Skip to main content
Login
  1. Home
  2. The Field Guide to Mixing Social and Biophysical Methods in Environmental Research
  3. 4. Mixed methods in tension: lessons for and from the research process
Open Book Publishers

Mixed methods in tension: lessons for and from the research process

  • Christine Biermann(author)
  • Cerian Gibbes(author)
Chapter of: The Field Guide to Mixing Social and Biophysical Methods in Environmental Research(pp. 39–58)
  • Export Metadata
  • Metadata
  • Locations
  • Contributors
  • References

Export Metadata

Metadata
Title Mixed methods in tension
Subtitlelessons for and from the research process
ContributorChristine Biermann(author)
Cerian Gibbes(author)
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0418.04
Landing pagehttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0418/chapters/10.11647/obp.0418.04
Licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
CopyrightChristine Biermann; Cerian Gibbes;
PublisherOpen Book Publishers
Published on2025-02-25
Long abstract

Mixing methods helps environmental researchers to engage with the complexity present in the interconnected biophysical and social world. At the same time, tensions often arise as biophysical and social methods (and the results they yield) are put into conversation with one another. This chapter explores the productive tensions that researchers engage with when pursuing mixed methods environmental research. These include tensions around resolution and scale of analysis, epistemologies, values embedded in particular methods, and more. We argue that mixed methods approaches are valuable not in spite of the tensions they engender, but indeed because of these tensions, as they require a more reflexive research practice and in turn allow for a richer understanding of the world.

Page rangepp. 39–58
Print length20 pages
LanguageEnglish (Original)
Locations
Landing PageFull text URLPlatform
PDFhttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0418/chapters/10.11647/obp.0418.04Landing pagehttps://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0418.04.pdfFull text URL
HTMLhttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0418/chapters/10.11647/obp.0418.04Landing pagehttps://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0418/ch4.xhtmlFull text URLPublisher Website
Contributors

Christine Biermann

(author)
Associate Professor of Geography and Environmental Studies at University of Colorado, Colorado Springs
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0821-755X

Cerian Gibbes

(author)
Professor of Geography and Environmental Studies at University of Colorado, Colorado Springs
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2388-0077
References
  1. Abu, R., M.G. Reed, and T.D. Jardine. 2019. ‘Using two-eyed seeing to bridge Western science and Indigenous knowledge systems and understand long-term change in the Saskatchewan River Delta, Canada’, International Journal of Water Resources Development, 36.2, pp. 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2018.1558050
  2. Bartlett, C., M. Marshall, and A. Marshall. 2012. ‘Two-eyed seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing’, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2.4, pp. 331–340, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0086-8
  3. Biermann, C. 2018. ‘Shifting climate sensitivities, shifting paradigms: Tree-ring science in a dynamic world’, in The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Physical Geography, ed. by R. Lave, C. Biermann, and S.N. Lane (Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 201–225, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71461-5_10
  4. Biermann, C., L.C. Kelley, and R. Lave. 2020. ‘Putting the Anthropocene into practice: Methodological implications’, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 111.3, pp. 808–818, https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1835456
  5. Blaikie, P. 2016. The Political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries (Routledge).
  6. Braun, A., Chapter 39, this volume. ‘(Critical) Satellite remote sensing’.
  7. Broadhead, L.A. and S. Howard. 2021. ‘Confronting the contradictions between Western and Indigenous science: a critical perspective on Two-Eyed Seeing’, AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 17.1, pp. 111–119, https://doi.org/10.1177/1177180121996326
  8. Bruno, T. 2022. ‘Ecological memory in the biophysical afterlife of slavery’, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 113, pp. 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2022.2107985
  9. Chakov, A., Chang, T., Covey, H., Dickson, T., Goggins, S., Harris, N., Purna, S., Widell, S., and Druschke, C.G., Chapter 33, this volume. ‘Oral history’.
  10. Cheong, S.M., D.G. Brown, K. Kok, and D. Lopez-Carr. 2012. ‘Mixed methods in land change research: towards integration’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37.1, pp. 8–12, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2011.00482.x
  11. Colucci, A.R., J.A. Tyner, M. Munro‐Stasiuk, S. Rice, S. Kimsroy, C. Chhay, and C. Coakley. 2021. ‘Critical physical geography and the study of genocide: lessons from cambodia’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 46.3, pp. 780–793, https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12451
  12. Cope, M. and S. Elwood. 2009. Qualitative GIS: A Mixed Methods Approach (Sage Publications), https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412991476
  13. Davis, D.K. 2018. ‘Between sand and sea: constructing Mediterranean plant ecology’, in The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Physical Geography, ed. by R. Lave, C. Biermann, and S.N. Lane (Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 129–151, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71461-5_7
  14. Denzin, N. 1989. The Research Act, 3rd ed. (Prentice Hall), https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315134543
  15. Ellingson, L.L. 2009. Engaging Crystallization in Qualitative Research: An Introduction (Sage Publications), https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412991476
  16. Elwood, S. (2010). ‘Mixed methods: thinking, doing, and asking in multiple ways’, in The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Geography, ed. by D. DeLyser, S. Herbert, S. Aitken, M. Crang, and L. McDowell (Sage Publications), pp. 94–113, https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857021090.n7
  17. Forbes, A., S. Ritchie, J. Walker, and N. Young. 2020. ‘Applications of Two-Eyed seeing in primary research focused on Indigenous health: a scoping review’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, https://www.doi.org/10.1177/1609406920929110
  18. Freeman, C. 2020. ‘Multiple methods beyond triangulation: collage as a methodological framework in geography’, Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 102.4, pp. 328–340, https://doi.org/10.1080/04353684.2020.1807383
  19. Fuller, D. 2008. ‘Public geographies: Taking stock’, Progress in Human Geography, 32.6, pp. 834–44, https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132507086884
  20. Gibbes, C., L. Cassidy, J. Hartter, and J. Southworth. 2013. ‘The monitoring of land-cover change and management across gradient landscapes in Africa’, in Human-Environment Interactions, ed. by E. Brondízio and E. Moran (Springer), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4780-7_8
  21. Gibbes, C., J. Southworth, P. Waylen, and B. Child. 2014. ‘Climate variability as a dominant driver of post-disturbance savanna dynamics’, Applied Geography, 53, pp. 389–401, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.06.024
  22. Gibbes, C., and E. Skop. 2022. ‘Disruption, discovery, and field courses: a case study of student engagement during a global pandemic’, The Professional Geographer, 74.1, pp. 31–40, https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2021.1970593
  23. Greer, K., A. Csank, K. Calvert, M. Maddison‐MacFadyen, A. Smith, K. Monk, and S. Morrison. 2023. ‘Understanding the historic legacies of empire from the timbers left behind: Towards critical dendroprovenancing in the British North Atlantic’, The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 67, pp. 124–138, https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12831
  24. Haraway, D. 1988. ‘Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective’, Feminist Studies, 14.3, pp. 575–599, https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
  25. Kasvi, E., Chapter 45, this volume. ‘Uncrewed Airborne Systems’.
  26. King, L. and M. Tadaki. 2018. ‘A framework for understanding the politics of science (Core Tenet# 2)’, in The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Physical Geography, ed. by R. Lave, C. Biermann, and S.N. Lane (Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 67–88, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71461-5_4
  27. Klenk, N., A. Fiume, K. Meehan, and C. Gibbes. 2017. ‘Local knowledge in climate adaptation research: moving knowledge frameworks from extraction to co‐production’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 8.5, pp. 475, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.475
  28. Kutz, S. and M. Tomaselli. 2019. ‘“Two-eyed seeing” supports wildlife health’, Science, 364.6446, pp. 1135–1137, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau6170
  29. Lane, S.N. 2017. ‘Slow science, the geographical expedition, and critical physical geography’, The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 61.1, pp. 84–101, https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12329
  30. Lane, S.N. and Lave, R., Chapter 3, this volume. ‘Frames, disciplines, and mixing methods in environmental research’.
  31. Lave, R., M. Doyle, M. Robertson, and J. Singh. 2018. ‘Commodifying streams: a critical physical geography approach to stream mitigation banking in the USA’, in The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Physical Geography, ed. by R. Lave, C. Biermann, and S.N. Lane (Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 443–463, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71461-5_21
  32. Leach, M. and J. Fairhead. 2000. ‘Challenging neo‐Malthusian deforestation analyses in West Africa’s dynamic forest landscapes’, Population and Development Review, 26.1, pp. 17–43, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2000.00017.x
  33. Longhurst, R. and Johnston, L., Chapter 27, this volume. ‘Focus groups’.
  34. Johnston and Longhurst, Chapter 32, this volume. ‘Interviews: Structured, semi-structured and open-ended’.
  35. Luthra, A., K. Cunningham, A.M. Fraser, A. Pandey, S. Rana, and V. Singh. 2022. ‘Ecological livelihoods of farmers and pollinators in the Himalayas: Doing critical physical geography using citizen science’, The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 67, pp. 35–51, https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12799
  36. Magliocca, N.R., E.C. Ellis, G.R Allington, A. de Bremond, J. Dell’Angelo, O. Mertz, and P.H. Verburg. 2018. ‘Closing global knowledge gaps: producing generalized knowledge from case studies of social-ecological systems’, Global Environmental Change, 50, pp. 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.03.003
  37. Malone, M. and N. McClintock. 2022. ‘A critical physical geography of no‐till agriculture: Linking degraded environmental quality to conservation policies in an Oregon watershed’, The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 67, pp. 74–91, https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12789
  38. Margulies, J.D., N.R. Magliocca, M.D. Schmill, and E.C. Ellis. 2016. ‘Ambiguous geographies: connecting case study knowledge with global change science’, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 106.3, pp. 572–596, https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1142857
  39. Martin, V. 2020. ‘Four common problems in environmental social research undertaken by natural scientists’, Bioscience, 70.1, pp. 13–16, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz128
  40. Nightingale, A. 2003. ‘A feminist in the forest: situated knowledges and mixing methods in natural resource management’, ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 2.1, pp. 77–90, https://doi.org/10.14288/acme.v2i1.709
  41. Nightingale, A.J. 2009. ‘Methods: Triangulation’, in International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, ed. by R. Kitchen and N. Thrift (Elsevier), pp. 489–492, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10437-8
  42. Nightingale, A.J. 2016. ‘Adaptive scholarship and situated knowledges? Hybrid methodologies and plural epistemologies in climate change adaptation research’, Area, 48.1, pp. 41–47, https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12195
  43. Porter, T.M. 1995. Trust in Numbers (Princeton University Press), https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400821617
  44. Rayne, A., G. Byrnes, L. Collier-Robinson, J. Hollows, A. McIntosh, M. Ramsden, M. Rupene, P. Tamati-Elliffe, C. Thoms, and T.E. Steeves. 2020. ‘Reimagining conservation translocations through two-eyed seeing’, People and Nature, 2.3, pp. 512–526, https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10126
  45. Reid, A.J., L.E. Eckert, J.F. Lane, N. Young, S.G. Hinch, C.T. Darimont, S.J. Cooke, N.C. Ban, and A. Marshall. 2021. ‘“Two‐Eyed Seeing”: An Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management’, Fish and Fisheries, 22.2, pp. 243–261, https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12516
  46. Rozendaal, D.M.A. and P.A. Zuidema. 2010. ‘Dendroecology in the tropics: A review’, Trees, 25, pp. 3–16, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-010-0480-3
  47. Sayre, N. F., Chapter 34, this volume. ‘Participant observation and ethnography’.
  48. Southworth, J., L. Rigg, C. Gibbes, P. Waylen, L. Zhu, S. McCarragher, and L. Cassidy. 2013. ‘Integrating dendrochronology, climate and satellite remote sensing to better understand savanna landscape dynamics in the Okavango Delta, Botswana’, Land, 2.4, pp. 637–655, https://doi.org/10.3390/land2040637
  49. Tian, Q., D.G. Brown, L. Zheng, S. Qi, Y. Liu, and L. Jiang. 2015. ‘The role of cross-scale social and environmental contexts in household-level land-use decisions, Poyang Lake Region, China’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105.6, pp. 1240–1259, https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2015.1060921
  50. Walker, X.J., B.M. Rogers, J.L. Baltzer, S.G. Cumming, N.J. Day, S.J. Goetz, J.F. Johnstone, E. Schurr, M.R. Turetsky, and M.C. Mack. 2018. ‘Cross‐scale controls on carbon emissions from boreal forest megafires’, Global Change Biology, 24.9, pp. 4251–4265, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14287
  51. Wilson, M.W. 2017. New Lines: Critical GIS and the Trouble of the Map (University of Minnesota Press), https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt1pwt6q4
  52. Zhao, B. 2022. ‘Humanistic GIS: Toward a research agenda’, Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 112.6, pp. 1576–1592, https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2021.2004875

Export Metadata

UK registered social enterprise and Community Interest Company (CIC).

Company registration 14549556

Metadata

  • By book
  • By publisher
  • GraphQL API
  • Export API

Resources

  • Downloads
  • Videos
  • Merch
  • Presentations
  • Service status

Contact

  • Email
  • Bluesky
  • Mastodon
  • Github

Copyright © 2026 Thoth Open Metadata. Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.