Chapter 5 shows how the methods introduced in the preceding chapters can be used to gain novel substantive and theoretical insights. We show how RIO can be used to identify multiple storylines implied by a single regression model by examining cases (or sets of cases) that contribute to the regression model in otherwise unseen ways. We illustrate RIO’s substantive benefits through empirical analyses of (1) the effects of regional integration on inequality, (2) the social determinants of health, and (3) the correlates of dog ownership.

Chapter 8 demonstrates how RIO allows analysts to incorporate the case-oriented logic of configurational comparative analysis into a regression framework. We contrast regression with qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), discuss key benefits of QCA, and outline a comparative configurational approach to regression. We illustrate how RIO can be used to realize some of the benefits of configurational comparative analysis through (1) a macro-comparative analysis of education-based inequality in political participation and (2) an analysis of the correlates of poverty using nationally representative data from the United States.

Chapter 4 explores methods for turning model variance inside out. We discuss the logic and limitations of decomposing variance to the level of cases and introduce two distinct approaches to obtaining case-level contributions to the model variance: the squared residuals approach and the leave-one-out approach.

This chapter introduces multi-resolution research, namely, a way of analyzing qualitative data both qualitatively and quantitatively. Qualitative analysis zooms in to provide in-depth contextual insight and quantitative analysis zooms out to provide measures, associations, and statistical models. The underlying qualitative data are transformed between three types (excerpts, counts, measures), with each having unique gains and losses. Transforming the data back and forth between these data types – recursively quantitizing and qualitizing the data – can spur abductive insight and increase the legitimacy of social research.

This chapter starts by framing the larger debate concerning universalism versus contextualism in ethics, largely mirroring the one between positivism and relativism in science. It proposes that pragmatism transcends this dichotomy by considering the role of general (and particular) ethical norms and values in context and by focusing on moral deliberation. The pragmatist approach to ethics is described before discussing the ways in which ethical concerns and forms of reasoning accompany every phase of a research project. The practice of using deception, which is both widespread and controversial in social and psychological research, is reflected upon. Finally, the chapter ends with considerations regarding mixed methods, multi-resolution designs, and their ethical commitments.

Theories have been viewed as mirrors of nature and fictions tainted by human subjectivity. This chapter contends that theories are tools that enable humans to act and coordinate. It argues that theories are like maps that can get us from A to B and like models that allow us to simulate interventions in the world. It illustrates how these different conceptions of theory have implications for research in the domain of creativity research. Overall, this chapter shows how a pragmatist approach to methodology sensitizes researchers to anomalies, and data can be used to drive theory toward increasingly useful forms.

This chapter deals with the issue of epistemology or the oftentimes implicit theories of knowledge that guide research and methodological choices. The chapter starts with a brief discussion of what it means to live in a society in which the factual basis of truth can be easily questioned – the post-truth climate. It then outlines several popular conceptions and misconceptions about epistemology and maps out some of the main epistemological positions that inspired if not research then certainly philosophical debate. The second part of the chapter argues for pragmatism as an epistemology that can help us deal with the complexities of doing empirical research in a post-truth context by transcending the old realist–relativist divide and fostering methodological pluralism.

This chapter addresses the key question that should guide all social research, namely, what is it for? It argues that all research serves human interests, whether technocratic, hermeneutic, or emancipatory. Traditionally, technocratic research interests have been dominant. But, this chapter argues, a pragmatist approach to methodology foregrounds emancipatory research – which enables people to increase the domains of possibility within their lives.

This chapter is structured in four parts. First, the chapter reviews current approaches to the integration challenge and makes the case for a pragmatist approach. Second, it uses pragmatism to differentiate qualitative and quantitative research purposes and show how these purposes can be integrated to produce a more granular conceptualization of the synergies within simultaneous, sequential, and recursive designs. Third, it considers the question of creativity in mixed methods designs as a consequence of adopting a pragmatist standpoint. The chapter ends with a set of implications for mixed methods research and a call for new and creative methodologies in this area.

This chapter begins by differentiating qualitative and quantitative research. While some have argued that these approaches are incommensurable paradigms, this chapter argues that they are commensurable but suited to answering different research questions. It introduces a typology of research questions, with six types of question – three qualitative (describing phenomena, theoretical framing, and generating explanations) and three quantitative (measuring phenomena, testing theory, and exploring explanations). The chapter ends by reviewing heuristics to help researchers generate novel and productive research questions.