Search results

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

This paper aims to examine mixed methods research (MMR) that appeared in eight tourism and hospitality journals (“Annals of Tourism Research”, “Tourism Management”, “Journal of Travel Research”, “Journal of Sustainable Tourism”, “International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management”, “International Journal of Hospitality Management”, “Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management” and “Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research”) from 1998 to 2019.

This review paper was a mixed methods design and was conducted in three phases. In the first phase, a content analysis was performed to determine if each article could be classified as non-empirical, qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. In the second phase, descriptive statistics was used to present the number and characteristics of MMR articles. In the third phase, the contributions of MMR to addressing particular issues in tourism and hospitality studies were investigated.

This study identified 753 mixed methods articles, wherein 482 articles (64%) were published in the chosen tourism publication outlets and 271 (36%) in the chosen hospitality publication outlets. MMR studies having a dominant focus on specific methods (459 articles; 61%) outnumbered those having an equal focus on the qualitative and quantitative parts (294 articles; 39%). In case one method was dominant, this was typically the quantitative. Sequential data collection was prevalent in most of the cases (94.2%). The contributions of MMR to addressing generic and specific research problems were also analyzed.

This is the first comparison of MMR in major tourism and hospitality journals.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to explore what the term “methodology” might be taken to mean. It uses an aphorism by Howard Becker as a springboard for examining the nature of methodology, arguing that Becker's view of methodology was misleading.

There are two components. First, “insider” account of research findings concerning the nature of mixed methods research is presented. These findings derive from a content analysis of articles based on mixed methods research and from interviews with mixed methods researchers. Second, the paper examines the paradox that qualitative research is often viewed as generating interesting findings but that qualitative researchers frequently feel that they experience difficulty in placing qualitative articles in mainstream journals.

The findings from the mixed methods study demonstrate that mixed methods research is often rationalized in a different way from how it is actually employed.

The second part of the paper should be extended so that a more comprehensive analysis of publication patterns can be carried out.

There are relatively few examinations of what we mean by “methodology.” The paper tries to move these considerations forward by arguing that methodology is about the examination of “methodic practice.”