1

Forthcoming in Sage Research Methods Cases*

Not All Secondary Data is Quantitative: Using Abductive Analysis with

Edin and England's Interviews with Fragile Families1

Jessica L. Collett

University of Notre Dame

Abstract: Secondary data analysis is a popular method in social sciences, as it is often less labor-

intensive and less expensive than collecting and analyzing one’s own primary data. However,

because secondary data analysis is generally associated with quantitative survey data, many

assume that the use of secondary data precludes an in-depth, inductive research approach. In this

methods case, I demonstrate both the existence and the utility of qualitative data sets available for

use by others by introducing Paula England and Kathryn Edin’s Time, Love, and Cash in Couples with

Children (TLC3) project and discussing how I located and accessed this data, along with the

abductive process my collaborators and I used to analyze it and the sociological insights we

discovered with the method.

* This is an early version of a manuscript that will appear in Sage Research Methods Cases. These peer-reviewed cases are intended to be accessible introductions to various research methods in social science for undergraduate and graduate students. They also include teaching tools, available at the end of this document. 1 Acknowledgements: I am grateful to ICPSR and the PIs of the TLC3 Project (Paula England and Kathryn Edin) for this data and to Olevia Boykin, Kelcie Vercel, and Jade Avelis for their research assistance on the projects detailed here. Funding: Research reported in this publication was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers R01HD36916, R01HD39135, and R01HD40421, as well as a consortium of private foundations. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Health. Direct correspondence to: Jessica L. Collett, Department of Sociology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, email: jlcollett@nd.edu.

2

Not All Secondary Data is Quantitative: Using Abductive Analysis with

Edin and England's Interviews with Fragile Families

Jessica L. Collett

University of Notre Dame

Project Overview

Secondary data analysis – a method where researchers use data collected by another research team

or organization – is a popular method in social sciences, particularly among political scientists and

sociologists. Using secondary data is often less labor-intensive and less expensive than collecting

and analyzing one’s own primary data. However, because secondary data analysis is generally

associated with quantitative survey data like that collected by the U. S. Census or General Social

Survey (GSS), many assume that the use of secondary data precludes an in-depth, inductive

research approach. In this methods case, I demonstrate both the existence and the utility of

qualitative data sets available for use by others by introducing Paula England and Kathryn Edin’s

Time, Love, and Cash in Couples with Children (TLC3) project and discussing how I located and

accessed this data, along with the abductive process (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012) I used to

analyze it and the sociological insights I discovered with the method.

There are a variety of reasons social scientists may choose to use secondary data. My interest was

purely practical. In graduate school, I spent much of my time working with an experimental social

psychologist who studied group processes in the laboratory. In this research, we had

undergraduate students interact over a computer network to exchange points redeemable for

money so that we could explore how different exchange processes affected the distribution of

points and affective and cognitive outcomes, like positive emotions and perceptions of fairness (e.g.,

Molm, Collett & Schaefer, 2006; Molm, Schaefer & Collett, 2007, 2009). I found the work fascinating

and had a deep appreciation for the theoretical insights of the laboratory, but I was very curious

about how the processes we were investigating there might play out in the world outside the

laboratory (Collett, 2010). As a recently hired faculty member, I was not at a place in my career

where it made sense for me to collect new data, so I was always on the lookout for secondary data

that might help me study social exchange outside the laboratory.

Locating Secondary Data

Although the ICPSR (Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research) has a searchable

data archive, I did not use it to find my data. Instead, I paid close attention to the data sources

researchers referenced in publications and presentations that interested me. I ultimately

discovered the TLC3 during a presentation at the American Sociological Association’s (ASA) 2008

Annual Meeting. As I listened to the researchers describing their data and realized that it included

conversations with couples on topics of interest to social exchange – including how men and

women split household chores and bills – and learned it would now be available to researchers who

were not involved in its collection, I made a note to try to learn more about the data after the

conference. I was excited there might be secondary data related to my interests and the thought of a

rich, qualitative data source on families was appealing.

3

With a simple web search, I found an overview of the data on the ICPSR website

(https://www.icpsr.umich.edu):

Time, Love, and Cash in Couples with Children (TLC3) consists of four waves of interviews with

parents (married and nonmarried) who experienced a birth in the year 2000. Both mothers

and fathers participated in semi-structured in-depth interviews individually and as a couple in

each of the four waves. Interviewers were encouraged to probe and to be flexible with the

order of the questions to foster a more conversational interaction. During the TLC3 interviews

respondents were asked their views on parenthood, child-rearing responsibilities and

expenditures, family structure and relationships, the amount of time spent with their child,

their domestic responsibilities, and household income and expenditures. Questions also focused

on the relationship between the parents. Respondents were asked how much time they spend

together, what their thoughts were on the future of their relationship, and their general views

on marriage, parenthood, and gender roles (ICPSR, 2008).

Alongside this overview, there was an introduction to the research project written by one of the

Primary Investigators (PI) – Paula England – and an interview guide with the questions that

interviewers asked the parents they interviewed.

One very important feature of the TLC3 omitted from the overview above, but central to the data, is

that the families included in the TLC3 data set are poor and working class because they are a

subsample of those recruited for the quantitative Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study

(FFCWS; McClanahan et al. 2000). To participate, couples needed to be romantically involved at the

time of the focal child’s birth, both had to speak English, neither parent could be incarcerated, and

the mother’s annual household income – in case they were not cohabiting – needed to be below

$75,000 (with most significantly below that).

Gaining Access

Although many ICPSR data sets are easily accessible for investigators working at institutions

associated with the consortium, the TLC3 data is restricted data and requires special permission.

Before I devoted time toward pulling together an application for permission, I read through the

interview guide to ensure that the interviews would cover topics I was interested in. It turned out

that a number of sections were related to my work (e.g., Values Regarding Marriage, Parenthood,

and Gender Roles, Bargaining and the Struck Bargain, and Who Does What for the Child and Around

the House) and so I decided to apply.

Access to restricted data sets, like the TLC3, requires researchers to meet a number of

requirements. For this particular data, I needed IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval for a

specific project before gaining access. I had two in mind: Negotiating Relationships and Constructing

Parenthood. I also needed to complete a data security plan. This included ensuring that there were

private computers, in secure spaces, to store and code the data on. I also had to agree not to send

the data through email. Additional stipulations included promising not to attempt to locate the

participants and, if I happened to discover their identities, that I would not share those with others

or track the respondents down. Graduate students working with me on the project also had to sign

4

confidentiality pledges and I had to sign sponsorship agreements, holding myself accountable for

any issues with my research assistants’ use of the data.

Formulating a Research Question and Approach

Once I gained access to the data, I began with the Negotiating Relationships project. In this research,

I wanted to look at exchange processes similar to the ones in the laboratory, but between intimate

partners. Specifically, I was interested in how couples negotiated the division of labor in their

households (e.g., childcare, financial support, housework) – not just who took out the trash and who

bought the diapers, but how the couple established any system they had – and how fair they

thought the division was and their views on the relationship in general. I planned to begin by

coding the qualitative interviews using concepts established in experimental research and examine

whether the couples upheld or challenged what would be expected based on theoretical insights

drawn from laboratory research.

Method in Action: Coding

To begin, my graduate student assistant and I randomly selected cases from the data to read. The

TLC3 interviews were done in three cities – Chicago, New York, and Milwaukee – so we were

careful to draw couples from each of these cities as we proceeded. First, we read a couple’s full set

of interviews. As the ICPSR overview noted, this data is comprised of longitudinal interviews that

occurred in four waves. At each wave, interviewers tried to interview the mother and father of the

focal child individually and as a couple, meaning there are as many as twelve interviews tied to each

family. As we read, we flagged sections related to our interests. These were anything from

discussions of household chores to how couples decided who paid for what to discussions of

fairness and satisfaction with the division of labor and with their relationship. We also created a

coversheet on each couple so we could easily access a summary of information on the couples.

To illustrate what this looks like, here are highlights of the coversheet for one of the couples, Ben

and Carla (all names are pseudonyms). There is quite a bit of information packed into these

coversheets. This couple’s reports the dates of their ten interviews (two were missing in Wave 2 –

Carla’s individual interview and the couple interview) and provides brief summaries of the family.

It states that Ben and Carla not only had newborn Charlie – who was not planned – at the time of

the first interview, but also had two other sons who were 4 and 9 at that time. We know that Ben

was receiving disability and was his children’s primary caregiver while Carla assisted her mother in

exchange for some financial support and that Ben and Carla believed they were happier than most

of their friends, although Ben wished Carla was home more often.

There were segments of the interviews when participants were asked to provide specific numbers

reflecting each person’s relative contribution to childcare and housework. The coversheets

included this data as well. For example, in the couple interview from when Charlie was an infant,

Ben and Carla emphatically stated that they split childcare 50/50. However, a few months later

when they were interviewed alone, Carla said it was actually 40/60 (with Ben doing a bit more than

her) and Ben said it was 80/20 (with Ben doing much more than her). Housework between the two

of them was similarly unequal. Given the focus of the research, each coversheet summarized the

5

couple’s division of labor and patterns of exchange. Carla and Ben tell interviewers that they never

explicitly talked about who would do what and instead a sort of informal turn-taking – what social

psychologists would call a reciprocal exchange pattern (Molm et al., 2007) – emerged. The couple is

generally content with that pattern and both partners believe that the way that things just get done

when they have to get done, without any bickering or blame or explicit negotiation, is a sign that

their relationship is a good one.

Method in Action: Analyzing

My graduate student assistant and I met regularly to compare notes on the couples. We wanted to

ensure that we interpreted the data similarly and agreed on how we would categorize the exchange

relationship and outcomes. We made any changes to the initial coversheets in these meetings. We

also pulled out segments of the interview that supported our classifications and discussed how a

particular couple’s experiences were consistent or inconsistent with what we would expect based

on dominant exchange theories (Lawler 2001; Molm 2010).

To use Ben and Carla as examples again, there were several tangible examples of the couple’s

reciprocal exchange pattern in the interviews. In reciprocal exchange, the benefits partners

exchange flow unilaterally, from one person to another, without any explicit agreement. We coded

this as the couple’s dominant exchange pattern not only because of its frequency, but also because

of the pervasiveness; this pattern was evident in the way to two of them divided childcare, financial

obligations, and housework.

For example, Ben wishes that he could work outside the home to support his family, but his poor

health makes that impossible. To see himself as a good father despite not being the breadwinner he

thinks a father should be, Ben reframes all the work he does as a stay-at-home father as the way he

supports his family. He believes this is only fair given that Carla was the one to carry their children

during her pregnancy and give birth to them. Ben’s consideration of how Carla’s contributions

influenced his own suggests a reciprocal exchange pattern. Carla gave Ben these children and Ben is

now repaying that – so to speak – by caring for them.

The couple’s financial life is also built around reciprocity. Although the have separate bank

accounts, Ben was clear that they do not engage in explicit bargaining about who pays for what:

When we were both working, we would always just pay the bills together. There would be

some days, though, that she would go and pay a bill, and I didn’t even know about it, and the

bill would come and be already paid. Well, I would do the same thing. So money wasn’t really

an issue. (Couple interview, Wave 1)

The laundry and meals are similar. Whoever notices that clothes need to be washed is often the one

to do it and, while Carla usually cooks dinner, Ben is the one who cleans the dishes and the kitchen.

Both admit that there are times when the two of them must have an open dialogue about

expectations related to family, finances, or housework, but their reciprocal system generally works

because Ben and Carla trust one another and believe that neither of them will exploit the system.

This is all consistent with experimental research on social exchange and reciprocity (Molm 2010).

6

Method in Action: Abductive Analysis

When we discovered something unique or that we had not originally been looking for in the

interviews based on earlier work in social exchange, we would reflect back on the previous couples

we had discussed – looking at their cover sheets and revisiting relevant sections – and would

rework our categorization scheme and our conceptual model. In other words, we began our coding

and analysis with a solid understanding of social exchange theories, but were open to seeing places

where the existing theories did not fit. By examining those, alongside the places where theories did

fit, we were able to speculate about ways to refine the theories. This process is a form of abductive

analysis (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012), the strategy I have found most useful in analyzing

qualitative data collected by others, including the TLC3 data.

Although Ben and Carla’s relationship began as one of the strongest and they were happy across the

early waves, things began to fall apart in later interviews. At some point, the family moves in with

Carla’s sister and her children. Ben begins to feel taken advantage of – as he is now responsible for

both his sons and his nieces – and grows dissatisfied with both the division of labor and his

relationship with Carla. It was clear that the addition of another adult (and her children) disrupted

the informal pattern Ben and Carla had established as a couple. For Ben, the root of his

dissatisfaction was the exploitation he was experiencing. This unhappiness was expected given

what experimental studies of reciprocal exchanges had found (Molm 2010), but it encouraged us to

pay attention to how additional adults in the household influence exchange relationships. After

adding that to our coding scheme, we noticed that couples who lived with extended family –

particularly in the home one of them grew up in – were often sheltered from opportunities to work

together or establish a pattern. For example, if a mother-in-law is always cooking dinner, cleaning

the kitchen, and taking care of the baby, her daughter and son-in-law lose out on the opportunity to

find a way to work together to manage housework or childcare. While this may shield the young

couple from disagreements about whose turn it is to clean the kitchen, it will not give them the

opportunity to foster interdependence and a sense of being a team. By paying attention to

opportunity and interdependence, we learned that, without those attributes, a reciprocal exchange

pattern was not enough to cultivate strong bonds within couples.

Method in Action: Ending a Research Project

After we had analyzed approximately one third of the 75 sets of interviews, we realized that we

were no longer encountering novel patterns or insights. Every new case fit into the categorization

scheme we had developed based on earlier cases, a sign of data saturation. Because our goal was to

“provide a richly textured analysis of daily life…to advance theory” (Lareau 2012:675) and not to

estimate the frequency of various types of exchange patterns, we decided to stop analyzing new

cases after we had examined 36 sets of interviews.

7

Method: Publication

We ultimately wrote an article (Collett and Avelis, 2011) integrating the two dominant exchange

theories – the affect theory of social exchange (Lawler, 2001) and reciprocity theory (Molm, 2010)

– as we explored exchanges in families. Consistent with reciprocity theory, we found that couples

who engage in reciprocal exchange patterns are generally happier with the relationship, and more

satisfied with the division of labor, than those who explicitly negotiate about chores, childcare, and

finances. The expressive value of reciprocity – meaning what it signals about people’s

trustworthiness and caring rather than any tangible benefits people receive in the exchange – plays

an important role in reciprocal exchange’s positive effects. However, reciprocity is not enough. As

predicted by the affect theory of social exchange, we found that the couples with the best outcomes

view supporting a family as an interdependent task – a group effort – and cultivate and reinforce

that interdependence in everyday interactions. With this research, we demonstrated not only that

laboratory research on exchange could help us understand exchanges in families, but also that there

was a way to see two theories of exchange as complementary rather than competing (see Kuwabara

2011 for an experimental study with similar results).

Discovering the Next Project

As I noted earlier, I applied for the TLC3 data with two projects in mind. Originally, I planned for the

second one – Constructing Parenthood – to be an extension of previous work I had done on

motherhood (Collett 2005). Specifically, I wanted to explore the relationship between the

expectations women have for themselves as mothers and the expectations of the men in their lives,

to determine whether women hold themselves to higher standards than others might hold them to.

However, in readings through the interviews for the Negotiating Relationships project, I became

increasingly interested in fathers and decided to turn to them instead for research on parenting.

Central in the image of fatherhood is a man’s ability to provide for his family. This is still true in the

era of a new, involved fatherhood, and especially so among those who are poor and working class

(Avelis 2017; Harrington, Van Deusen & Humberd 2011). However, men in the TLC3 couples often

struggled to live up to this standard. Many had difficulty securing good work because of low levels

of education or criminal records. For those who were able to find work, jobs tended to be low-

paying, meaning that both parents needed to work outside the home to keep the household afloat.

I found it interesting that, despite a disconnect between this idealized image of fathers and what

men were actually able to accomplish, the vast majority (around 80%) of TLC3 fathers rated

themselves as either “very good” or “excellent” fathers.2 Considering identity theory (Burke and

Stets 2009), which emphasizes the importance of fit between standards and performance, I

2 Because the couples were drawn from the Fragile Families data and are linked with a case number, it is

possible to link the qualitative data from the interviews to quantitative data from the FFCWS surveys,

including data that was collected long after TLC3 data collection ended (Year 15 data will be available in

mid-to-late 2018).

8

wondered how they were able to preserve this positive view of and if those positive self-

evaluations would persist even if they continued to struggle in the fatherhood role.

My student assistants (one a graduate student, the other an undergraduate) set out to answer those

questions. We found that these men rework the conventional idea of fatherhood to make it more

accessible to them. Specifically, they emphasize the expectations of the new, involved father to “be

there,” and reframe what it means to provide for one’s family. This allows them to live up to their

expectations. We were not the only ones who realized this. As we were preparing to send a

manuscript on the topic out for review, Kathryn Edin and Timothy Nelson’s 2013 book, Doing the

Best I Can, came out. They found something similar. Specifically, poor men are able to rate

themselves highly by focusing on their involvement and their efforts. In other words, in thinking

about the time they spend with their children and their level of financial support, men emphasize

that it is it not what they are able to do for their children that matters, but instead that they are

trying to do.

We did not want to recreate Edin and Nelson’s findings in a separate publication, so we focused on

a unique piece of our own research: variation in how fathers define “being there” and the

implications of those definitions for fathers’ involvement in family life and their self-evaluations.

We found that while most men wanted to be involved fathers, when asked what it takes to be a

good father, some men stopped at “be there” or “be around” or, when probed, provided a very

vague reply like, “Just do what I’m supposed to do. That’s it” (Aaron, Wave 2). However, other men,

when pushed, came up with quite detailed explanations of what it means to “be there.”

Ben was one such father. In an early interview, he emphasizes that it is very important for a father

to give his children his time. When asked about what a father should do during that time, Ben gives

a very specific reply:

Doing things with the children. They tend to remember that stuff when they get older... take

your child to a restaurant, you know…[Get] some culture in them…Teach them some

manners…Let them have some memories. Some FOND memories…Reading with them. Taking

them to museums…not just sitting in front of the TV all day. Getting out, just getting some fresh

air. That kind of stuff. Play ball with them. That type of stuff. (Individual interview, Wave 1)

Remember, Ben was out of work because of a medical condition. In order to protect his self-esteem,

Ben not only underscores that a father should be present, but he also comes up with specific ways

that he might be. In doing so, he is reframing provision – where fathers provide skills, culture, and

memories rather than a paycheck – and giving himself a well-defined benchmark to compare his

performance as a father against.

As we began to realize that definitions of fatherhood varied on this important dimension –

specificity – we wanted to explore whether the specificity (or vagueness) of a father’s definition

was tied to their behavior. In other words, are men with specific definitions more likely to be

involved in their families than those with more vague definitions? Do they enjoy fatherhood more

and feel good about themselves as fathers? Our findings suggest that the answer to these questions

is a resounding yes.

9

Men with specific expectations for themselves as fathers – definitions that define a fixed amount of

time or a specific task – are not only more involved in their children’s lives, but are also more

committed to the role of father and to their families than men with vague expectations for

themselves as fathers (Collett, Vercel & Boykin, 2015). This manifests in a number of ways. They do

more housework and childcare than fathers with vague definitions and are more likely to continue

to be involved in their children’s lives after a divorce or break-up with the children’s mother. They

describe father as one of the important identities that they have. They are excited about being a

father and see it as a challenge. The specific benchmarks – like the ones that Ben named – are easier

to work toward than deciding to “be there.” Even if they fall short of the expectations for

themselves, these men are able to hold on to the effort that Edin and Nelson (2013) emphasized

and to feel good about themselves.

Using abductive analysis, our findings not only shed light on the experiences of fathers, but also

pointed to an undertheorized process in identity theory. To date, little attention had been given to

the content or qualities of individuals’ identity standards (i.e., the expectations we hold for

ourselves or others with that identity [Burke and Stets 2009]). With our work, we piqued curiosity

in ourselves and others about the sources and implications of specificity. Future research – whether

in the field or laboratory – will investigate this more directly.

Conclusion

There is a wealth of data, collected by others, that is available for researchers to use in their own

research. Although quantitative data is the most common type of data used in secondary analysis

projects, in this methods case I introduced two qualitative projects that emerged from the TLC3

data collected by England and Edin (2008). I discussed how I discovered the data and gained access,

as well as the strategies that my collaborators and I used to code and analyze the data and generate

our findings.

With tightening budgets and more emphasis on public science, funding agencies like the National

Science Foundation (NSF) are making a concerted effort to convince qualitative researchers –

including those who conduct in-depth interviews or use participant observation – to make their

data publicly available. Researchers often argue that the topics they pursue are sensitive or that

sharing the rich information gathered in qualitative research puts their participants at risk.

However, it is important to realize that there are ways to de-identify the data, as was done with the

TLC3 interviews, and to require specific protocols and standards for researchers’ use.

There is great value in sharing data. Paula England and Kathryn Edin are primarily interested in

families and inequality. This shaped the couples they sought out for interviews and the specific

questions they asked for the TLC3 project. However, as a social psychologist, I was able to look at

the data through a different lens. In doing so, my students and I discovered important sociological

insights that not only further our understanding of social psychology, but also both family and

inequality, the PIs’ original goal.

10

References

Avelis, J. (2017). Stay-at-home fathers, housedads, and deadbeats: Social class and primary caregiving

men (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana.

Burke, P, J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Collett, J. L. (2005). What kind of mother am I? Impression management and the social construction

of motherhood. Symbolic Interaction, 28, 327-47.

_____. (2010). Integrating theory, enhancing understanding: The potential contributions of recent

experimental research in social exchange for studying intimate relationships. Journal of

Family Theory & Review, 2, 280-98.

Collett, J. L., & Avelis, J. (2011). Building a life together: Reciprocal and negotiated exchange in

fragile families. Advances in Group Processes, 28, 227-54.

Collett, J. L., Vercel, K., & Boykin, O. (2015). Using identity processes to understand persistent

inequality in parenting. Social Psychology Quarterly, 78, 345-64.

Edin, K., & Nelson, T. J. (2013) Doing the best I can: Fatherhood in the inner-city. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.

England, P. & Edin, K. (2008). Time, love, and cash in couples with children study (TLC3) [United

States], 2000-2005 [Computer file]. ICPSR22462-v2. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university

Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2008-09-11.

doi:10.3886/ICPSR22462.

Harrington, B. Van Deusen, F. & Humberd, B. (2011). The new dad: Caring, committed and

conflicted. Boston College Center for Work & Family. Research Report

ICPSR (2008). Time, love, and cash in couples with children study (TLC3) [United States], 2000-

2005 (ICPSR 22462). Retrieved from:

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/22462

Kuwabara, K., (2011). Cohesion, cooperation, and the value of doing things together: How economic

exchange creates relational bonds. American Sociological Review 76, 560-80.

Lareau, A. (2012). Using the terms hypothesis and variable for qualitative work: A critical reflection.

Journal of Marriage and Family 74, 671-77.

Lawler, E. J. (2001). An affect theory of social exchange. American Journal of Sociology 107, 321-52.

McLanahan, S., Paxson, C., Currie, J., Garfinkel, I., Brooks Gunn, J., Mincy, R., Waldfogel, J. &

Notterman, D. (2000). Fragile families and child wellbeing study. Eunice Kennedy Shriver

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).

Molm, L. D. (2010). The structure of reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73, 119-31.

Molm, L. D., Collett, J. L. & Schaefer, D. R. (2006). Conflict and fairness in social exchange. Social

Forces, 84, 2331-52.

Molm, L. D., Schaefer, D. R. & Collett, J. L. (2007). Building solidarity through generalized exchange:

A theory of reciprocity. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 205-42.

_____. (2009). Fragile and resilient trust: Risk and uncertainty in negotiated and reciprocal exchange.

Sociological Theory, 27, 1-32.

Timmermans, S. & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research from grounded

theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30, 167-86.

11

Teaching Tools

Learning Outcomes

By the end of this case students should be able to:

Recognize a variety of secondary data sources and distinguish between qualitative and

quantitative secondary data methods.

Understand how to locate and access secondary data sources, specifically through the

ICPSR (Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research).

Describe a simple data organization strategy for qualitative research that facilitates

systematic analysis but does not require special software.

Engage in abductive analysis to see theories in action and possibly to generate new

theoretical insights.

Discussion Questions

1. What are the benefits of using secondary data? What are the drawbacks? What other

methodological approaches might be useful for answering the questions that the author was

interested in? What are their benefits and drawbacks?

2. How do you find secondary data? How do you access it? What are some potential issues for

students who want to implement this methodological strategy?

3. The author and her students met regularly to discuss the cases. What purpose does this serve?

What are the strengths of collaborative research? What might be potential problems with it?

4. What is abductive analysis? How does the author use it in her work?

5. The author provides a number of rich examples, using Ben and Carla to illustrate the topics of

interest. Did any of these examples, or the author’s discussion of the research on the case,

prompt additional questions for you? Are there specific strategies for doing reading or

conducting research that may be helpful in generating new ideas?

6. As research participants, Ben and Carla and the other couples were paid for their time and

agreed to have their interviews and other data used for research purposes, including

publication. How would you feel if I had your behaviors and beliefs shared publicly? How would

you feel if they were analyzed as closely as they are here? What can a researcher do – whether

while collecting the data or in publishing research – to ensure that the respondents who they

are interviewing feel comfortable with the research process and its results?

Further Readings

Collett, J. L. (2010). Integrating theory, enhancing understanding: The potential contributions

of recent experimental research in social exchange for studying intimate relationships.

Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2, 280-98.

Collett, J. L., & Avelis, J. (2011). Building a life together: Reciprocal and negotiated exchange in

fragile families. Advances in Group Processes, 28, 227-54.

Collett, J. L., Vercel, K. & Boykin, O. (2015). Using identity processes to understand persistent

inequality in parenting. Social Psychology Quarterly, 78, 345-64.

Edin, K., & Kefalas, M. (2011). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before

marriage (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

12

Edin, K., & Nelson, T. J. (2013) Doing the best I can: Fatherhood in the inner-city. Berkeley,CA:

University of California Press

England, P., & Edin, K. (2007) Unmarried couples with children. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

Miller, T. (2011). Making sense of fatherhood: Gender, caring and work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge.

Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Web Resources

1. The ICPSR Data Search Tool: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/

2. An abridged, accessible, online version of one of the articles discussed in the case: “SPQ

Snap: Using Identity Processes to Understand Persistent Inequality in Parenting” and a

related discussion guide.