Search results

Purpose – The chapter outlines mixed methods as a recursive and co-operative approach to research. In doing so, it challenges the dominant conception of ‘real’ mixed methods research as requiring the use of methods from both qualitative and quantitative frameworks by outlining not only logistic and pragmatic issues requiring the attention of researchers but also the underlying philosophical tensions inherent in mixed method designs.

Design/methodology/approach – The process of designing a mixed methods project that investigated the sociological and phenomenological impact of running shoes is outlined with reference to the various pragmatic and epistemological considerations of the project.

Findings – Many researchers require mixed methods to draw on both quantitative and qualitative techniques. However, this chapter demonstrates that such an understanding of mixed methods marginalises critical and interpretivist techniques. It is argued that studies of sport and physical culture have frequently used more than one research method. However, in order for these to be considered mixed methods studies, an explicit attempt is required to connect each technique of data collection and analysis, regardless of the research paradigm in which they operate.

Research limitations/implications – The limitations of mixed methods designs are discussed in relation to pragmatic and logistic concerns as well as the difficulty of connecting methods that present different underlying philosophical assumptions.

Originality/value – This chapter demonstrates the design of a mixed methods project from the initial process of identifying a research problem through to data collection, analysis and publication.

This chapter focuses on the empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm (RBV), and its main purpose is to analyse the use of mixed methods in this perspective. The recent advance of the RBV has posed new challenges, and the issue need not be quantitative versus qualitative methods, but rather how to combine the strengths of each in a mixed methods approach. This study carries out a literature review about the use of mixed methods in the RBV and provides an examination of opportunities and challenges associated with the application of mixed methods in order to improve RBV research. Moreover, the chapter seeks to introduce mixed methods research in order to familiarize to strategic management and the RBV scholars about this type of research and its terminology, procedures, designs and purposes.

For several years, scholars studying mergers and acquisitions (M&A) regret their incapacity to fully capture and understand this complex phenomenon. Several authors have called for multidisciplinary approaches to improve our research. We believe that, instead of focusing on theories and multidisciplinarity, a complementary line of attack could be to put into question the methods used to study M&As. The purpose of this chapter is to show how mixed methods research can be a relevant design to open the black box of M&A and improve our understanding of M&A integration processes. Indeed, a key feature of mixed methods research is its methodological pluralism or eclecticism, which frequently results in superior research compared to mono-method research. In this chapter, we first define mixed methods research; we then review the literature on M&A using mixed methods and finally show the pros and cons of this research design to advance our understanding of M&A.

Little is known about the extent to which management and engineering publications dedicated to the study of quality management topics make use of mixed methods, what types of studies have been conducted and how effective mixed methods have been. The aim of the current paper is to analyse how mixed methods have been used in quality management research.

To address this purpose, a bibliometric analysis was conducted of papers using mixed methods designs to investigate quality management issues and published in the SCOPUS database. CiteSpace software was used to assist in the categorisation and mapping process.

Ninety articles were identified and analysed. The results show that mixed methods are mainly used either to compare different perspectives drawn from quantitative and qualitative data or to develop better measurement instruments. Sequential mixes occur more often than concurrent approaches. Moreover, there is a link between the purpose of the study and the approaches followed to combine qualitative and quantitative methods. Yet, the contribution of the use of mixed methods to achieving the aims of the study is not easy to assess as the purposes of using mixed methods are often not clearly stated.

As one of the first papers to examine how qualitative and quantitative methods are being combined in quality management research, this study is expected to contribute to the literature by providing some insights into how mixed methods can be more effectively used in this field.

Mixed methods research is useful to enhance theoretical and practical research contributions. However, single methods have predominated much logistics and supply chain management (LSCM) research. This paper presents a review of mixed methods research across ten years in LSCM to determine their usage, identify benefits and inhibitors, and provide suggestions for LSCM researchers to realise the benefits from using mixed methods.

This paper adopts a mixed methods approach through a quantitative analysis of methods used in six leading LSCM journals, an e-mail survey of mixed methods article authors during the review period, and four published case studies that used mixed methods.

Only 144 (ten percent) of all empirical articles were published using mixed methods during the review period. A range of benefits and inhibitors regarding mixed methods adoption were found. Suggestions for LSCM authors include research training in mixed methods use and developing a project-specific research design due to the specificity and complexity associated with mixed methods research.

LSCM is at a critical juncture, shaped by new contexts, themes and challenges, and would benefit from different research approaches and methods. This paper contributes to the LSCM domain through analysing the current state, benefits and inhibitors of mixed methods research in LSCM journals to provide a renewed call to action and guidelines for mixed methods LSCM research, and suggesting research design adaptation to enable agile and resilient research when investigating rapidly changing and complex phenomena.

Despite the increasing discourse on mixed methods (MM) in academic literature, less attention has been focused on its methodological development in the built environment in developing countries. This paper aims to examine the basis and challenges of the application of MM for health-care facilities management (FM) research in Ghana.

This paper adopts autoethnography as its research method, coupled with a scholarly review of methodological literature to position a technical view on the application of mixed methods for health-care FM research in a developing country.

This paper contributes and lends support to the methodological strength of MM as epistemologically coherent and useful for understanding the intricacies of health-care FM. This paper advances the proposition that the nascent stage of FM development in Ghana, paucity of literature, epistemological and axiological considerations underscore the choice of a sequential MM. The attitude of research participants, ethical challenges and time-lapse for data analysis were observed as practical challenges.

Discussion of data integration is excluded.

This paper provides a nuanced understanding of the concept of MM in health-care FM and set forth practical recommendations worthy to enhance the application of MM research.

This paper is among the few focusing on methodological discussion of health-care FM. This paper proposes a framework to guide researchers in the application of mixed methods.

After the initial life (which coincides with the origins of social research in the 1850s, and lasts until 1940s), mixed methods revive at the beginning of 1970s. However, this second life (or renaissance) receives the deleterious imprinting of quantitative methods. In fact, some of the old positivist assumptions are still reproduced and active in most of mixed methods research. This imprinting is traceable in the ambiguity (and purposive semantic stretching) of the term “qualitative”: from the 1990s, it encompasses almost everything (even approaches considered positivistic in the 1950s!). Whereby the semantical extension of the term “qualitative” has become a sort of Trojan horse for a new legitimation of many quantitative and positivist researchers: a great swindle. Today “qualitative” is nonsense and acts as a bug, which muddies the qualitative-quantitative debate. For this reason, it would be better to remove the bug (i.e. to discharge the term “qualitative” from the language of social research and methodology), reset and start over from the level of specific research methods, considering carefully and balancing their diversity before mixing them. The purpose of this paper is to outline two (complementary) ways of integration of methods (“mixed” and “merged”), arguing that “merged” methods realize a higher integration than “mixed” methods, because the former overcome some weaknesses of the latter.

A semantic and pragmatic analysis of the term “qualitative.”

In social and behavioral sciences, the second life of mixed methods has been heavily affected by old positivist and quantitative assumptions.

The term “qualitative” should be discharged from the language of social research and methodology.

The coveted integration in “mixed” methods, could be better pursed through “merged” methods.

Disentangling the strands of a debate (the qualitative-quantitative one) become muddy.

An alternative framework, to interpret the mixed methods history and their recent developments, has been proposed.

This study aims to advance mixed methods as a research methodology in accounting through three research objectives: develop a typology of mixed methods research (MMR) features from current literature, analyse accounting papers published in two leading South African journals against these features, and offer recommendations for best practice going forward.

This paper follows five elements for a MMR review study: identify the methodological aim and choice of discipline; identify the relevant accounting MMR literature and collect the data; develop a codebook and analysis procedures to assess the reviewed papers against; report on the MMR findings; and discuss the findings and make recommendations.

The use of MMR as a methodological approach is increasing; however, in many instances published papers revealed limited methodological detail. Furthermore, most accounting MMR studies use a convergent MMR design, with data collected qualitatively using interviews/focus groups and quantitatively using questionnaires. Finally, accounting education studies is the topic within accounting research that mostly use MMR.

The study is limited to a five-year period and the prevalence of applicable MMR articles during that period in two journals.

This paper presents advantages of using MMR in accounting studies and offer recommendations for best practice to answer the complex accounting research questions of today.

This study is the first systematic examination of how mixed methods is used in accountancy research as reflected in South African journals.

The purpose of this article is to determine the uses of mixed method research designs published in major marketing journals.

This study involved a content analysis of 2,166 articles published between 2003 and 2009 in nine prominent marketing journals.

A total of 34 mixed method studies implemented data‐collection procedures sequentially (79 percent), eight implemented them concurrently (19 percent) and one combined both sequential and concurrent procedures (2 percent). On the whole, priority was skewed more toward quantitative strands, with 27 articles prioritizing quantitative data (63 percent), three articles prioritizing qualitative data (7 percent), and 13 articles prioritizing both equally (30 percent).

It is clear that marketing scholars recognize the benefit of mixing qualitative and quantitative research; however, as a discipline we are not demonstrating knowledge of the mixed method literature or procedures, as only one article recognized or mentioned knowledge of mixed method procedures or cited mixed method research.

This study provides guidance for researchers in identifying design types appropriate for various rationales or research objectives and models of different design types that have been published in marketing journals. In addition, implications for designing mixed methods studies in marketing include highlighting the need for scholars to specifically address issues such as the timing and priority given to each data type (i.e. sequential or concurrent), and the integration (or mixing) of the both data types.

Until now, the role of mixed methods designs in marketing has not been the subject of formal examination. The delineation of the major forms in mixed method designs provides a framework for looking at such design types, which helps to provide more credibility to the field of marketing by providing examples of research designs that are substantially different than single strand studies.

Mixed methods research (MMR) represents an alternative methodological approach, combining qualitative and quantitative research styles, and enabling researchers to explore complex phenomena in detail. This chapter provides a critical view of mixed methods research and its application in social science research, with examples from tourism and hospitality used to guide those aiming to undertake mixed-methods research projects. The chapter provides insight into the characteristics of MMR, distinguishing it from a multi-method approach. It also provides a detailed explanation of different MMR designs and highlights the advantages and challenges of adopting a mixed-methods approach. Moreover, the chapter discusses approaches to analysis which are pivotal to MMR design. Finally, the chapter concludes with recommendations for researchers hoping to adopt a mixed-methods approach.