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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.