Research Methods two essay questions 250 words or more each (APA style)

Copyright © eContent Management Pty Ltd. Journal of Management & Organization (2011) 17: 245–267.

Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 245

Mixed methods in business and management: A call to the

‘fi rst generation’

ROSLYN CAMERON School of Commerce and Management, Central Queensland University, Tweed Heads, NSW, Australia

A B S T R A C T Mixed methods is a youthful but increasingly robust methodological movement characterised by: a growing body of trans-disciplinary literature; prominent research methodologists/authorities; the emergence of mixed method specifi c journals, research texts, and courses; a growth in popularity amongst research funding bodies. Mixed methods is being utilised and reported within business and management fi elds, despite the quantitative traditions attached to certain business and manage- ment disciplines. This paper has utilised a multistrand conversion mixed model research design to undertake a retrospective content analysis of refereed papers (n = 281) from the 21st Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Conference 2007. The aim of the study is to provide a methodological map of the management research reported at the conference, and in par- ticular the use, quality and acceptance level of mixed methods research within business and manage- ment fi elds. Implications for further research are discussed along with a call to the ‘fi rst generation’ of business and management mixed method researchers to instigate mixed methods research training and capacity building within their respective business schools, relevant academies and associated professional forums and publications.

Keywords: mixed methods, research training, management research, research design, data integration, multistrand conversion mixed model

INTRODUCTION

This paper reports fi ndings from a content analysis of refereed conference papers from the annual ANZAM conference held in Sydney, 2007. ANZAM was founded in 1985 to advance management education, scholarship, research, and practice in Australia and New Zealand. The Academy is the primary professional body for management educators, researchers, and prac- titioners in Australia and New Zealand, with approximately 600 individual members and 50 institutional members (representing mostly

Australian and New Zealand universities) as well as members from other countries. The main objective of ANZAM is: • To facilitate the consideration and dissemina-

tion of management knowledge; • To provide a range of services for the ongoing

development of members; • To provide an authoritative voice to advance

the interests of the management discipline; and

• To promote greater collaboration between stakeholders. (www.anzam.org)

Roslyn Cameron

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011246

analysis. This is followed by a qualitative analysis of the mixed methods papers using a set of mixed method quality criteria.

It is hoped that the paper itself acts as an exem- plar for the reporting of a mixed methods study and has aimed to achieve this through following the good reporting of a mixed methods study (GRAMMS) framework for quality reporting of mixed methods studies developed by O’Cathain, Murphy, and Nicholl (2008). The GRAMMS framework was developed by the authors to assist and encourage quality reporting of mixed meth- ods research in the fi eld of health and related sci- ences. This six-item guidance framework includes prompts about the ‘success of the study, the mixed methods design, the individual qualitative and quantitative components, the integration between

methods and the inferences drawn from com- pleted studies’ (O’Cathain et al., 2008, p. 92).

Creswell, Tashakkori, Jensen, and Shapley (2003, p. 629) acknowledge the many dilemmas and challenges faced by what they refer to as the ‘fi rst generation’ of faculty that master and teach mixed methods research. The paper concludes by proposing further research in this area and by discussing the implications for building mixed methods research capacity in business and man- agement fi elds, the implications of new technol- ogy and mixed methods and the need to educate monomethod researchers on the growing theo- retical and methodological developments within mixed methods research.

MIXED METHODS AS A THIRD METHODOLOGICAL MOVEMENT Mixed method research is a growing area of methodological choice for many academics and researchers from across a variety of discipline areas. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004, p. 17) offer the following defi nition of mixed methods: ‘Mixed methods research is formally defi ned here as the class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or language into a single study’. Creswell and Plano

The papers at ANZAM are classifi ed across a wide variety of business and management dis- ciplines (16 streams) and contain many inter- national submissions. Other studies that have investigated the use of mixed methods in busi- ness and management disciplines have tended to do this with a single discipline focus and have used academic discipline-based journals as the data sources. This study is unique in this respect as it has analysed conference papers from within a multidisciplinary forum.

The paper will briefl y outline the rise of mixed methods as a third methodological movement (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003, p. x) and discuss studies of the use of mixed methods across busi- ness and management disciplines before intro- ducing the concept of acceptance levels of mixed methods within research fi elds. The importance of quality frameworks in reporting mixed meth- ods studies is explained before detailing the aims, research design, methodology, and fi ndings of the research study being reported. The study has taken an exploratory approach aimed at provid- ing a methodological map of recent business and management research as represented by papers from the 2007 ANZAM conference. The over- arching research question guiding this research is: What evidence exists to gauge the use, quality and acceptance levels of mixed methods research within management based research? The research has utilised a multistrand conversion mixed model research design with an overarching research ques- tion and separate quantitative and qualitative sub- questions. The content analysis provides a broad based scan of methodological use of the 2007 ANZAM conference papers using the following paper categories: conceptual; qualitative; quanti- tative; and mixed methods. The study reviewed the research methods employed in papers from each of the 16 conference themes and concluded that the number of single method studies (86% of empirical studies) exceeded those utilising mixed methods (14% of empirical studies). The study then classifi ed those papers identifi ed as mixed methods in terms of data collection and

A call to the ‘fi rst generation’ in mixed methods in business and management

Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 247

p. x). Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004, p. 14) state very clearly that mixed methods research is a ‘research paradigm whose time has come’. Mingers (2003) refers to the ceasefi re of the para- digm wars being announced while Cameron and Miller (2007) use the metaphor of the phoenix to illustrate the emergence of mixed methods as the third methodological movement, arising from the ashes of the paradigm wars.

Several authorities have been emerging as mixed methodologist researchers and theorists and an interest in mixed methods has seen the recent emergence of several publications includ- ing academic journals, chapters within research texts (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006) and research texts themselves that are dedicated to mixed methods. The most comprehensive pub- lication of mixed methods to date has been the edited Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioural Research (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). A second edition of the Handbook is due for publication in 2010. In January 2007 the fi rst issue of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research was published and this was followed by the fi rst issue of the International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches in October 2007. A very practical guide to the design and conduct of mixed methods research was published in the same year (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007) fol- lowed by other texts focused solely on mixed methods (Bergman, 2008; Greene, 2007; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). The movement has gained momentum in the last 5 years to the point where there are now discipline specifi c research texts. Creswell (2009, p. 106) in a recent editorial for the Journal of Mixed Methods noted: ‘Generic books about mixed methods will no longer be needed; instead, we will have discipline-based books, such as the recently issued book on mixed methods for nursing and the health sciences (Andrew & Halcomb, 2009)’.

Mixed methods research as a third method- ological movement is developing and evolving with recent studies of the use of mixed methods providing empirical evidence of the extent of

Clark (2007, p. 5) defi ne mixed methods as follows:

Mixed methods research is a research design with philosophical assumptions as well as methods of inquiry. As a methodology, it involves philosophical assumptions that guide the direction of the collection and analysis of data and the mixture of qualitative and quanti- tative data in a single study or series of studies. Its central premise is that the use of quantita- tive and qualitative approaches in combination provides a better understanding of research problems that either approach alone.

Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) have also mapped a brief history of mixed methods research and its evolution to date and have posited four, often overlapping, time periods in the evolution of mixed methods. These four time periods are the Formative period (1950s–1980s); Paradigm debate period (1970s–late 1990s); Procedural development period (late 1980s–2000); and the Advocacy as a separate design period (2000+). It is interesting to note the language that has been expressed around this evolution of mixed meth- ods. For example Buchanan and Bryman (2007, p. 486) in reference to organisational research, conclude that:

The paradigm wars of the 1980s have thus turned to paradigm soup, and organisational research today refl ects the paradigm diver- sity of the social sciences in general. It is not surprising that this epistemological eclecti- cism has involved the development of novel terminology; innovative research methods; non traditional forms of evidence; and fresh approaches to conceptualization, analysis, and theory building.

Based on a historical analysis Tashakkori and Teddlie refer to mixed methods as the ‘third methodological movement’ (2003, p. x). They see the evolution of mixed methods as a ‘separate type of methodology that is clearly distinct from quantitative and qualitative approaches (2003,

Roslyn Cameron

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011248

psychology, political science) and lastly, the research involves different levels of analysis (indi- vidual, dyad, team/group, organisational units, organisations).

A major premise behind the use of mixed methods is that a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches provides added perspec- tives and a more comprehensive understanding of the research problem or phenomenon being stud- ied than either approach alone could provide. The strengths and weaknesses of either approach can be offset against the other and encourages collabora- tive and trans-disciplinary research (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p. 9). Greene et al. (1989) defi ned fi ve major purposes for utilising mixed methods in research studies: • Development: to inform the development of

one method from another, using the methods sequentially for the purposes of increasing con- struct validity;

• Complementing: to explore areas of overlap and uniqueness within a phenomenon through the use of different methods for the purposes of enhancing, elaborating, illustrating or clarifying results, and to aid in the description or applica- tion of research fi ndings;

• Triangulation: to cross-check and corroborate results by the use of different types of data;

• Expansion: to increase the range or scope of inquiry by appropriately matching the method- ology to various components of the question of interest; and

• Initiation: to specifi cally discover inconsisten- cies and new perspectives that may be uncov- ered as a result of employing both qualitative and quantitative methods.

Many of the characteristics and contexts of business and management research contribute to the impetus and utilisation of mixed methods. These include: multiple theoretical foundations; the frequent trans-disciplinary nature of man- agement and organisational research; the scope, range and complexity of business and manage- ment research; and the need to ensure validity,

utilisation of mixed methods in contemporary research. Systematic reviews of the use of mixed methods have been conducted in the fi elds of: counselling (Hanson, Creswell, Clark, Petska, & Creswell., 2005); psychology (Powell, Mihalas, Onwuegbuzie, Suldo, & Daley, 2008); health and nursing research (O’Cathain, Murphy, & Nicholl, 2007); medical education research (Schifferdecker, 2007); social and human sciences (Bryman, 2008; Plano Clark, 2005); and evaluation research (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989). In the fi eld of management research, Mingers (1997) and Mingers and Gill (1997) have been strong advocates for multimethodology or pluralism. The next section of the paper will discuss the use of mixed methods in management fi elds in detail. Creswell and Plano Clark have concluded that ‘today, we see cross-cultural international interest, interdisciplinary interest, publication possibili- ties, and public and private funding opportuni- ties for mixed methods research’ (2007, p. 18). An aim of this paper is to gauge the use, quality, and acceptance of mixed methods research within the management research community, as represented by ANZAM.

STUDIES INVESTIGATING THE USE OF MIXED METHODS IN MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Management is a diverse fi eld with many disci- plines represented which draw upon an array of theoretical foundations and frameworks. This range and diversity is refl ected in a similar diver- sity of research approaches employed within management research. Currall and Towler (2003) document three major advantages to the diversity of qualitative and quantitative methods utilised in management and organisational research. The fi rst advantage being that the methodological vari- ety mirrors the variety of research questions posed by management and organisational researchers. Secondly, the heterogeneity of research methods is needed because of the number of theoretical paradigms that management and organisational research draws from (i.e., sociology, economics,

A call to the ‘fi rst generation’ in mixed methods in business and management

Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 249

(genuinely multimethod) were 13%. This group represented 1.1% of all the articles within the larger sample (n = 1195) (Hanson & Grimmer, 2005, p. 66). The authors conclude that the continued dominance of quantitative research in marketing is linked to historical, social, and practical arguments. Some of these historical and social arguments are explained in more detail in the next section of the paper that looks at disci- pline acceptance levels of mixed methods.

Bazeley (2008, p. 135) reviewed 16 research articles in Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ: June 2005–March 2006) and 19 from the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ: February and April, 2006). Of these 35 articles, six utilised a pure qualitative approach. Eight of the 35 used mixed methods (although the most common approach in these was to quantify qualitative data for sta- tistical analysis with little or no further reference to the qualitative material). In others, qualita- tive interview data was gathered for the purpose of designing or to supplementing quantitative measures and was only referred to minimally, if at all, in elaborating the results or discussion of the statistical analyses. Bazeley (2008) concluded that this confi rmed the continuing predominance of quantitatively based, statistical, hypothesis testing approaches in management studies.

Three similar pieces of research have directly informed the study reported in this paper. All three studies aim to discover the extent and cur- rent role mixed methods plays in the business/ management fi elds through a process of system- atic review of empirical studies. The fi rst is a study undertaken by Rocco, Bliss, Gallagher, and Pérez- Prado (2003) who reviewed 16 online articles from 1999 to 2001 in the Information Technology, Learning and Performance Journal. The second study was conducted by Hurmerinta-Peltomaki and Nummela (2006) and involved the review of articles from four major journals in interna- tional business between 2000 and 2003. The third study involved a methodological scan of the Strategic Management Journal from 1997 to 2006 by Molina-Azorin (2009).

credibility, transferability, and generalisability. A major advantage behind the use of mixed methods is that mixed methods can provide more insight and a deeper understanding of the phenomenon being studied than a single monomethod. ‘Mixed methods are typically employed in applied set- tings where it is necessary to draw on multiple data sources to understand complex phenomena, and where there is little opportunity for experi- mentation’ (Bazeley, 2008, p. 135).

Hurmerinta-Peltomaki and Nummela (2006) in their study on the use of mixed methods in international business research concluded there is clear value-added benefi ts when compared to traditional mono method approaches. They also found that ‘it was not only the combination of data and analysis but also the timing of the com- bination that varied, and this again created differ- ent types of value-added’ (Hurmerinta-Peltomaki and Nummela, 2006, p. 452).

There is a growing body of research that is investigating the incidence and usage of mixed methods in management research. Rocco, Bliss, Gallagher, and Pérez-Prado (2002) explored how mixed methods was approached in the fi elds of human resource development (HRD) and adult education and Mingers (2003) reviewed the information systems literature in reference to the use of multimethod research. Hanson and Grimmer (2005) undertook a content analysis of 1195 journal articles from three prominent mar- keting journals from 1993 to 2002. The purpose of this study was to determine the mix of quali- tative and quantitative research published in the fi eld of marketing. The authors identifi ed 105 mixed quantitative/qualitative articles and coded these further to determine the primary orienta- tion of the research as either: quantitative; quali- tative; or triangulated. They found 74% of these articles were primarily quantitative (qualitative data not reported but used in design of the quan- titative component). The articles coded as pri- marily qualitative represented 12% (quantitative data represented in a secondary manner) of the articles and those articles coded as triangulated

Roslyn Cameron

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011250

empirical studies utilised a mixed method. These 68 studies were then further categorised/coded according to a classifi cation tool inspired by mixed methods typologies designed by Creswell (2003) and Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998). The classifi cation tool developed is a 2 × 2 matrix (see Figure 2). Both the classifi cations and codes used by the Hurmerinta-Peltomaki and Nummela (2006) study have been replicated in the study being reported in this paper and are detailed in the methodology section. The authors focused on the extent of mixed methods in international business (IB) research and the potential of mixed methods to add value. The authors describe the fi eld of international business as a ‘multi-fac- eted area of research, crossing national, cultural, organisational and personal boundaries, and inspiring complicated research questions’ (2006, p. 440). They argue that narrow methodological approaches would reveal only a small piece of the reality within this complex fi eld.

The third study by Molina-Azorin (2009) stud- ied the use of mixed methods in strategy research as represented in articles from all issues of the Strategic Management Journal from 1984 to 2006. A total of 676 journal articles were reviewed and of these 570 (84%) were categorised as empiri- cal. Of these empirical articles the majority were quantitative (77%; n = 441), 17% (n = 99) of arti- cles were mixed methods and 5% (n = 30) were qualitative. The majority of mixed methods arti- cles were dominated by the quantitative aspect of the research with the qualitative methods playing a supportive role (Molina-Azorin, 2009, p. 51). Nonetheless, this studied illustrates that there is a level of usage and acceptance of mixed methods within the strategic management fi eld.

These studies indicate that mixed methods is being used and reported within certain manage- ment fi elds. Business and management research is a sphere of research activity that has a multidisci- plinary and pragmatically applied focus and must cater to a diverse consumer base. Bazeley (2008) makes the assertion that business and management research needs to meet the needs of its audiences:

The Rocco et al. (2003) study reviewed 16 online articles from 1999 to 2001 in the Information Technology, Learning and Performance Journal. The authors screened the abstracts, methods, and fi ndings sections of the articles and found that no authors explicitly stated the use of mixed methods in the abstracts. However, three articles were identifi ed as using mixed methods through closer examination of the methods sec- tion of the articles. Nonetheless these authors ‘did not explicitly state their commitment to using mixed methods’ (Rocco et al., 2003, p. 24) but took a pragmatic approach justifying the use as an issue of suitability their particular study. Rocco et al. (2003) explore these three studies in greater depth and concluded that ‘little explicit discussion of research design decision-making or theoretical support for mixing design compo- nents was observed in the examples used’ (Rocco et al., 2003, p. 27). This is supported by previous research undertaken by the authors in the fi eld of human resource development and adult education (Rocco et al., 2002). The authors call for research courses that specifi cally deal with instruction on how to mix qualitative and quantitative methods in the stages of research design. They also call for appropriate journals to encourage the inclusion of such discussions in research (Rocco et al., 2003, p. 27).

The purpose of the Hurmerinta-Peltomaki and Nummela (2006) study was to investigate the implementation and impact of mixed meth- ods research in IB research. As a consequence the authors decide to focus on articles published in four major IB journals between 2000 and 2003: (1) International Business Review, (2) Journal of International Business Studies, (3) Journal of World Business, (4) Management International Review. The articles were classifi ed under four main cat- egories: conceptual articles; qualitative studies; quantitative studies; and mixed method studies. The researchers screened 484 articles and found 394 articles contained empirical research designs (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method). The study found that 68 (17%) of the 394

A call to the ‘fi rst generation’ in mixed methods in business and management

Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 251

comparison or integration of qualitative and quantitative data; and

3. the diffi culties encountered in publishing mixed methods studies, given word limits and the amount of data such studies present.

Despite these challenges the authors go on to conclude that mixed methods is worthy of greater utility and recognition within their specifi c fi eld of medical education research. This, they argue, is due to the superior ability of mixed methods to increase integrity and applicability of fi ndings of new and complex research issues (Schifferdecker & Reed, 2009, p. 637).

Studies that utilise mixed methods approaches may face problems in being published due to domi- nant paradigmatic views expressed within discipline fi elds (Hurmerinta-Peltomaki & Nummela, 2006; Welch & Welch, 2004). Some journals explicitly exclude certain methodological approaches, whereas others imply methodological preferences. In a lot of respects decisions about where to submit literature for publication is determined by the level of accep- tance within disciplines and specifi c paradigmatic preferences of the publications themselves.

Hanson and Grimmer (2005) in their analysis of methods employed in marketing journals con- cluded that the continued dominance of quanti- tative research in marketing is linked to historical, social, and practical arguments. Historically, aca- demic marketing fi nds its philosophical roots in economics and the positivist traditions of infl uen- tial centres (German Historical School of econom- ics and the Harvard University Graduate School of Business) and along with economics and psychol- ogy are ‘quantitative and sternly positivist in ori- entation’ (Hanson & Grimmer, 2005, p. 66). The social arguments referred to by the authors relate to the legitimation and socialisation of academic mar- keters to the Kuhnian philosophy of paradigm:

In such a community, status and promotion are based on practicing, or at least understand- ing, the dominant techniques. There is also the issue of disciplinary status within the academic

funding bodies; industry partners; thesis examin- ers; journal editors; and readers (Bazeley, 2008). The landscape of research resourcing and activity has undergone recent changes that have created more opportunities for mixed methods research. Brannen (2009, p. 9) identifi es a number of trends that have given impetus to mixed methods over the last two decades. These include: a growth in research that serves strategic goals as opposed to theory driven research; the adoption of external market mechanism for commissioning research with a corresponding emphasis on effi ciency and competence in delivering research with direct relevance to the funders; research questions and problems to complex policy issues are not typi- cally elegant, linear and theoretically driven; the slow and steady rise and acceptance of qualita- tive research; the increasingly defi ned skills-based economy which relies on continual training and capacity building also applies to research train- ing and capacity building and lastly; those that research and work in fi elds that draw from a range of theoretical perspectives are more likely to pro- mote the use of mixed methods than those in more strongly bounded disciplines.

DISCIPLINE ACCEPTANCE LEVELS IN MIXED METHODS RESEARCH Employing a mixed methods approach is not without its challenges and has been noted by Molina-Azorin (2009) and other contributors to the Special Issue of the International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches on ‘Mixed Methods for Novice Researchers’ (2009). Schifferdecker and Reed (2009, p. 641) identifi ed three gen- eral challenges for conducting mixed methods research:

1. the availability of resources with which to conduct the research, including time, money and personnel with strengths in both qualitative and quantitative methods;

2. access to tools and programmes with which to store and arrange data to promote

Roslyn Cameron

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011252

quantitative methods used in integrated studies so that readers can adequately evaluate, appreciate, replicate, and stimulate innovative approaches to combined studies.

Creswell and Plano Clark (2007, pp. 178–180) provide a checklist for evaluating the level of acceptance of mixed methods research within dis- ciplines. They categorise three types of acceptance levels: minimal; moderate; and major. Minimal discipline acceptance is categorised by: awareness of qualitative research within the discipline; publi- cation of mixed method studies in discipline-based journals; graduate students using mixed methods in dissertation research; discussion in journals about the need for mixed methods; and mixed methods discussed at professional conferences. Major acceptance is characterised by: special issues of a journal on the use of mixed methods within the discipline; publication of mixed methods stud- ies in top discipline-based journals; and courses on mixed methods research as part of graduate research training programmes. These three accep- tance levels could be considered as a type of con- tinuum for gauging acceptance levels for specifi c disciplines. An example of major acceptance levels can be found in the discipline fi elds of evaluation, health and nursing, psychology, family medicine, education and organisational studies. These dis- ciplines fi elds discuss and utilise mixed methods extensively. Journals from the fi elds of family med- icine, counselling psychology and school based education have published special issues on qualita- tive and mixed methods. The International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches is publishing spe- cial issues on mixed methods in specifi c discipline fi elds (health sciences, education and business) in 2011. One of the aims of this paper is to gauge the acceptance levels of mixed methods in business and management fi elds.

QUALITY ISSUES IN MIXED METHODS RESEARCH The continued development and evolution of mixed methods has seen an increasing interest and attention to the issue of quality in mixed methods

community and this too means that quantita- tive research is dominant: well-established social sciences such as psychology and economics … are quantitative and so too must be marketing. In addition, status issues between academic departments/schools which involve signifi cant funding implications are globally common in the university sector; … The more quantitative a marketing department seems, the more auto- matically respectable it becomes: the paradigm is strong. (Hanson & Grimmer, 2005, p. 67)

For certain disciplines within business and management research the quantitative paradigm is very entrenched. This may lead researchers and academics wishing to have their research published in journals, more likely to report only quantita- tive research and fi ndings. Brannen (2005, p. 26) makes the salient point that:

… academic journals tend to be organized around disciplines and may favour particular types of research. … Some researchers using mixed methods may for such reasons report their qualitative and quantitative data sepa- rately. Researchers presenting evidence based on both qualitative and quantitative methods but drawing upon one set of evidence and under reporting the other may risk criticism for not fully exploiting the possibilities for the analysis of both sets of data.

Currall and Towler (2003, p. 515) in their discussion on the integration of qualitative and quantitative techniques in management and organisational research call for:

… increasing the breadth of graduate research methods training, expanding collaboration among qualitative and quantitative researchers within professional organisations, establish- ing promotion and tenure policies that reward methodological breadth, and institutional journal editorial policies that support the com- bination of methods.

The authors call for journal editors to demand the full explication of both the qualitative and

A call to the ‘fi rst generation’ in mixed methods in business and management

Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 253

articles. O’Cathain et al. (2008) have developed a set of quality criteria questions for reporting mixed methods studies in health services research under the banner of GRAMMS. This six-item guidance framework includes prompts about the ‘success of the study, the mixed methods design, the individ- ual qualitative and quantitative components, the integration between methods and the inferences drawn from completed studies’ (O’Cathain et al., 2008, p. 92). The GRAMMS includes the follow- ing set of quality prompts/guidelines:

1. Describe the justifi cation for using a mixed methods approach to the research question

2. Describe the design in terms of the purpose, priority, and sequence of methods

3. Describe each method in terms of sampling, data collection, and analysis

4. Describe where integration has occurred, how it has occurred and who has partici- pated in it

5. Describe any limitation of one method asso- ciated with the presence of the other method

6. Describe any insights gained from mixing or integrating methods

In an exercise of refl exivity these quality prompts/guidelines will be acknowledged and addressed in the discussion relating to this paper which itself reports a mixed methods study.

RESEARCH PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS In consideration of the issues presented, the present study sought to investigate the use and quality of mixed methods research within management based research as represented by the 21st annual ANZAM conference 2007. A mixed methods study was undertaken to achieve this aim and as a result has utilised a mixed methods approach to research ques- tions, research design, and research reporting. The rationale for choosing a mixed methods approach for this study was based on two mixed methods purposes or rationales as devised by Bryman (2008,

studies. Due to limitations imposed on article length an in depth discussion of these develop- ments is not possible, however a brief overview of the frameworks developed will be presented. Sale and Brazil (2004) sought to identify criteria to crit- ically appraise the quality of mixed methods studies as documented in the health sciences. The overall goal of the authors being to ‘promote standards for guiding and assessing the methodological quality of [mixed methods] studies’ (Sale & Brazil, 2004, p. 361). The quality criteria identifi ed includes:

• Truth value (credibility vs. internal validity)

• Applicability (transferability/fi ttingness vs. external validity/generalizability)

• Consistency (dependability vs. reliability)

• Neutrality (confi rmability vs. objectivity) (Sale & Brazil, 2004, pp. 358–360)

The Sale and Brazil (2004) criteria appears to be a result of an exercise in combining established quality criteria for single method or monomethod quantitative and qualitative research. Since then others have developed more specifi c mixed meth- ods quality criteria. Bryman, Becker, and Sempik (2008, p. 275) explored quality criteria for quan- titative, qualitative, and mixed methods research in social policy research from within the UK and devised the following quality criteria for mixed methods research:

• mixed method research should be relevant to the research question;

• the procedures employed in doing mixed method research should be transparent;

• mixed methods fi ndings need to be inte- grated and not left as distinct quantitative and qualitative fi ndings;

• a rationale for using a mixed methods approach should be outlined.

Bryman (2008) went on to develop a list of 17 rationales for utilising mixed methods and applied these to a systematic review of social science journal

Roslyn Cameron

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011254

rationale or purpose for undertaking mixed methods?

RQ6: Do those utilising mixed methods in management based research utilise a mixed methods typology or research design?

RQ7: What priority is being given to quali- tative and quantitative data in management mixed methods research?

Research design As noted by Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2009) there now exists a vast array of mixed methods typolo- gies and research designs which can be bewilder- ing even to the experienced researcher. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003) developed a four dimensional typology based on a set of four criteria: number of methods used; number of strands or phases; type of implementation – concurrent, sequential or conversion; and stage of integration. One of resulting research designs from this typology is the multistrand conversion mixed model research design and has been chosen for this research:

In this type of design multiple approach ques- tions are asked. One type of data is collected and analyzed and is then transformed to another data type (qualitized/quantized) and analyzed accord- ingly. Two types of inferences are made on the basis of each set of results and are pulled together at the end to generate meta-inferences … This design is different from the previous one [mul- tistrand conversion mixed method] in that it is also mixed in the conceptualization stage (e.g., questions) as well as in the inference stage. (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003, p. 689)

Figure 1 provides a visual depiction of the mul- tistrand conversion mixed model research design. The data utilised is qualitative secondary data and has been quantized through answering the quan- titative research sub-questions in the fi rst strand. The mixed methods data identifi ed in the fi rst strand is then analysed qualitatively in the second strand through answering the qualitative research

pp. 91–92). These rationales are illustration and enhancement. Illustration refers to the use of quali- tative data to illustrate quantitative data results. Enhancement is the building on or augmenting of one type of data (qualitative or quantitative) with the other. Illustration and enhancement was obtained through qualitatively analysing the data set of mixed methods studies identifi ed through the quantitative collection and analysis strand. A pure quantitative approach to the study would provide evidence of usage across management fi elds but would not yield suffi cient data about the quality of the mixed methods studied. A pure qualitative approach would not be able to succinctly provide broad data for usage across these papers whereas the combination of both provides a more complete pic- ture of the phenomenon being studied.

Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009, p. 133) refer to an approach to framing research questions in a mixed methods study. This approach involves proposing an overarching mixed research question and then expanding on this through separate sub- questions that are either qualitative or quantitative. This has been the approach taken in this study. As a result the following overarching research ques- tion and research sub-questions were posited:

Overarching research question RQ1: What evidence exists to gauge the use, quality and acceptance levels of mixed methods research within management based research?

Quantitative sub-questions RQ2: What is the frequency of use of mixed methods within management based research?

RQ3: What evidence exists to measure the acceptance level of mixed methods in manage- ment based research?

RQ4: What levels of integration of data collec- tion and analysis is being achieved in manage- ment based mixed methods research?

Qualitative sub-questions RQ5: Do those utilising mixed methods in management based research explicitly state a

A call to the ‘fi rst generation’ in mixed methods in business and management

Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 255

as they represent the target population. The sample includes 281 refereed papers across 16 conference themes from the 21st ANZAM Conference, 2007 (refer to Table 1 for a list of the conference themes). Papers were reviewed using a priori coding system. Data was collected from each refereed paper and included conference stream, demographic data, research design, and methods used.

Quantitative analysis of the qualitative data As per the multistrand conversion mixed model research design employed for this study, the qualita- tive data is quantised through a process of quantita- tive analysis. Papers were reviewed using a coding

sub-questions. Inferences are obtained for both strands of data collection and analysis. A meta- inference is achieved that attends to the overarch- ing research question.

METHODOLOGY

Data collection and sample

The data collection method employed in this research is a systematic review involving the content analysis of conference papers. The research analysed qualitative data both quantitatively and qualitatively. The sampling technique utilised was purposive or judgemental sampling, whereby specialised selected sample elements have been chosen by the researcher

Purpose/question

QUANT Research sub-Qs

QUAL Research sub-Qs

Data Collection

QUAL secondary data source

Data Analysis

QUANT

Meta-Inference

Inference

QUANT

Purpose/question

Overarching research question

Data Analysis

QUAL

Inference

QUAL

FIGURE 1: MULTISTRAND CONVERSION MIXED MODEL DESIGN. SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM TASHAKKORI AND TEDDLIE (2003, P. 689).

Roslyn Cameron

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011256

considered to be those with data mainly in textual form and where the data was analysed by employ- ing qualitative techniques. Mixed method studies were categorised as such if the same researcher/s was involved in both qualitative and quantitative phases. The use of mixed methods need to be expressed within the paper, or at least the reader needed to be able to infer it.

Further analysis of those papers considered to be mixed methods followed. Each of the 28 mixed method studies were evaluated according to the classifi cation tool designed by the Hurmerinta- Peltomaki and Nummela (2006, p. 446) study and depicted in Figure 2. The classifi cation involves labelling a study with one letter (A or C), two letters

system replicated from the Hurmerinta-Peltomaki and Nummela (2006) study. The categories for research paper type included: conceptual; quantita- tive; qualitative; and mixed method. Coding deci- sions for what constituted each paper type followed the protocol outlined by the Hurmerinta-Peltomaki and Nummela (2006). Conceptual papers included general themes, literature reviews, and conceptual/ analytical papers without empirical data. Some papers reported on an empirical study/ies that the author/s had not conducted themself/selves, and these were also included in the conceptual paper category. Quantitative papers were judged to be so if they were in numerical form and analysis was based only on this data. Qualitative papers were

TABLE 1: DATASET OF THE STUDYTABLE 1: DATASET OF THE STUDY

Conference theme/Stream Conceptual QUAL QUANT Mixed Total methods

1. Critical Management Studies 4 3 0 0 7

2. Entrepreneurship and Small Business 3 4 5 2 15

3. Gender and Diversity in Organisations 4 6 6 1 17

4. Human Resource Management 13 13 9 1 36 and Development

5. International Management 3 2 2 0 7

6. Knowledge Management and 9 3 8 3 23 Intellectual Capital

7. Management Education 1 5 4 8 18 and Development

8. Marketing and Communication 3 2 6 3 14

9. Networks, Clusters, Collaboration 10 3 8 0 21 and Social Capital

10. Organisational Change 3 4 8 1 16

11. Organisational Behaviour 10 18 9 1 37

12. Public Sector and Non-profi t 3 3 5 1 12

13. Research Methods 1 2 1 4 8

14. Strategic Management 9 1 4 1 15

15. Sustainability and Social Issues 6 3 9 0 18 in Management

16. Technology, Quality and 1 8 6 2 17 Operations Management

Total 83 (30%) 79 (28%) 90 (32%) 28 (10%) 281 (100%)

Source: Cameron (2008).

A call to the ‘fi rst generation’ in mixed methods in business and management

Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 257

literature. Conference papers and journal articles are very different in terms of length, review pro- cesses, and academic rigour. Added to this is the differences in publication years and time spans. The year of publication of the ANZAM confer- ence papers (2007) and the systematic reviews of discipline specifi c business and management jour- nal articles referred to in the review of literature, are disparate in terms of sample size and chrono- logical time spans. Secondly, the analysis in this study was focused on the mixed method papers. A fuller analysis of all empirical studies (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method) would have pro- vided a broader methodological scan of the man- agement research from within the sample. Quality criteria for the single method or monomethod quantitative and qualitative research could also be applied to these studies as a means of comparison. Future research is planned for discipline clusters of management/business research as represented by discipline specifi c journals for 2004–2008 to combat some of these limitations and expand the scope of the research.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION The structure of the presentation of the fi ndings and discussion will refl ect the structure of the mul- tistrand conversion mixed model research design employed. Findings from Strand 1 will precede the fi ndings from Strand 2. The research sub- questions and inferences for each strand will be discussed before presenting the meta-inferences.

Strand 1: Findings and discussion The quantitative data analysis employed for the qualitative data utilised descriptive and univariate statistics. Table 1 depicts the frequency distribu- tion of research paper types across the 16 confer- ence streams. Quantitative papers represented just under one third of the papers (32%), followed by conceptual papers (30%). Qualitative papers rep- resented 28% of the papers and mixed methods represented 10%. Papers were categorised as either conceptual or empirical (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods). This process identifi ed a total

(AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD), three letters (ABC, ABD, ACD, BCD), or four letters (ABCD). Please note that the types A and D were not included as these do not represent a mixed method study. Descriptions of these classifi cations are listed in Table 3. Numerical codes for each paper/article were entered into SPSS statistical software.

Qualitative analysis of the qualitative data The full qualitative analysis involved a content analysis of the 28 mixed method papers identifi ed in the previous quantitative analysis by utilising qualitative analysis techniques and NVivo 8 soft- ware. These qualitative data analysis techniques included thematic textual analysis. Themes iden- tifi ed in the qualitative analysis were derived from the literature on quality in mixed methods research and addressed in the qualitative research sub-questions (data analysis integration; ratio- nale; research design and; the priority dimension). Both manifest (visible surface content) and latent (underlying and implicit meaning) coding were employed to initially investigate whether certain phrases/terms were explicitly utilised and then to explore the context of the phrase/term and/or to determine implicit content and meaning. This strengthens the fi nal result of the analysis. The qualitative data analysis of a sub-set of fi ve of the 28 identifi ed mixed methods papers is presented.

Limitations It must be noted that limitations exist in attempt- ing to compare different forms of academic

A

CQuantitative

Qualitative

Data Collection

Qualitative

B

D

Quantitative

Data Analysis

FIGURE 2: CLASSIFICATION TOOL OR MIXED METHODS STUDIES. SOURCE: HURMERINTA-PELTOMAKI AND NUMMELA (2006).

Roslyn Cameron

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011258

Table 2 plots the frequencies of the identifi ed mixed methods papers across a classifi cation sys- tem for mixed methods studies. The large major- ity of mixed method type papers were in the AD classifi cation (n = 22 or 78%). This classifi cation analyses qualitative data qualitatively and analyses quantitative data quantitatively.

Responses to the Strand 1 quantitative research sub-questions will be addressed before presenting the Strand 1 inference.

Strand 1: Quantitative sub-questions

RQ2: What is the frequency of use of mixed methods within management based research?

Of the 197 conference papers with an empiri- cal research design, 14% (n = 28) utilised a mixed method as compared to 46% (n = 90) quantitative

of 197 papers with an empirical research design. Of these empirical studies 28 (14%) utilised a mixed method. From Table 1 it can be concluded that the number of single method studies exceeded those utilising mixed methods. Four research streams did not have any mixed methods (MM) papers: • Critical Management Studies (n = 7) • International Management (n = 7) • Networks, Clusters, Collaboration, and Social

Capital (n = 21) • Sustainability and Social Issues in Management

(n = 18).

The streams with the most mixed methods papers were: • Management Education and Development

(MM = 8; n = 18) • Research Methods (MM = 4; n = 8).

TABLE 2: MIXED METHODS STUDIES ACCORDING TO CLASSIFICATIONTABLE 2: MIXED METHODS STUDIES ACCORDING TO CLASSIFICATION

Code Description Number of studies in the analysis

B Qualitative data analysed quantitatively 0

C Quantitative data analysed qualitatively 0

AB Qualitative data analysed qualitatively and quantitatively 2

AC Qualitative and quantitative data, both analysed qualitatively 1

AD Qualitative data analysed qualitatively, quantitative data analysed quantitatively 23

BC Qualitative data analysed quantitatively, quantitative data analysed qualitatively 0

BD Qualitative and quantitative data, both analysed quantitatively 1

CD Quantitative data analysed qualitatively and quantitatively 0

ABC Qualitative and quantitative data, both analysed qualitatively, qualitative data 0 also analysed qualitatively

ABD Qualitative and quantitative data, both analysed quantitatively, qualitative 1 data also analysed qualitatively

ACD Qualitative and quantitative data, both analysed qualitatively, quantitative 0 data also analysed quantitatively

BCD Qualitative and quantitative data, both analysed quantitatively, quantitative 0 data also analysed qualitatively

ABCD Qualitative and quantitative data, both analysed concurrently with qualitative 0 and quantitative research methods

Total 28

Source: Cameron (2008).

A call to the ‘fi rst generation’ in mixed methods in business and management

Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 259

The classifi cation system utilised in this study (Table 2) is a very useful tool for evaluating lev- els of integration in mixed methods studies. The fi ndings indicate that the most popular form of mixed methods research is the AD classifi cation. Just under three quarters (n = 23 or 82%) of the mixed methods studies utilised this form of mixed method research. The AD classifi cation of mixed method research study is that which uses qualita- tive data analysed qualitatively and quantitative data analysed quantitatively. Five of the 28 mixed methods studies identifi ed in this study indicated alternate classifi cations. The AD classifi cation is one which displays no integration of data analysis as the qualitative data is analysed qualitatively and the quantitative data is analysed quantitatively. This maintains a separation between the two data sets. In the other fi ve classifi cations utilised there is a level of integration of the data analysis.

Strand 1: Quantitative inference The results of the quantitative analysis of the qualitative data in Strand 1 of the research dem- onstrates mixed methods is being utilised in business and management research. The most fre- quent types of papers in the sample being quan- titative (32%), followed by conceptual (30%), qualitative (28%), and mixed methods (10%). Unlike the studies reported by Bazeley (2008), Molina-Azorin (2009), and Hanson and Grimmer (2005) for discipline specifi c journals, quantita- tive approaches were not as dominant and in fact there was a relatively even spread across the con- ceptual, quantitative and qualitative papers for the sample. These fi ndings prompt further ques- tions: Does this have something to do with pref- erences for reporting and publishing quantitative research over other types of studies? Does this cre- ate a tendency by those engaging in mixed meth- ods studies to only report the quantitative part of their studies in the hope this raises the chances of journal publication?

In terms of acceptance levels there is a slight indication that business and management fi elds are beginning to utilise and accept mixed

papers and 40% (n = 79) qualitative papers (40%). It can be concluded that the number of single method studies (86% of empirical studies) exceeded those utilising mixed methods (14% of empirical studies). Mixed methods papers repre- sented 10% of all conference papers with a rela- tively even mix of quantitative and qualitative papers along with conceptual papers.

RQ3: What evidence exists to measure the acceptance level of mixed methods in manage- ment based research?

The evidence produced for the previous research sub-question (RQ2) and the systematic reviews referred to in the literature review point to a pos- sible minimal acceptance of mixed methods across business and management fi elds. The two confer- ence streams that contained the most number of mixed methods studies were the Management Education and Development (MM = 8, n = 18) and Research Methods streams (MM = 4, n = 8). These results points to the early stages of minimal acceptance. Further evidence needs to be collected in order to make a more informed judgement and response to this question.

RQ4: What levels of integration of data collec- tion and analysis is being achieved in manage- ment based mixed methods research?

The question of the level of integration of data collection and analysis in mixed methods research is described as:

… how far do mixed methods researchers ana- lyze, interpret, and write up their research in such a way that the quantitative and qualitative components are mutually illuminating? This is what is meant in this article by ‘genuinely inte- grate.’ It involves the question of whether the components of a mixed methods investigation are related to each other or whether they are either totally or largely independent of each other … the degree to which researchers link their quantitative and their qualitative fi ndings in the course of analyzing and writing up their fi ndings. (Bryman, 2007, p. 8)

Roslyn Cameron

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011260

Responses to the Strand 2 qualitative research sub-questions will be addressed before presenting the Strand 2 inference.

Strand 2: Qualitative sub-questions RQ5: Do those utilising mixed methods in management based research explicitly state a rationale or purpose for undertaking mixed methods?

Of the total number of identifi ed mixed methods papers (n = 28) not one of these papers explicitly stated a rationale or purpose for mixing methods however, fi ve of these papers did state that they were using a combination of both quan- titative and quantitative methods.

RQ6: Do those utilising mixed methods in management based research utilise a mixed methods typology or research design?

For the 28 papers identifi ed in this study as using mixed methods only one paper actually referred to the mixed methods literature and util- ised a mixed methods research design.

RQ7: What priority is being given to quali- tative and quantitative data in management based mixed methods research?

The fi ndings have highlighted how diffi cult it is to try to determine the priority given to either qualitative or quantitative data in the mixed method papers. This is due in part, to the variety of methods used, the variety of method combina- tions and sequencing of methods and, the diverse approaches to implementation and sequencing. Nonetheless, it is mainly due to the fact most papers do not articulate or make the priority or sequencing transparent. This is a major compo- nent of good quality research reporting and a frequent criticism of published mixed methods studies.

Strand 2: Qualitative inference Qualitative analysis was undertaken for all identifi ed mixed methods papers and the full

methods. The rates of mixed methods in the Hurmerinta-Peltomaki and Nummela (2006) and Molina-Azorin (2009) study were at 17% of empirical articles as compared to 14% of empiri- cal papers in this study. The fact mixed methods is being presented in conference streams where management education and research methods are being discussed also indicates this tendency towards minimal acceptance. Given the scope and breadth of business and management fi elds this assertion needs to be made cautiously. For certain discipline fi elds there is a strong paradig- matic stance towards quantitative approaches. The fi ndings also point to an over reliance of mixed methods research types that maintain the quantitative qualitative divide and the non use of more integrated mixed method designs. This has direct implications for building the research capacity of business and management research- ers and points to the need for the inclusion of mixed methods in higher degree research train- ing curricula.

Strand 2: Findings and discussion Due to the length limitations of this paper the full qualitative analysis for all 28 mixed methods papers is not possible. A summary of key fi ndings is presented as follows. Of the 28 mixed methods papers, fi ve did state that they chose to use both quantitative and qualitative methods, however no paper explicitly stated a rationale or purpose for utilising mixed methods. The majority of the identifi ed mixed methods papers did not address specifi c quality criteria for reporting mixed meth- ods. Only one paper explicitly used mixed meth- ods terminology, literature and authorities when discussing research design.

The full qualitative analysis of a sub-set of fi ve of the mixed methods papers is presented in Table 3. The mixed methods papers were predominantly the AD classifi cation (n = 23) however there were fi ve papers which were not (AC, BD, ABD, and two AB papers) four of these papers plus one of the AD classifi ed papers has been chosen for the mixed methods sub-set.

A call to the ‘fi rst generation’ in mixed methods in business and management

Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 261

TABLE 3: SUB-SET OF MIXED METHODS PAPERSTABLE 3: SUB-SET OF MIXED METHODS PAPERS

Paper ID Classifi cation Research design, methods and analysis

Paper AB(1)

Entrepreneurship & Small Business Stream

Qualitative data analysed qualitatively and quantitatively

Research design: Not explicitly stated.

Refereed to as an ‘evaluation project’ in the abstract.

Rationale: Not articulated.

Priority: Unclear/not stated.

Sequence: QUAL + QUAL + [QUALl + QUANT]

Methods: heading ‘Evaluation methods’

Refl ective journals and student questionnaire.

Analysis: Tally system for negative and positive comments from within refl ective journals.

Textual analysis on student questionnaires.

Staff interviews and weekly logs.

Paper AC(1)

Organisational Behaviour Stream

Qualitative and quantitative data, both analysed qualitatively

Research design: Triangulated research design with four stages – explicitly stated.

Rationale: Not articulated.

Priority: Unclear/not stated.

Sequence: QUAL → QUANT → QUAL → QUAL

Methods: Four Stages

1. Focus groups

2. Survey

3. Semi structured interviews

4. Unstructured interviews.

Analysis: Qualitative analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data. Thematic review: six themes identifi ed. Textual analysis with no statistical information provided.

Paper BD(1)

Management Education and Development Stream

Qualitative and quantitative data, both analysed quantitatively

Research design: ‘A combined qualitative and quantitative research methodology was employed’ – explicitly stated.

Rationale: Not articulated.

Priority: Two quantitative instruments seemed to have more results reported than the qualitative observational instrument.

Sequence: QUAL → QUANT + QUANT

Methods: Observation using an observational tool (EIBCA), followed by 2 quantitative instruments (LBQ and EISAQ).

Analysis: Cronbach Alpha co-effi cient, use of SPSS version 11.0, MANOVA and ANOVA.

A total of 10 tables were included in the paper all with numerical statistics.

(continued)

Roslyn Cameron

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011262

qualitative analysis was presented on fi ve of the mixed methods papers. The fi ndings point to a lack of acknowledgement of the growing body of mixed methods literature and lack of attention to the quality criteria for reporting mixed methods. This needs to be explored further. Is it a result of a lack of training in mixed methods? Perhaps it refl ects the recent emergence of mixed meth- ods as a third methodological movement and trends over time may give a better indication of the maturity of the movement as refl ected in its future utilisation in business and management research. The diversity of approaches in the pri- oritising and sequencing and implementation

of data in the mixed methods papers is some- thing that can be analysed further through the development of a framework for denoting this aspect of mixed methods studies. Nonetheless, no matter what paradigmatic stance, research design, sampling method(s) and analysis under- taken, the quality of research reporting is a universal issue. Good reporting of any research needs to provide arguments for methodologi- cal choices and descriptions of methodological methods and procedures (sampling, methods, sequencing, priority, data analysis techniques, limitations, and ethics). This is an area of major concern.

Paper ID Classifi cation Research design, methods and analysis

Paper ABD(1)

Organisational Change Stream

Qualitative and quantitative data, both analysed quantitatively, qualitative data also analysed qualitatively

Research design: Mixed methodology case study with four stages - explicitly stated.

Rationale: Not articulated- implied.

Priority: Unclear/not stated.

Sequence: QUAL → QUAL → QUAL → QUANT

Methods: Four stages

1. Literature review

2. Secondary data examined both quantitatively & qualitatively

3. Semi-structured interviews

4. Survey-quantitative.

Analysis: Methodology was presented for a proposed research study yet to be undertaken.

Paper AD(7)

Research Methods Stream

Qualitative data analysed qualitatively, quantitative data analysed quantitatively

Research design: Sequential mixed model research design – explicitly stated.

Rationale: Not articulated.

Priority: Unclear/not stated.

Sequence: QUANT + (qual) → [QUANT + QUAL]

Methods: Two Phases:

1. Survey and focus groups

2. Mixed method evaluation.

Analysis: Quantitative data analysed quantitatively and qualitative data analysed qualitatively – details of analysis not given.

TABLE 3: CONTINUEDTABLE 3: CONTINUED

A call to the ‘fi rst generation’ in mixed methods in business and management

Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 263

defi ciency is applicable to research students, early career researchers, established research- ers and journal editors and reviewers alike. It has particular relevance to those charged with the responsibility for research training within their respective institutions of higher education. Utilising mixed methods without presenting a rationale or acknowledging a signifi cant body of research and methodological development will not be something that is tolerated in the future. This has direct implications for building the research capacity of business and management researchers and points to the need for specifi c mixed methods research training and the inclu- sion of mixed methods in higher degree research training curricula.

Undertaking mixed methods provides researchers with opportunities but also involves risks and challenges. These challenges relate to resources, research method skill sets, technical and computing tools and expertise and the poli- tics of paradigms and publishing. Molina-Azorin (2009, p. 55) makes the following practical and applied points in reference to considerations for novice researchers fi rst embarking on a mixed method study:

Novice researchers must know that mixed methods research requires more resources and time than studies that use only a single method. In addition, mixed methods research requires that researchers develop a broader set of skills regarding both types of research (quan- titative and qualitative). However, knowledge about mixed methods research can stimulate a researcher to defi ne and analyse innovative problems and research questions.

Teddlie and Tashakkori (2003, p. 45) referred to the need for mixed methods researchers to be ‘methodologically bilingual’: skilled in both quantitative and qualitative research methods. The mixed methods movement has advanced very quickly since this statement was made and it is

META-INFERENCE The meta-inferences reached for this study are best discussed through reference to the overarch- ing research question:

RQ1: What evidence exists to gauge the use, quality and acceptance levels of mixed methods research within management based research?

The results of this research indicate that mixed methods is being utilised in business and manage- ment research. It appears to be more common in certain discipline streams (management education and development and research methods) how- ever these fi ndings need to be tempered with the fact that certain business and management fi elds have strong quantitative traditions, as noted ear- lier. Mixed methods is beginning to be discussed and utilised within management publications (Administrative Science Quarterly; Information Technology, Learning and Performance Journal; Strategic Management Journal; International Business Review; Journal of International Business Studies; Journal of World Business; and Management International Review) and forums (ANZAM, 2007 conference). It would appear that the acceptance of mixed methods across business and manage- ment disciplines is approaching the minimal level of acceptance, as described by Creswell and Plano Clark (2007). Further evidence needs to be col- lected and future research is planned through an international multidisciplinary team focusing on specifi c business and management disciplines.

The issue of quality in mixed methods studies is a concern. The lack of explicit rationales for using a combination of methods and the lack of acknowledgement of mixed methods literature and its theoretical and methodological foun- dations maybe indicative of the contemporary nature of the mixed methods movement and the relatively early stage of its evolution. However, there is a growing danger that those who utilise mixed methods without at least acknowledging this body of work will be found defi cient. This

Roslyn Cameron

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011264

comparing various forms of academic publica- tions were noted, as was the lack of comparative data from the monomethod studies in the sample (pure quantitative and pure qualitative papers). The study has provided greater insights into the phenomenon being studied than would a single method or monomethod study. As a result a more complete picture has emerged with the qualita- tive data analysis illustrating and enhancing the quantitative data analysis of the qualitative data. Mixed methods is being utilised across busi- ness and management disciplines and appears to be entering a minimal level of acceptance. However, the quality of the mixed methods stud- ies as represented in the sample, is a point of con- cern. Further evidence needs to be collected and future research is planned for discipline clusters of business/management research through an international multidiscipline research team. The focus will be on the following disciplines: human resource development; human resource manage- ment; operations management; marketing and project management.

Business and management schools will need to acknowledge the growing imperatives for mixed methods research training and capacity building through the introduction of workshops, seminars, special interest groups and courses in mixed methods. This in itself will present chal- lenges of a fi erce and entrenched paradigmatic nature and the more general challenges that sur- round the introduction of change and innovation (sciences very familiar to business and manage- ment disciplines). Creswell et al. (2003, p. 629) acknowledge the many dilemmas and challenges faced by what they refer to as the ‘fi rst generation’ of faculty that master and teach mixed methods research. This paper calls to those ‘fi rst genera- tion’ faculty within the business and manage- ment fi elds to begin to take opportunities for instigating change and innovation in relation to the building of mixed methods research capacity within their respective schools/faculties, through professional linkages and academic memberships and associated forums.

asserted here that those embarking upon mixed methods research need to be methodologically tri- lingual. Not only do they need strong grounding in their chosen quantitative and qualitative meth- odologies and associated paradigms but they also need to be cognisant, knowledgeable and fl uent in the theoretical foundations of mixed methods, the specifi c mixed method methodological issues (research designs and typologies, mixed methods sampling, data priority, implementation and inte- gration) and the quality frameworks that have been developed for mixed methods.

There are two standout publications which provide a comprehensive starting point for guid- ing both new and experienced researchers into the theoretical foundations and practicalities needed for embarking on a mixed methods study (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). This, in addition to the grow- ing number of mixed methods research texts (and research text chapters) and journals spe- cifi cally dedicated to mixed methods (Journal of Mixed Methods Research; International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches; International Journal of Mixed Methods in Applied Business and Policy Research) provide the theoretical foundations and literature from which mixed methods research training could be developed. Several mixed meth- ods courses are currently available in a number of universities in the US for specifi c disciplines and mixed methods capacity building has been undertaken by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the funding body for doctoral training in the UK.

CONCLUSION This study has utilised a mixed methods approach for the stated purpose of achieving a more com- plete, illustrated and enhanced response to the overarching research question posited. The study adopted a multistrand mixed model research design and the sample, data collection and analysis for each strand has been documented. Integration has been achieved at the conceptuali- sation and inference stages. Limitations between

A call to the ‘fi rst generation’ in mixed methods in business and management

Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 265

criteria frameworks for reporting mixed meth- ods studies.

References Andrew, S., & Halcomb, E. (2009). Mixed methods

research for nursing and health sciences. London: Wiley-Blackwell.

ANZAM (2007). Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management. Retrieved 20 June, 2009 from: http://www.anzam.org/

Bazeley, P. (2008). Mixed methods in manage- ment research. In R. Holt & R. Thorpe (Eds.), Dictionary of qualitative management research (pp. 133–136). London: Sage.

Bergman, M. (2008). Advances in mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brannen, J. (2005). Mixed methods research: A discussion paper. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, Methods Review Paper. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from http://www. ncrm.ac.uk/research/outputs/publications/ documents/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-005. pdf

Brannen, J. (2009). Prologue: Mixed methods for novice researchers: Refl ections and themes. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3(1), 8–12.

Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quanti- tative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 8–22.

Bryman, A. (2008). Why do researchers integrate/ combine/mesh/blend/mix/merge/fuse quantita- tive and qualitative research? In M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 87–100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 261–276.

Buchanan, D., & Bryman, A. (2007). Contextuali- zing methods choice in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 10(3), 483–501.

Cameron, R., & Miller, P. (2007). Mixed methods research: Phoenix of the paradigm wars. 21st Annual Australian & New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Conference. Sydney, December 2007.

It is important for individuals who accept the challenge of teaching a mixed methods course to recognize that the study and teaching of mixed methods is unfamiliar territory to most faculty. … As new and more complicated designs are introduced into the literature, we need to know how best to teach these designs and how students can practice them to effec- tively become good mixed methods researchers. (Creswell et al., 2003, p. 633)

In addition to these challenges and imperatives is the need to educate traditional monomethod researchers on the quality and methodologi- cal frameworks being developed within mixed methods so that the supervision, mentoring and reviewing of research within the business research community is balanced, expansive, and inclusive. The increasing use of web 2.0 and information communication technologies in data collection and analysis, the growth in diverse forms of inter- disciplinary research and the rise of mixed meth- ods are heralding a new era in research skill sets and mindsets. The business and management researcher of the future will need to be much bet- ter equipped to: conduct; report; publish; teach; supervise; mentor; lead; review; edit; and examine research in this new era.

In conclusion the research makes the follow- ing four key recommendations. Firstly, the intro- duction of training activities and courses to build mixed methods research capacity. Secondly, the active encouragement of multimethod and mul- tidisciplinary research teams which have the potential to create innovation synergies ready for the challenges of tackling large and complex management research problems and phenom- enon. Thirdly, changes to academic promotion and reward structures that encapsulate meth- odological bilingualism and trilingualism. And fi nally, the development of more inclusive jour- nal editorial policies that explicitly encourage the use of mixed methods and balanced report- ing of both the quantitative and qualitative data from mixed methods studies along with quality

Roslyn Cameron

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011266

Cameron, R. (2008). Mixed methods in manage- ment research: Has the Phoenix landed? 22nd Annual Australian & New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Conference. Auckland, December 2008.

Creswell,J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative,quantitative and missed method approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Editorial: Mapping the fi eld of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods, 3(2), 95–108.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., Tashakkori, A., Jensen, K. D., & Shapley, K. (2003). Teaching mixed methods research: Practices, dilemmas, and challenges. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 135–166). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Currall, S. C., & Towler, A. J. (2003). Research methods in management and organizational research: Toward integration of qualitative and quantitative techniques. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie C (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 513–526). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Greene, J. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Greene, J., Caracelli, V., & Graham, W. D. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–174.

Hanson, D., & Grimmer, M. (2005). The mix of qualitative and quantitative research in major marketing journals. European Journal of Marketing, 41(1–2), 58–70.

Hanson, W., Creswell, J., Clark, V., Petska, K., & Creswell, J. (2005). Mixed methods research designs in counselling psychology. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 52(2), 224–235.

Hurmerinta-Peltomaki, L., & Nummela, N. (2006). Mixed methods in international business research: A value-added perspec- tive. Management International Review, 46(4), 439–459.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researchers, 33(7), 14–26.

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & quantity. International Journal of Methodology, 43(2), 265–275.

McMillan, J., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Mingers, J. (1997). Multi-paradigm multim- ethodology. In J. Mingers & A. Gill (Eds.), Multimethodology: The theory and practice of combining management science methodolo- gies (pp. 291–312). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Mingers, J. (2003). The paucity of multimethod research: A review of the information systems literature. Information Systems Journal, 13(3), 233–249.

Mingers, J., & Gill, A. (Eds.). (1997). Multimethodology: The theory and practice of combining management science methodologies. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Molina-Azorin, J. (2009). Understanding how mixed methods research is under- taken within a specifi c research community: The case of business students. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3(1), 47–57.

O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2007). Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research in England: A mixed methods study. BMC Health Services Research, 7, 85–95.

O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 13(2), 92–98.

Plano Clark, V. L. (2005). Cross-disciplinary analysis of the use of mixed methods in phys- ics education research, counselling psychol- ogy, and primary care. Doctoral dissertation, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska- Lincoln.

Powell, H., Mihalas, S., Onwuegbuzie, A., Suldo, S., & Daley, C. (2008). Mixed methods in

A call to the ‘fi rst generation’ in mixed methods in business and management

Volume 17, Issue 2, March 2011 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION 267

school psychology: A mixed methods investiga- tion of trends in the literature. Psychology in the Schools, 45(4), 291–309.

Rocco, T. S., Bliss, L. A., Gallagher, S., & Pérez-Prado, A. (2002). Mixed methods use in HRD and AE. In K. P. Kuchinke (Ed.), Academy of human resource development 1999 conference proceeding (pp. 880–887). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.

Rocco, T. S., Bliss, L. A., Gallagher, S., & Perez-Prado, A. (2003). Taking the next step: Mixed methods research in organisational systems. Information Technology, Learning and Performance Journal, 21(1), 19–29.

Sale, J., & Brazil, K. A. (2004). A strategy to identify critical appraisal criteria for primary mixed-method studies. Quality and Quantity, 38(4), 351–365.

Schifferdecker, K. (2007). Use of mixed methods in medical education research: A review of the litera- ture. Presented at the Association of American Medical Colleges Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, 2–7 November 2007.

Schifferdecker, K., & Reed, V. (2009). Using mixed methods research in medical education: Basic

guidelines for researchers. Medical Education, 43(7), 637–644.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology. Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioural sciences. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie C (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 3–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Welch, D. E., & Welch, L. S. (2004). Getting pub- lished: The last great hurdle? In R. Marschan- Piekkari & R. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international busi- ness (pp. 551–569). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Received 30 September 2010 Accepted 16 October 2010

Home-based business + general section A special issue of Small Enterprise Research – Volume 17 Issue 2

ISBN 978-1-921729-47-8 – 2009–2010

Guest Editor: Professor Colin Mason (Hunter Centre for Entrepreneurship, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland)

eContent Management Pty Ltd, PO Box 1027, Maleny QLD 4552, Australia Tel.: +61-7-5435-2900; Fax. +61-7-5435-2911; [email protected] www.e-contentmanagement.com

ContentmanagementPTYLTD

http://ser.e-contentmanagement.com/archives/vol/17/issue/2/marketing/

Mixed Methods Research in Education Special Issue of Multiple Research Approaches – Volume 5 Issue 2 ISBN 978-1-921729-39-3 – June 2011 Editors: Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie (Sam Houston State University, USA), Kathleen M. T. Collins (University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, USA), Alicia O’Cathain

(University of Sheffi eld, UK) and Rebecca K. Frels (Sam Houston State University, USA)

http://mra.e-contentmanagement.com/archives/vol/5/ issue/2/call/

Mixed Methods Research in Business and Management

Special Issue of Multiple Research Approaches – Volume 5 Issue 3

ISBN 978-1-921348-95-2 – October 2011

Editors: Roslyn Cameron (Southern Cross University, Australia) and José

F. Molina-Azorín (University of Alicante, Spain)

http://mra.e-contentmanagement.com/archives/vol/5/ issue/3/marketing/

F O R T H C O M I N G

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.