,
and not surprisingly there emerged cultural differences in this appropriation.
Thus, it is not surprising that, on the one hand, the cultural experts in our
samples shared substantially the larger discourse of the disease, but, on the
other hand, they also showed some culture-specific variations around that
discourse.
In the Quantitative column of the first data row of Table 11.2, I have collected
several interrelated items from the core discourse about Alzheimer’s: that it is a
disease of the brain, different from senility and not normal for old age. To the
right (second column) in that same row, under “Qualitative – Interviews with
‘Knowledgeable Locals,’ ” I represent a summary and some phrasing from an
interview with a participant whose response simultaneously contradicts and
confirms the quantitative results. (We looked at this material in detail in
Chapter 10.) In the next column, “Participants’ Accounts,” I note that the
participant herself provides an implicit rationale for the contradiction by
drawing (actually, enacting) a distinction between street talk and more con-
sidered discourse. In the next column, “Researchers’ Rationale,” I articulate the
researcher’s (my own) view of the contradiction. I also indicate that the
participant’s distinction of informal and informed discourse is likely pancul-
tural, which is my evaluation of the kind of variation that her comments
represent.
This last point is an important one because in my presentation of variationist

cross-cultural comparison, I emphasized that not every interesting variation is
necessarily a cross-cultural one. In this case, the quantitative results show
agreement among cultural experts across groups about distinctions between
Alzheimer’s and senility, yet the African American participant articulates a
variation amounting to a contradiction, and my reflection as the researcher/
analyst is that the African American view is likely true and perhaps pancultural.
This is a case in which a variation does not rise to a cross-cultural variation, but
is important nonetheless.
As Table 11.2 is only an example of a joint display analysis table, I have
included only this one Common Discourse row that integrates quantitative and
qualitative findings. Additional rows would be necessary to capture the rest of
the survey findings that comprise the culture experts’ shared, core model of
Alzheimer’s disease shown in Figure 8.2, “Description, Risk Factors, and
Prognosis – Core Discourse,” and Figure 8.3, “Causes and Treatment: Core
Discourse,” in Chapter 8, and, of course, to pair with these the corresponding
qualitative material from the qualitative interviews.
Group-Specific Discourse
Following the row devoted to the Common Discourse in Table 11.2, I have
included three rows dedicated to the variant discourses of the three ethnic
groups. I will not comment on all of these, but rather I will draw attention to
two variations on Alzheimer’s and stigma. In the row entitled “African
Americans,” I note that in the survey, the cultural experts agreed with the
statement “Alzheimer’s is a mental illness.” (This item was also endorsed by
the Mexican American culture experts, but not by the Soviet Americans.) In the
Qualitative column, I have copied an excerpt in which the participant contra-
dicts that belief by saying that people are in denial that Alzheimer’s is a mental
illness while at the same time she confirms it via verbal irony and laughter.
Implicitly she accounts for the contradiction by appeal to a powerful strain of
stigma in the group concerning mental illness.
By contrast, the survey answer key of the cultural experts from among the
participants from the former Soviet Union affirms that Alzheimer’s disease is
not a mental illness and that mental activities are not helpful as a protective
factor against the decline associated with the disease. In Chapter 10 (see also
Schrauf and Iris 2014a, 2014b), I analyzed an excerpt from a qualitative inter-
view from the Russian-language corpus in which the participant related a story
about a wife who had her husband institutionalized because, as the wife saw it,
she could no longer handle him physically. However, the husband also suffered
increasingly serious memory loss, and the interviewer seemed to insist that the
real reason for his hospitalization was his memory loss (ultimately,
Alzheimer’s disease). The participant (the narrator of the story) resisted this
interpretation. As I suggested in that analysis, we cannot know for certain what
the reason is for this narrative struggle, and in fact neither participant nor
narrator offer either an explicit or implicit account. However, in Table 11.2,
under Researchers’ Accounts, I appeal to the research literature and the role of
psychiatry in the Soviet Union to suggest that people preferred somatic versus
mental explanations of memory problems because mental problems were
highly stigmatized.
In sum, by carefully placing side by side the quantitative and qualitative data
and findings, and integrating them within a variationist framework, we seek to
describe as carefully and accurately as possible the kinds of variations that we
observe in common and group-specific discourse. As is obvious, such an
analysis complexifies and nuances the findings of the quantitative analysis,
yet without the quantitative findings we would have no means of weighing the
import of the qualitative findings. Further, I have suggested that we attempt as
far as possible to distinguish kinds of variations (I have suggested pancultural,
idiosyncratic, historical, and cross-cultural variations) and to root our inter-
pretations in either participants’ accounts or our own appeals to theory, the
research literature, or historical data.
One of the results of this detailed tabular analysis is that new insights and
questions emerge about the larger discourse and between-groups comparisons
within it. As an example of this latter, consider the different perspectives on the
role of stigma and Alzheimer’s disease. In the African American data, stigma is
evoked to explain why “the community at large” will not recognize that
Alzheimer’s is a mental illness (the belief of the cultural experts), and in the
Soviet American sample, stigma is evoked to account for the belief that
Alzheimer’s is not a mental illness (but rather a physiological condition). Of
course, we can appeal to another, more authoritative discourse – the biomedical
discourse – to shed more light on this issue, but at the level of local, cultural
discourse we have discovered an intriguing variation on that very discourse.
Some caveats are in order. The above analysis is only a demonstration, and
the full joint display table would be much larger. Not surprisingly, I have
strategically selected material from both the quantitative and qualitative data
sets to make my points (though they are linked to previous analyses both in this
book and those published elsewhere). In addition, any cross-cultural research
project will generate other kinds of classifications. For instance, my list of
variations as pancultural, idiosyncratic, historical, and cross-cultural fits my
needs, but other projects will demand other classifications. Finally, there are
language issues, particularly natural language issues. The table as I have
presented it shows the quantitative items and qualitative excerpts in English,
but I have done that for the sake of brevity and clarity. In actual practice,
however, such tables are meant for analytic purposes, and their messiness and
size pose no obstacle. Thus, insofar as space permits, the cells could contain
(selectively, of course) interlinear translations of survey items and interview
material. After all, issues of translation generate insights and conundrums of
their own (see Chapters 5 and 6), and these too trigger deeper reflection on
deriving the meaning of between-group variations.
Issues Specific to Presenting Mixed Methods Cross-Cultural

Results: Language Again
The primary focus of this book has been on the design, framing, and analysis
of cross-cultural research, but in these final paragraphs I turn to issues of
presenting and publishing cross-cultural research. Mixed methods studies
almost necessarily portend longer manuscripts than monomethod studies
for the very practical reason that the core components of a scholarly or
scientific article are doubled (i.e. the methods sections and the results sec-
tions). One option is to publish in specifically mixed methods journals.
Creswell (2015) lists several of these, including the Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, the International Journal of Multiple Research
Approaches, Field Methods, and Quality and Quantity. Further, as mixed
methods become more common, more major social science journals will
develop space for them and elaborate specific criteria for their acceptance
and review (as has happened with qualitative research).
There are other options as well. Creswell (2015) and Stange, Crabtree, and
Miller (2006) note some of the following. First, authors can publish the
qualitative and quantitative results separately but provide cross-references
between them. Secondly, the qualitative and quantitative results could be
published separately, with a third publication focusing on the integrated pre-
sentation of methods and/or results. This latter option has been our approach
with the Alzheimer’s Beliefs Study. We published papers on the quan→qual
development and administration of the survey first (Schrauf and Iris 2011a,
2011b), followed by findings from the qualitative, interactional analyses later
(Schrauf and Iris 2014a, 2014b), and this book has involved an extended
discussion of the integration of these data and analyses. A third option is to
publish the integrated findings in a journal that includes links to an online
website where additional materials are stored.
The presentation of cross-cultural findings follow the familiar formats in
other areas of mixed methods publication (Creswell and Plano Clark 2010;
Sandelowski 2003). The methods may be presented in separate sections or
combined into one section, but the qualitative and quantitative results are
almost necessarily split out into separate sections. If a researcher uses joint
display tables for the analysis of cross-cultural data, the strategic and selective
Issues Specific to Presenting Mixed Methods Cross-Cultural Results 233
summary of portions of such tables offer a powerful means of presenting the

integrated data in presentations or publications.
One of the specific challenges in presenting cross-cultural research con-
cerns whether and how to represent the languages of the study. Because cross-
cultural research is almost always also cross-linguistic, I believe that report-
ing one’s results should include reporting decisions made about translation,
which implies providing some original language items or excerpts in pub-
lished reports. In spirit, this is akin to a quantitative researcher giving the
reader information about the assumptions and results of statistical tests or a
qualitative researcher providing verbatim excerpts from interview data. In
effect, the author allows the reader to judge whether the process is veridical
and the data support the conclusions. Not every reader will know the lan-
guages involved in the research, but some will, and providing original
language excerpts grounds the publication in the linguistic reality of the
people studied.
For these reasons, I offer two practical suggestions for including language
data in cross-cultural mixed methods studies. First, I argue that quantitative
results must include at least the original language versions of key survey
questions or items. Second, I suggest that at least some, strategically selected,
excerpts from qualitative data should include the original language versions of
what people said. There is little guidance in the literature on how to do this, and
I offer several examples of how qualitative researchers might represent
excerpts in original language-plus-translated form.
Quantitative Practice: Publishing Survey Questions or Items

in the Original Language(s)
Although journal and book publishers have word-limit constraints, it would
be ideal for investigators to publish (perhaps in online appendices or supple-
mentary materials) the original language and translated versions of the sur-
veys or other instruments that they used in their studies. At the minimum, I
believe that it is a scientific responsibility for authors to include in their
publications the original language text (or ideally a table) of those critical
items on which groups differed, or at least those items that comprise the key
finding of the study. This simple practice would show what the participants
saw and responded to, and it would raise awareness about possible culture-
specific meanings of translated concepts. In current practice, this is not done,
and readers must take it on faith that meaning-for-meaning translation was
successful and that any participant variation in understanding ultimately
washed out across the sample (and would therefore wash out in any other
sample). By presenting original-language versions of key texts, researchers
allow other researchers to judge for themselves, and this practice enhances
comparability across studies as well as the rigor of our scholarship and
science.
Qualitative Practices: The Representation of Translated Excerpts in

Published Results
Qualitative and mixed methods researchers usually include excerpts from
interview data in their published reports. Often these are provided only in
English, but for cross-cultural studies readers should have access to the original
language data. That is, transcribed excerpts are more informative if they
include both source and target language, as well as information about grammar
or interactional details. Except for Nikander (2008), there is relatively little
guidance in the literature on these forms of transcripts, and hence some
discussion is necessary. The three most common ways to present translations
for publication are (1) in successive blocks (first one language, and then the
other), (2) in parallel columns, and (3) in successive lines (interlinear). The
choice of style is driven by what the author wishes to highlight in his or her
analysis. Below I use the same data to demonstrate each form. The data come
from an interview in Spanish with an individual who is relating a story about his
father who has Alzheimer’s disease. The father, mother, and son (narrator) are
in a store, and the father has borrowed a salesman’s pen. He refuses to give it
back, and the mother insists that the pen belongs to the salesman (see Schrauf
and Iris 2014a).
Successive blocks. Presentation in successive blocks has the advantage of
foregrounding the linguistic coherence and cohesiveness of the original swath
of talk in the source language, which is followed by a reader-friendly transla-
tion in the language of the publication.
Excerpt 11.1 Successive Blocks

48 dice sí es del señor
49 (heightened voice) No no no no
50 tú qué vas a saber?
51 Dice esta pluma es mía yo la traigo aquí
48 She says “It belongs to this man”
49 (heightened voice) “No, no, no, no
50 What do you know?”
51 He says “This is my pen. I brought it here.”
In Excerpt 11.1, I have highlighted the translation by italicizing it.

Parallel columns. The same advantage is true for organizing the text in
parallel columns (for more examples, see Schrauf 1997), and given the
custom of reading left to right in Western languages, the parallel format
Issues Specific to Presenting Mixed Methods Cross-Cultural Results 235
facilitates comparison of the original with the translation (see Excerpt

11.2). The same would apply to traditions in which reading is from right
to left, but not to traditions in which reading is columnar and top to
bottom.
Excerpt 11.2 Parallel Columns

48 dice sí es del She (mother) says “It belongs to
señor this man”
49 (heightened voice) (father in heightened voice) “No,
No no no no no, no, no
50 tú qué vas a saber? What do you know?”
51 Dice esta pluma es mía He (father) says “This is my pen.
52 yo la traigo aquí I brought it here.”
Interlinear text. Finally, interlinear text (or interlinear gloss) is common among
linguists for representing a variety of linguistic information in successive lines
of text (Comrie, Haspelmath, and Bickel 2008; Lehmann 1982). How many
lines and what information is represented in each line depends on the purposes
of the analyst or researcher. Minimally, interlinear text includes the source
language on one line and its translation in the next line (see Excerpt 11.3).
Excerpt 11.3 Interlinear Text (Source and Target Renderings)

48 ↓dice sí es del señor
She (mother) says “It belongs to this man”
49 (heightened voice) >No no no no<
(father in heightened voice) “No, no, no, no
50 tú qué vas a ↑saber?
What do you know?”
51 ↓Dice ↑esta pluma es ↑mía yo la traigo ↓aquí
He (father) says “This is my pen. I brought it here.”
52 ↓Dice también esto me vas a robar?
He (father) says “You’re going to steal thisfrom me too?”
In the published form of this interview (Schrauf and Iris 2014a), we transcribed
each line, as shown above, with the source language first, marked for interac-
tional detail, followed by a free translation in the next line. Our goal in presenting
this excerpt was to give the reader as much access as possible to the original
data, albeit in transcribed form. In particular, we transcribed prosodic informa-
tion (e.g., rises ↑ or drops ↓ in pitch) and momentary increases in speed (><), as
well as some other interactional markings. We also engaged in some interpreta-
tion of the data in the transcription. For instance, we interpreted the prosodic
information (raises in pitch) via glosses in parentheses (i.e., heightened voice
in line 49), and we assigned the prosodic markings to the translated lines as
well, to give the non–Spanish-speaking reader a sense for how the translation
would have sounded. Obviously, there are many more details that we could
have transcribed, but because the purpose of the article was to reach a wide
audience, we displayed only those features that were pertinent.
If our purpose were to focus on more of the linguistic nuances, we could have
placed additional morphosyntactic information in lines between the source
language and target language, as in Excerpt 11.4. In fact, the greater the
syntactic difference between the target language and the source language, the
more useful the morphosyntactic interlinear glosses become (Nikander 2008).
Usually the representation of such detail becomes important for the cross-
cultural researcher when the cultural meaning of a concept is especially salient
at the morphologic or syntactic level (see Pavlenko 1999).
Excerpt 11.4 Source, Target, and Morphosyntactic Renderings

50 tú qué vas a ↑saber?
you (2-FAM) what going (2-FAM) to know
What do you know?
51 ↓Dice ↑esta pluma es ↑mía yo la traigo ↓aquí
(Ø)says this pen is mine I (SUBJ) it bring here
He says “This pen is mine. I brought it here.”
52 ↓Dice también esto me vas a robar?
(Ø)says also this from me going (2-FAM) to steal
He says “You’re going to steal this from me too?”
Again, this transcription is strategic in that I annotated only certain mor-

phosyntactic information but not all of it (otherwise the transcription would
be annoyingly complex). For example, because I only wish to draw infer-
ences from the pronouns and related verb forms, I only annotated those
forms. The abbreviations for morphological glosses are from the Framework
for Descriptive Grammars Project (Comrie et al. 2008) and Lehmann
(2004). In particular, 2-FAM indicates the informal or familiar form of the
second-person pronoun or verb, as in lines 50 and 52, and, in line 51, the Ø
indicates the dropped pronoun before the verb. I provide this example for
illustrative purposes only, since these instances of pronominal emphasis can
be pointed out in textual explanation after the excerpt. Nevertheless, where
the morphosyntactic information is more densely embedded, this kind of
formatting may be necessary to demonstrate the expression of a cultural
concept. The important thing is to balance the inclusion of critical informa-
tion with readability.
Experimentation with these various styles of presentation helps decide
which details of the interaction are made salient for any given project. And,
in the end, which of these methods is appropriate in any given publication
Future Directions 237
depends on the points to be made, the readership of the journal, and the editors’
allowance for special printing requirements.
Future Directions for Mixed Methods Cross-Cultural Research

Cross-cultural research poses unique challenges in the mixed methods arena,
and it will come as no surprise that I believe these have principally to do with
language and discourse. As I have argued throughout this book, language is not
simply a medium of exchange, and talk is not simply a report about the world.
Rather, language (more precisely, linguistic interaction) is an enactment of
social life, and moving from one language to another, as we must do in cross-
cultural research, requires careful attention to the original moments of interac-
tion and all those subsequent transformations, until we arrive at moments of
analytic integration and cultural insight. Thus, knowledge of natural languages
and the ability to do fine-grained analysis of social interaction are indispensable
in cultural research, but few researchers (if any) can confidently claim to have
that knowledge or those skills for every language in which he or she must work.
The conduct of a cross-cultural project, then, depends critically on the
language skills of the research team, both competencies in the languages of
data collection and analysis, but also knowledge of discourse and conversation
analytic methods. This is a tall order. However, the notion that mixed methods
require a range of expertise is no surprise, and almost any project, even the
smallest, will regularly include consultation from a variety of disciplines. We
mix methods and we mix disciplines – those congeries of skills, habits of
thought, histories of investigation, research traditions, and practices – that
have shaped our respective views of the world. My simple recipe for the future
of mixed methods cross-cultural research is an intelligently theorized and
carefully operationalized mixing. Ultimately, linguistics and linguists are a
part of that mix.

RobertWSchrauf 2016 11MixedMethodsCrossCu MixedMethodsInterview

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

RobertWSchrauf 2016 11MixedMethodsCrossCu MixedMethodsInterview

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RobertWSchrauf 2016 11MixedMethodsCrossCu MixedMethodsInterview

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 Mixed Methods Cross-Cultural Comparison

and between-groups comparisons of transcribed data in the qualitative strand.

Group 1 quan → QUAL Between-Group

Figure 11.1 Example of a Basic Cross-Cultural Design

How Are Qualitative and Quantitative Data Integrated in a

show that the discourse-centered framework for integrating data captures

Theory: Two Levels of Discourse

indexical reference, reported speech, narrative or storytelling, and a host of

Method: Two Levels of Analysis

Philosophy: Multiple Levels of Ontology and Epistemology

How Are Cross-Cultural Comparisons Made with Integrated

A Variationist Perspective on Cross-Cultural Comparison

Theorizing about the application of his method to cultural comparison, Barth

Method-Speciﬁc Cross-Cultural Variation

Societal-Level Discourse and the Cross-Cultural Survey

Interactional-Level Discourse and the Intercultural Interview

The Integration of Cross-Cultural Data and Analysis: Joint Display

through which comprehensive tables of both integrated data and between-

Discourse Quantitative Qualitative Participants Researchers

A Worked Example of Data Integration: The Alzheimer’s Beliefs

The Common Discourse

Discourse Method Rationale

Quantitative column “Survey – Beliefs of Cultural Experts” to capture the

This last point is an important one because in my presentation of variationist

Issues Speciﬁc to Presenting Mixed Methods Cross-Cultural

summary of portions of such tables offer a powerful means of presenting the

Quantitative Practice: Publishing Survey Questions or Items

Qualitative Practices: The Representation of Translated Excerpts in

Excerpt 11.1 Successive Blocks

In Excerpt 11.1, I have highlighted the translation by italicizing it.

facilitates comparison of the original with the translation (see Excerpt

Excerpt 11.2 Parallel Columns

Excerpt 11.3 Interlinear Text (Source and Target Renderings)

Excerpt 11.4 Source, Target, and Morphosyntactic Renderings

Again, this transcription is strategic in that I annotated only certain mor-

Future Directions for Mixed Methods Cross-Cultural Research

You might also like