Search results

This chapter examines the application of exploratory sequential mixed methods design in the context of small accommodation enterprises (i.e., home-stay). This study, therefore, discusses the exploratory sequential mixed methods of data collection and analysis and provides practical illustrations based on a study of small tourism enterprise sustainability practices in Ghana. The findings demonstrate that mixed methods overcome the weaknesses of a mono-method and offer an in-depth understanding of tourism and hospitality phenomena. In addition to providing a practical guide to emerging tourism scholars, the current study highlights the ability of mixed methods to develop emerging practitioners' skills in both qualitative and quantitative data. In conclusion, the exploratory sequential mixed methods design offers pragmatic data collection techniques that are non-existent in mono-methods. Accordingly, it is recommended for exploring research questions when there is limited information and high flexibility is needed.

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.

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.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to describe how to implement mixed methods research in supply chain management.

A review of past journal analyses on research methods used in supply chain management‐related disciplines is conducted to demonstrate the low incidence of mixed methods research in supply chain management. Drawing from literature on multiple and mixed methods research, the paper provides guidelines for designing and reporting such studies.

Knowledge development in logistics and supply chain management relies primarily on single‐method quantitative research designs, while mixed methods approaches are rarely used. Thus, there is a significant opportunity to advance the discipline through the rigorous application of mixed methods research.

Supply chain management phenomena are complex and dynamic. Thus, the application of mixed methods research would serve the advancement of the discipline as these approaches provide richer understanding and more robust explanations of such phenomena.

If supply chain research is to keep up with the dynamic business environment, research methods must be applied with the capability to fully explain supply chain phenomena. The application of a single‐method research approach is not always adequate for this task.

This paper is the first to draw on research from various disciplines to investigate the use of mixed methods in logistics and supply chain management research. It examines its prevalence in the discipline, provides examples of its application from the supply chain management literature, prescribes how to implement mixed methods research, and describes the benefits and limitations of such designs.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the adoption of mixed methods in voluntary environmental reporting research.

The costs and benefits of mixed methods are outlined, and the use of mixed methods in prior voluntary environmental reporting research is discussed. A reflection of the author's experience and the practical issues of adopting a QUAN→qual sequential mixed methods research design to examine voluntary environmental reporting practices and processes are presented.

Adopting mixed methods research involves costs to the researcher and the research, including the extra time and energy needed to collect, analyse, interpret, integrate and write up the data, and the need to consider potential biases and trade‐offs affecting design choices. However, these costs are outweighed by the opportunity mixed methods research presents to develop greater research skills and provide a fuller and richer picture of voluntary environmental reporting.

The specific costs and benefits of adopting mixed methods research discussed in this paper are primarily limited to research designs involving content analysis and interviews due to the use of these research methods in the focal study and in most prior mixed methods research examining voluntary environmental reporting.

This paper is one of few to reflect on the adoption of mixed methods research to examine voluntary environmental reporting. It highlights to other researchers the research design considerations that should be made, the costs involved (both to the research and the researcher), and the improved contribution to knowledge achievable when adopting mixed methods research over alternative approaches.

In this chapter, the authors discuss challenges and decision-making in the process of conducting quality mixed methods research in higher education, and offer the lessons learned from their experiences. The chapter begins with a discussion of quality and the ways of establishing quality in mixed methods studies. Two examples of studies are used to illustrate the issues involved in addressing quality in conducting mixed methods studies in different higher education settings. The first example discusses the challenges associated with establishing the quality of meta-inferences in a mixed methods (quantitative to qualitative) design that was used in two studies of students’ engagement and persistence in pursuing graduate degrees online in the United States. The second example presents the methodological steps and criteria for evaluating the quality of a multilevel mixed design study to explain quality management in Greek higher education. The authors also reflect on how researchers can become active participants in the co-construction of quality in mixed methods research.

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.

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.