Search results

The purpose of this paper is to set the scene for this special issue by synthesising the vast array of literature to examine what constitutes mixed methods research, and the associated strengths and risks attributed to this approach.

This paper takes the form of a literature review. The authors draw on extensive methods research from a diverse range of social science disciplines to identify and explore key definitions, opportunities and risks in mixed methods studies. They review a number of accounting studies that adopt mixed methods research approaches. This allows the authors to analyse variance in how mixed methods research is conceptualised across these studies and evaluate the perceived strengths and limitations of specific mixed methods design choices.

The authors identify a range of opportunities and challenges in the conduct of mixed methods research and illustrate these by reference to both published studies and the other contributions to this special issue.

With the exception of Modell's work, there is sparse discussion of the application and potential of mixed methods research in the extant accounting literature.

The purpose of this paper is to identify some of the dilemmas involved in the debate on the how, when and why of mixed methods research.

The authors' starting point is formed by developments in the philosophy of science literature, and recent publications on mixed methods research outside of the management accounting domain.

Contrary to recent claims made in the management accounting literature, the authors assert that uncovering points of disagreement between methods may be as far as researchers can go by combining them. Being reflexive can help to provide a deeper understanding of the research process and the researcher's role in this process.

The paper should extend the debate among management accounting researchers about mixed methods research. One of the lessons drawn is that researchers are actively immersed in the research process and cannot purge their own interests and views. Accepting this lesson casts doubt on what the act of research may imply and achieve.

The paper shows that combinations of research methods should not be made based on a “whatever works” attitude, since this approach ultimately is still infused with ontological and epistemological considerations that researchers have, and should try to explicate.

The value of this paper lies in the provision of philosophical underpinnings that have not been widely considered in the management accounting literature on mixed methods to date.

The purpose of this paper is first, to discuss the theoretical assumptions, qualities, problems and myopia of the dominating quantitative and qualitative approaches; second, to describe the methodological lessons that the authors learned while conducting a series of longitudinal studies on the use and usefulness of a specialized balanced scorecard; and third, to encourage researchers to actually use multiple methods and sources of data to address the very many accounting phenomena that are not fully understood.

This paper is an opinion piece based on the authors' experience conducting a series of longitudinal mixed method studies.

The authors suggest that in many studies, using a mixed method approach provides the best opportunity for addressing research questions.

This paper provides encouragement to those who may wish to bridge the authors' ideological gaps and to those who are actively trying to do so.

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the threats to quality in mixed methods accounting research, wherein quantitative and qualitative approaches are combined in data collection, analysis and interpretation.

The paper is framed according to three perspectives. The authors first synthesize the threats to validity and reliability in quantitative and qualitative parts of mixed methods research using the quality standards of each; they then introduce an integrative framework of mixed methods research quality by Teddlie and Tashakkori. Thereafter, they address the specific threats to quality that come to the fore when inferences from the quantitative and qualitative components of the study are combined to form meta‐inferences using a legitimation framework by Onwuegbuzie and Johnson.

The authors' analysis not only indicates a wide range of threats to the validity and reliability of mixed methods research in a range of categories, but also clarifies how the three perspectives described in this paper are linked and supplement each other.

Methodological research published in English over the last decade is emphasized to create an approach to assess mixed methods accounting research. The frameworks analyzed could still be studied in greater detail. Additional perspectives on the validity and reliability of mixed methods research could also be studied and developed.

This paper furthers our understanding of such new developments in methodological research, which may be of great importance to those conducting or evaluating empirical research.

Based on a comprehensive synthesis, this paper presents and analyzes theoretical frameworks potentially useful for scholars, students and practitioners. It focuses on both traditional and novel areas of validity and reliability in mixed methods research.

The purpose of this paper is to report on the decision process that the authors follow in applying mixed methods research to evaluate the benefits and costs of conducting sponsored clinical trials in a publicly funded New Zealand hospital.

A simultaneous parallel mixed method design was adopted. This design builds on a health outcomes study that involves a retrospective cohort study of changes in participants' health status and mortality rates. Although a team of medical researchers conducted that study (i.e. the current authors were not involved), it is one of the three strands of the current research as it forms the platform for the other two strands, namely the multiple stakeholder perception strand and the economic outcomes strand. In the multiple stakeholder perceptions strand, qualitative methods were used to explore the benefits and costs perceived by stakeholders. In the economic outcomes strand, quantitative methods were used to estimate the benefits and costs of clinical trials.

The economic outcomes strand and the multiple stakeholder perceptions strand are complementary. Each strand delivers dimensions to the analysis that are not apparent from the other.

The value of the paper lies in improved understanding of the process of mixed method research through communicating choices and decisions made in response to the challenges faced.