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.

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.

Mixed methods approaches have become increasingly relevant in social sciences research over the last few decades. Nevertheless, we show that these approaches have rarely been explicitly applied in higher education research. This is somewhat surprising because mixed methods and empirical research into higher education seem to be a perfect match for several reasons: (1) the role of the researcher, which is associated with strong intersections between the research subject and the research object; (2) the research process, which relies on concepts and theories that are borrowed from other research fields; and (3) the research object, which exhibits unclear techniques in teaching and learning, making it difficult to grasp causalities between input and results. Mixed methods approaches provide a suitable methodology to research such topics. Beyond this, potential future developments underlining the particular relevance of mixed methods approaches in higher education are discussed.

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 study is to examine the prevalence of mixed methods research across several business and management fields and to gauge the level of acceptance of mixed methods within these fields.

The methodology employed for this study involved synthesizing the findings from six large‐scale methodological scans of business and management discipline journals in seven fields: marketing, international business, strategic management, organizational behaviour, operations management, entrepreneurship and human resource management.

The study finds that quantitative studies dominate all seven fields (76 per cent of empirical articles) followed by mixed methods (14 per cent of empirical articles) and qualitative studies (10 per cent of empirical articles). In applying the framework for acceptance levels, it would seem there exists minimal acceptance of mixed methods across these fields.

The study has limitations related to the coverage of different disciplines and differences in sample sets. More extensive research is planned for the future and will involve an expanded mixed method prevalence rate study across additional business and management fields.

The growing use of mixed methods has practical implications for research training and capacity building within business schools. The study points to the need to develop research capacity through the introduction of postgraduate courses in mixed methods and advanced research skills training for existing researchers.

Mixed methods is a relatively new and emerging methodological movement. This paper attempts to gauge the use and level of acceptance of mixed methods across a diverse range of business and management discipline areas.

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.

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.

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.

The purpose of this study is to explore an optimal research design for research on women entrepreneurs involved in negotiating term sheets for private equity capital. This research explores new ways for researchers to connect with such current “invisibles” through the use of a mixed method and mixed mode research design to expand sampling options and secure respondent participation. The authors discuss existing data sets that have been used as secondary sources for data on financing of companies and consider their inadequacy for research questions about process issues in negotiation. The authors present process-related findings regarding the efficacy of the research design.

This paper reviews research on research methodology, incorporating a discussion of practices outside of the entrepreneurship discipline to discover effective practices for identifying respondents and data not currently captured in entrepreneurship data sources. The respondents were found through social media sites, angel networks, University networks and via identification through a proprietary financial intelligence database.

An optimal research design to identify women business owners of growth-oriented firms who have negotiated private equity should consider mixed methods designs and mixed modes, including the use of digital networks that signal to potential respondents that research is being done.

Although the authors developed the multi-method, mixed mode (MMMM) research design, the sample size is still relatively small. This raises concerns about generalizability to the larger population and limits statistical analysis more suitable with larger data sets. However, the MMMM research design has enabled the authors to reach a difficult target sample. It has proven effective, although a longer time frame would have been helpful.

All of the large scale databases in entrepreneurship have limitations in providing optimal sampling frames for process-related research. The present research study was able to use conventional networks, social media sites and angel networks to connect with women business owners who have raised private equity, but who lack visibility in current data sets. The study shows that through the use of multiple methods, women entrepreneurs can be researched and some will share their experiences about process issues. The sample size was small and the quantitative data cannot be generalized. However, the methodology works and allows researchers to explore experiences that are not captured in existing data sets.

Entrepreneurship researchers can connect with “invisibles” by becoming more “social” and using social media sites that are used by women entrepreneurs. Researchers may not have immediate access to women entrepreneurs through these means, but rather they need to develop interpersonal contacts, build a social presence and trust to recruit respondents to complete online questionnaire studies about substantive topics such as negotiating term sheets for equity investments in their companies.

This paper summarizes the “research on research methodologies” in entrepreneurship, reviews secondary data sources and discusses their limitations for specific types of research questions. A review of the value of MMMM research designs and best practices in online survey research outside of entrepreneurship provides insights into the incorporation of digital tools in other disciplines.

The use of mixed-methods research (MMR) within building and construction research (BCR) is studied in detail. A new MMR paradigm, defined as ambiguous mixed-methods research (AMMR), is conceptualised within a BCR context. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Informal and inductive methodology combines experiential and anecdotal knowledge with synthesis of extant literature, to detail a cogent representation of the BCR research paradigm continuum. From this, the AMMR design is presented and its conceptualisation highlighted by reference to a small sample of published BCR studies.

Paradoxically, the BCR paradigm continuum is dichotomous in its quantitative and qualitative extremes; while between these, coalesced paradigms permeate it. Influenced predominantly by worldview, many BCR researchers select a methodology that aligns with either continuum extreme. But, the authors conceptualise, in practice this often relies on ambiguous AMMR characteristics.

AMMR offers BCR research and beyond, a new approach for making, designing and defending methodological decisions.

The AMMR paradigm was designed by the authors and is therefore entirely novel.