Search results

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.

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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

This paper seeks to examine two management doctoral research projects to highlight the advantages in mixed methods as the primary research design.

This paper summarises the methods of data collection and analysis which were used by two doctoral students in their management research. The researchers used mixed methods approaches (quantitative and qualitative) to explore different areas of management.

The paper supports the view that triangulation of research methods strengthens the findings and inferences made for understanding social phenomena in more depth, compared to using a single method.

The paper relies excessively on two doctoral research projects which utilise sequential mixed methods. Therefore, arguments made in the paper are specific because other doctoral projects that have used different methods from those employed in the two projects were not considered.

Early researchers, in particular students commencing doctorate studies, should apply mixed methods research because it develops skills in the two most dominant data collection methods used in management research. This paper is a practical guide on how this could be done effectively.

The paper is drawn from two unique doctoral research projects. The paper's originality and value is in providing experiences and practical insights on how mixed methods research is undertaken.