Research Methods- 250 word min. response to discussion question 1 and 2- Week 1

Hello,

I need help with an assignment requiring 250 word minimum to question 1 and question 2. The material pertaining to these questions is attached. If any references are used please cite them in APA format. All work is put through turnitin.com once I receive the completed assignment. This means that no more then 12% can be directly cited. I just wanted to let you know in advance!

Question 1

250 or more words-
Read the articles by Cameron and Pole and discuss a situation where AND how a mixed methods approach could be performed to help in a decision-making process. Include at least two in text citations and reference from a scholarly source in your initial post. References must be in APA format.

Question 2

250 or more words- Read the Sternberg and Sternberg article and utilize the APA textbook readings to discuss the importance of adhering to a convention such as APA format when writing and researching. What do you like about it? What would you change about APA if you could? Why? Include at least two in text citations and two references from a scholarly source in your initial post.

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

Quantitative

Qualitative

Data Collection
Qualitative

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;
subscriptions@e-contentmanagement.com 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.

ISSN 1477-7029 96 ©Academic Publishing International Ltd

Reference this paper as: Cameron, R. “Mixed Methods Research: The Five Ps Framework” The Electronic
Journal of Business Research Methods Volume 9 Issue 2 2011 (pp 96-108), available online at www.ejbrm.com

Mixed Methods Research: The Five Ps Framework
Roslyn Cameron
Central Queensland University, Gladstone, Australia
r.cameron@cqu.edu.au

Abstract: Mixed methods research (MMR) is often referred to as the third methodological movement and has
witnessed a rapid rise in popularity in the last 10 years. Prominent authorities in the field now refer to the MM
research community which has developed its own philosophical, theoretical, methodological, analytical and
practical foundations and constructs for the conduct of MMR. This paper provides a brief overview of some of the
more common definitions of mixed methods research and methodology before introducing the conceptual
framework of the Five Ps of mixed methods research. The Five P framework will be used to structure an
exploration of some of the key challenges facing those who choose the innovative path of mixed methods
research and some of the key areas for capacity building. The Five Ps include: Paradigms; Pragmatism; Praxis;
Proficiency; and Publishing. This Five Ps framework will be mapped against the contemporary landscape of the
MMR movement as developed by some of the most prominent mixed methodologists within the MMR community.
These include: the overlapping components of an emerging map of MMR (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2010) and the
domains of MMR (Creswell 2010). The Five Ps framework can provide those wishing to embark into mixed
methods research with the essential components of a mixed methods starter kit, inclusive of a contemporary
checklist of contentious issues, risks and traps that require consideration. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010b: 29)
refer to the need for MM researchers to become “methodological connoisseur[s]” whilst Cameron (2011: 263)
calls for the need to build “methodological trilingualism” in those wishing to engage in MMR. Both these
capacities require advanced research skill levels and competencies. As a consequence the framework also offers
higher degree supervisors and educators with a pedagogic tool for guiding and teaching mixed methods.

Keywords: mixed methods research; paradigms; pragmatism; publishing; teaching research methods

1. Introduction
Mixed method research is a growing area of methodological choice for many academics and
researchers from across a variety of discipline areas. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010b: 803-804) refers
to the MM community which has:

… gone through a relatively rapid growth spurt…it has acquired a formal methodology
that did not exist before and is subscribed to by an emerging community of practitioners
and methodologists across the disciplines. In the process of developing a distinct identity,
as compared with other major research communities of researchers in the social and
human sciences, mixed methods has been adopted as the de facto third alternative, or
“third methodological movement”’.

The definition of MMR remains are contested area. Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner (2007) asked
21 researchers for a definition of MM and received 19 responses. These definitions were diverse and
were differentiated in terms of what was being mixed, the stage in the research process were the
mixing occurred, the extend of the mixing, the purpose of the mixing and the drive behind the
research. There are limitations as to the extent at which this paper can delve into these definitional
debates and as a result definitions utilised by prominent mixed methodologists have been chosen for
this paper.

The Journal of Mixed Methods (2006), in its call for papers defines mixed methods as ‘research in
which the investigator collects, analyses, mixes, and draws inferences from both quantitative and
qualitative data in a single study or a program of inquiry’. A more comprehensive definition is provided
by Creswell and Plano Clark (2007: 5) who define 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
quantitative data in a single study or series of studies. Its central premise is that the use
of quantitative and qualitative approaches in combination provides a better
understanding of research problems that either approach alone.

Teddlie and Tashakkori (2010: 5) define the methodology of MM as: “The broad inquiry logic that
guides the selection of specific methods and that is informed by conceptual positions common to
mixed methods practitioners (e.g., the rejection of “either-or” choices at all levels of the research

Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Volume 9 Issue 2 2011

www.ejbrm.com 97 ©Academic Publishing International Ltd

process). For us, this definition of methodology distinguishes the MMR approach to conducting
research from that practiced in either the QUAN or QUAL approach”.

This paper will explore the challenges of undertaking mixed methods research through a conceptual
framework referred to as the Five Ps of mixed methods research. The Five Ps tend to cover the key
categories of challenges that arise from mixed methods research designs. They include philosophical
considerations and approaches, as well as methodological choices and processes, competencies,
practicalities and political considerations. The Five Ps are aligned against two frameworks for
mapping the contemporary MMR landscape before a more detailed discussion on each of the Five Ps
is progressed. The paper concludes with options for developing research capacity in MMR.

The five Ps of mixed methods research
Several mixed methods proponents acknowledge the controversies/crises/challenges that face those
embarking on mixed methods research (Mingers 2001; Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003; Onwuegbuzie
and Collins 2007). Mingers (2001) described in detail four types of barriers to multimethod research
however he also argues these are not insurmountable. The barriers identified are: philosophical;
cultural; psychological (cognitive); and practical. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003: 672) identified six
continuing points of controversy in mixed methods design and expanded this in 2010 to nine
important issues or controversies in contemporary MMR (Tashakkori and Teddlie 2010a).
Onwuegbuzie and Collins (2007: 304) refer to four major crises to mixed methods research and
indicate how each if these crises can inform considerations of sampling design. The four crises are:
representation; legitimation; integration; and politics. This paper acknowledges these issues and
seeks to provide a practical framework for addressing aspects of these issues that can be utilised as a
pedagogic tool to guide mixed method practitioners especially the novice mixed methods researcher.

Brannen (2005) refered to the ‘three Ps’ when she detailed the rationales behind the choice of
research method in general. The Brannen three Ps include: paradigms; pragmatics and; politics. This
paper has built on from this by expanding the Ps and by focusing upon mixed methods research as
opposed to research methods in general. The conceptual framework of the Five Ps will now be
explored as a means by which to tease out some of the challenges mixed methods research provides
for those wishing to be more comprehensive and innovative in their approaches to research through
the adoption of mixed methods. The Five Ps framework includes; Paradigms; Pragmatism; Praxis;
Proficiency and; Publishing. Table 1 below overviews the framework in terms of the key issues and
challenges that arise from the Five Ps and aligns these with the learning objectives for teaching mixed
methods developed by Bazeley (2003).
Table 1: The five Ps of Mixed Methods Research (MMR)

Five Ps Issues & Challenges Bazeley’s (2003) Learning Objectives
Paradigms

P1
Criticism:

From paradigmatic purists and claims
of eclecticism.

Challenge:

Need to document and argue
paradigmatic stance in MMR.

· Have sufficient understanding of the philosophical
bases of research to determine if and how

apparent paradigmatic differences in approach
might influence their work and be resolved.

Pragmatism
P2

Criticism:
Epistemological relativism and short-

sighted practicalism.

Challenge:
Become informed about the key

debates and source MMR literature in
the chosen field.

Rigorously defend the stance and
choices made at the interface between

philosophy and methods.

· Be familiar with key literature and debates in
mixed methods, and with exemplars of a variety of

mixed methods approaches to research;
· Learn to take risks, but also to justify choices

made.

Praxis
P3

Criticism:
Problems related to methodological

and data integration.

Challenge:
Informed choices, utilisation and

· Be able to determine the appropriateness of a
selected method or methods, based on the

question(s) being asked (be question-driven in their
choice of methods), and be able to determine

whether mixing methods provides a cost-effective
advantage over use of a single method;

Roslyn Cameron

www.ejbrm.com 98 ISSN 1477-7029

application of MMR designs, methods
and data analysis.

· Have knowledge of the variety, rules and
implications of different sampling methods, and of

alternative approaches to dealing with ‘error’ or
deviance from the norm;

· Be prepared to recognise and admit what is not
known, and seek advice

· Develop skills in working collaboratively with
researchers using different approaches or

methods.
Five Ps Issues & Challenges Bazeley’s (2003) Learning Objectives

Proficiency
P4

Criticism:
Superficial claims of utilising MM and

the need to be proficient in both QUAL
and QUANT methods.

Challenge:

Become skilled and competent in both
chosen QUAL and QUANT methods
and data analysis, as well as skilled

and competent in mixed methods and
integrated data analysis.

· Have well developed skills in carrying out
research using at least one major methodological

approach, but also a comprehensive understanding
of a range of approaches and methods (if

they didn’t already), particularly to understand the
principles underlying those methods;

· Have an ability to interpret data meaningfully, and
to ask questions of the data, rather than to simply

follow a formula;
· Know and understand how software can be used

to assist analysis tasks.
Publishing

P5
Issues & challenges:

Political nature of reporting and
publishing MMR in academic and

discipline based literature such as:
disciplinary traditions; levels of

acceptance of MMR within disciplines
and; reporting MMR in its entirety

given word length limitations.

· Develop new ways of thinking about the
presentation of research results, especially where

the methods used and information gained does not
neatly fit a conventional format.

In describing the structure of the second edition of the seminal work on MMR, the Handbook of Mixed
Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010a) describe the
contemporary MMR landscape through components of an emerging map of MMR. This map is made
up of three overlapping areas: conceptual orientations; issues regarding methods and methodology;
and contemporary applications of MMR. Key issues and developments in the MMR field can be
grouped under one of these three areas. The Five Ps have been mapped against these three main
areas and are depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Aligning the five Ps with the map of MMR (Source: Adapted from Teddlie and Tashakkori

(2010: 3))

P1: Paradigms
P2: Pragmatism

P5: Politics

P3: Praxis

P4: Proficiency

Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Volume 9 Issue 2 2011

In addition to this emerging map of MMR, Creswell (2010) has also developed a framework for
analysing the key developments, issues and priorities of the MMR movement. The framework is a
series of five MMR domains which include: the essence of MMR; the philosophical domain; the
procedural domain; adoption and use of MMR domain; and the political domain. Again the Five Ps
have been aligned and mapped across these domains as presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Aligning the 5 Ps with the domains of MMR

Domain Domain Description Five Ps Framework
Essence of MMR Nature of MM:

Definitions
Bilingual language

Incorporating MM into existing designs

P3: Praxis

Philosophical Philosophical and theoretical issues:
Combining philosophical positions, worldviews &

paradigms
Philosophical foundations of MM

Use of qualitative theoretical lens in MM
False distinction between QUAL and QUANT

Thinking in a MM way- mental models

P1: Paradigms
P2: Pragmatism

Procedures Techniques of MM:
Unusual method blends

Joint QUAL & QUANT displays
Transforming QUAL data into counts

Notation for designs
Visual diagrams for designs

Software applications
Integration & mixing issues

Rationale for MMR
Validity
Ethics

P4: Proficiency

Adoption and use
Adoption and use of MM:

Fields & disciplines using it
Team approaches

Linking mixed methods to discipline techniques
Teaching MM to students

Writing up & reporting

P3: Praxis

Political Politicization of MM:
Funding of MMR

Deconstructing MM
Justifying MM

P5: Politics (of publishing
MMR)

Source: Adapted from Creswell (2010: 47-9).

Novice MM researchers and those more experienced researchers wishing to utilise MM in their
respective research studies will not be expected to be fully versed in all aspects of the MMR
landscape as depicted in Figure 1 and Table 2, however the Five Ps will provide a very sound
“starting block”.

The following discussion provides an overview of each of the Five Ps and the key criticisms and
challenges each presents to those wishing to engage in fully informed MMR.

1.1 Paradigms
Methodological choice does not exist within a philosophical void and Brannen (2005: 7) views the
choice of method/s as being driven by philosophical (ontological and epistemological) assumptions.
One of the first tasks a researcher needs to undertake is to position themselves paradigmatically. This
in itself presents the mixed method researcher with some challenges. This section of the paper will
examine the sets of assumptions that make up a paradigm followed by an overview of the

paradigm

wars and the history of mixed methods. This provides the philosophical background and a historical
context to the Five P framework for mixed methods research being presented.

Roslyn Cameron

www.ejbrm.com 100 ISSN 1477-7029

There are many definitions of a paradigm and three are offered here. ‘A paradigm is a way of looking
at the world. It is composed of certain philosophical assumptions that guide and direct thinking and
action’ (Mertens 2005: 7). Neuman (2006:81) refers to paradigm as ‘A general organizing framework
for theory and research that includes basic assumptions, key issues, models of quality research, and
methods for seeking answers’. Denzin and Lincoln (2008: 22) describe paradigm as follows, “The net
that contains the researcher’s epistemological, ontological, and methodological premises may be
termed a paradigm…All research is interpretive; it is guided by the researcher’s set of beliefs and
feelings about the world and how it should be understood and studied”.

Inconsistency is evident across the literature on how paradigms are dichotomised, polarised, labelled,
and at what level of abstraction they are discussed. Nonetheless, there are sufficient levels of
common ground to enable the drawing of parallels and connections between these, and the labels
assigned to them. It is very important that the paradigm(s) upon which a research proposal and
design is based are fully understood and made explicit in the research itself (Maxwell 2005: 36;
Mertens 2005: 7; Neuman 2006: 81). This is not necessarily a matter of free choice and may require
the researcher to examine some previously unexamined assumptions or personal theories (Maxwell
2005: 37; Mertens 2005: 7).

The debates surrounding research paradigms have a long history and were particularly active in the
1980s. Some commentaries on the debate contend that the struggle for primacy of one paradigm over
others is irrelevant as each paradigm is an alternate offering with its own merits (Guba 1990: 27).
Creswell (1994: 176) identifies several schools of thought in the paradigm debate or so-called
‘paradigm wars’. At one end of the debate are the ‘purists’ who assert paradigms and methods should
not be mixed. Another school of thought is identified as the ‘situationalists’ who contend that certain
methods can be used in specific situations. In direct opposition to the ‘purists’ are the pragmatists who
argued against a false dichotomy between the qualitative and quantitative research paradigms and
advocate for the efficient use of both approaches.

It is interesting to note the language that has been expressed around this evolution of mixed methods.
For example Buchanan & Bryman (2007: 486) in reference to organisational research, conclude that:

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

Tashakkori and Teddlie call mixed methods the ‘third methodological movement’ (2003: ix) whilst
Mingers (2003) refers to the ceasefire of the paradigm wars being announced. Johnson and
Onwuegbuzie (2004: 14) state that mixed methods research is a ‘research paradigm whose time has
come’, 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. Cameron (2008) takes this analogy further by asking whether the phoenix has landed in terms
of research conducted within management research.

Teddlie and Tashakkori (2010) have produced an expansive list of paradigmatic stances taken within
MMR. These include the; a-paradigmatic stance; substantive theory stance; complementary strengths
stance; multiple paradigms; dialectic stance; and single paradigm stance. A brief description of each
of these stances in listed in Table 3.

Another perspective on paradigmatic choice in MMR has been devised by Greene and Caracelli
(2003) who refer to the interface between philosophy and methodology and attempt to advance the
conceptual mixed methods paradigm debate. The authors have delineated between several different
stances on the mixing of paradigms in mixed methods research. The four stances exist along two
dimensions, the first dimension takes the position that: paradigms do matter significantly when making
inquiry decisions. There are two stances related to this dimension: dialectic and the new paradigm.
The second dimension takes the position that: paradigms are not critically important in the making of
inquiry decisions. The two stances related to this are: pragmatic or context driven and concept driven
(Greene and Caracelli 2003: 96).

Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Volume 9 Issue 2 2011

Table 3: Paradigmatic stances in MMR
Paradigmatic Stances Position taken

a-paradigmatic stance For many applied studies in real world settings, paradigms are
unimportant

Substantive theory
stance

Theoretical orientations relevant to the research being undertaken (eg
critical race theory, attribution theory) are more important than

philosophical paradigms
Complementary
strengths stance

MMR is possible only if the different methods are kept as separate as
feasibly possible so that the strength of each paradigm is maintained

Multiple paradigms Multiple paradigms may serve as the foundation for MMR. In some MMR
designs a single paradigm does not apply

Dialectic stance Assumes all paradigms offer something and that multiple paradigms in a
single study contributes to a better understanding of the phenomenon

being studied
Single paradigm stance Initially formulated to provide the philosophical foundation for MMR-

sometimes referred to as the “alternate paradigm stance’ (Greene 2007).
Examples include: pragmatism; critical realism and; transformative

paradigm

Source: Adapted from Teddlie and Tashakkori (2010: 14-16).

The Greene and Caracelli (2003) and Teddlie and Tashakkori (2010) frameworks for paradigm
stances in mixed methods research provide an excellent starting point and launch pad for those
choosing to engage in mixed methods research and needing to position their research approach
paradigmatically. Whatever the approach taken, mixed methods researchers need to acknowledge
the paradigm debate and rigorously defend their paradigmatic choices/stance.

A common stance taken in MMR is that of pragmatism or what Teddlie and Tashakkori (2010) have
referred to as an example of a single paradigm stance. The second P in the Five Ps framework is
pragmatism however the framework does not advocate an either-or approach to paradigmatic
positioning. Pragmatism here in the Five Ps framework refers to becoming informed about the key
debates in the MMR literature in the chosen field and rigorously defending the stance and choices
made at the interface between philosophy and methods. Pragmatism here refers to the
interface/bridge between philosophy and methods.

1.2 Pragmatism
The second of the Five Ps of mixed methods research is pragmatism. Pragmatism in its simplest
sense is a practical approach to a problem and has strong associations with mixed methods research.
Pragmatism can be considered a bridge between paradigm and methodology or what Greene and
Caracelli (2003) refer to as a particular stance at the interface between philosophy and methodology.

Historically, pragmatism can be traced to an early period from 1860-1930 and the neopragmatic era
from 1960 to present (Maxcy 2003). Many mixed methods researchers and theorists draw strong
associations with mixed methodology and pragmatism (Bazeley 2003; Greene & Caracelli 1997 &
2003; Maxcy 2003; Tashakkori & Teddlie 2003; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004). Johnson and
Onwuegbuzie (2004: 17) summarise the philosophical position of mixed method researchers when
they make the following statement:

We agree with others in the mixed methods research movement that consideration and
discussion of pragmatism by research methodologists and empirical researchers will be
productive because it offers an immediate and useful middle position philosophically and
methodologically; it offers a practical and outcome-orientated method of inquiry that is
based on action and leads, iteratively, to further action and the elimination of doubt; and
it offers a method for selecting methodological mixes that can help researchers better
answer many of their research questions.

Patton (2002) identifies as a pragmatist, stating the aims of doing so as a means to sensitising
researchers and evaluators to methodological biases that accumulate from their own socialisation
experiences within their respective discipline areas. He offers a pragmatic approach as a means of
promoting methodological appropriateness to enable researchers to increase their methodological
flexibility and adaptability. This position is epitomised in the following:

Roslyn Cameron

www.ejbrm.com 102 ISSN 1477-7029

My pragmatic stance aims to supersede one-sided paradigm allegiance by increasing the
concrete and practical methodological options available to researchers and evaluators.
Such pragmatism means judging the quality of a study by its intended purposes,
available resources, procedures followed, and results obtained, all within a particular
context and for a specific audience (Patton 2002: 71-2).

Pragmatism has a strong philosophical foothold in the mixed methods or methodological pluralism
camps. This can present challenges for the mixed methods researcher in terms of claims that
pragmatism is eclectic. It is very important for the mixed methods researcher to acknowledge these
criticisms and rigourously defend pragmatic approaches and choices. The work of Rossman and
Wilson (1994) and Morgan (1996) may be useful in this respect. Work by Greene and Caracelli (2003)
referred to in the previous section of this paper makes a good starting point as well. They state that
there are two very important implications for mixed methods researchers. The first refers to a concern
by Greene and Caracelli (2003: 107) that by attending too little to philosophical ideas and traditions
will mean that mixed methods researchers will be ‘insufficiently reflective and their practice is
insufficiently unproblematized’. These authors acknowledge and clearly state that ‘paradigms, mental
models, or some other representations of philosophical beliefs and values should matter in mixed
methods inquiry’ (Greene and Caracelli 2003: 107). The second implication is framed as a suggestion
by the authors that it is time to reframe the key issues from the role of paradigms in mixed methods
research to issues about the legitimacy of practical inquiry decisions. They conclude by advocating
for:

The importance of context, substantive theory, practical resource constraints and
opportunities, and political dimensions of social research as equally important bases for
practice decisions…It is time to balance the philosophical, conceptual, practical, and
political considerations so relevant to our inquiry (Greene & Caracelli 2003: 108).

The second edition of the Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research (Tashakkori
and Teddlie 2010a) has several chapters dedicated to philosophical issues of MMR and in particular
pragmatism (Biesta 2010; Greene and Hall 2010; Johnson and Gray 2010). Biesta (2010: 114) argues
after a careful analysis of pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of MMR that “although
pragmatism is unable to provide the philosophical foundation for mixed methods research, it has
some important things to offer particularly in helping mixed methods researchers to ask better and
more precise questions about the philosophical implications and justifications of their designs”. Biesta
concludes that Deweyan pragmatism has made a major contribution through eradicating the
epistemological dualism of objectivity/subjectivity (2010: 113). Johnson and Gray (2010: 87) in their
exploration of the history of philosophical and theoretical issues in MMR make the following
statement, “During the emergence of MM as a third methodological paradigm (along with QUAN and
QUAL), MM has struggled somewhat with to develop a corresponding philosophical paradigm. Many
or perhaps most leaders in the field are advocating some form of philosophical pragmatism”. For
Greene and Hall (2010) pragmatism results in a problem solving, action- oriented inquiry process
based on commitment to democratic values and progress.

Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010b: 16) pose a question “What are the methodological principles that bind
practitioners of MMR together regardless of differences on other issues?” In answering this question
they believe there are 2 methodological principles to MMR that distinguish it from other research
approaches:
 Rejection of the either-or at all levels of the research process
 Subscription to the iterative, cyclical approach to research
This embodies the discussion of pragmatism as the bridge between philosophy and methodology and
also brings us to the third of the Five Ps, praxis.

1.3 Praxis
Once a researcher has positioned themselves paradigmatically and entered the interface between
philosophy and methodology then process issues come into play. Praxis is the practical application of
theory and represents the third P of the Five Ps framework of mixed methods research. The mixed
methods researcher needs to be knowledgeable, informed and familiar with the growing body of
literature that forms mixed methods as a third methodological movement. They must also become
familiar with discipline based mixed methods research and literature. The most important issues in
this respect is the praxis related to methodological and data integration in mixed methods research.

Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Volume 9 Issue 2 2011

Kelle and Erzberger (2004:172) advocate for the frontier between qualitative and quantitative
research as not needing to be so impenetrable, asserting that models that integrate quantitative and
qualitative methods are developed mostly at an abstract methodological level. These authors see this
as a fundamental shortcoming of these models, in that ‘…they frequently attempt to formulate
methodological rules for methodological integration without formulating a relation to any theoretical
ideas about the nature of the subject area under investigation.’ (Kelle & Erzberger 2004: 176). Flick
(2002: 261) supports this argument, claiming problems that arise due to combining quantitative and
qualitative methods are yet to be satisfactorily resolved. He views this attempt at integration as
problematic, as it is restricted to the level of research design, or what Kelle and Erzberger (2004:176)
refer to as methodological rules for integration.

Natasi, Hitchcock and Brown (2010: 318) refer to integration in reference to MMR research designs
and research design typologies. They identify themes which reflect an integrated perspective in
relation to “precursors and basic design criteria: types of methods/data mixed, timing of mixing,
breadth of mixing, rationale for mixing, and researcher orientation”. Greene (2007: 125) describes
integrated MMR designs as those in which “methods intentionally interact with one another during the
course of the study [and as a result] offer more varied and differentiated design possibilities”.

Bazeley (2010: 432) focuses upon the challenge of integration in MMR and argues for the assumption
that the integration of data and data analysis is acceptable and necessary. Nonetheless, she goes on
to assert that the level of this integration in many MM studies still remains underdeveloped. Bazeley
(2010: 432) defines integration in MMR:

Integration can be said to occur to the extent that different data elements and various
strategies for analysis of those elements are combined throughout a study in such a way
as to become interdependent in reaching a common theoretical or research goal, thereby
producing findings that are greater than the sum of the parts.

In terms of Praxis the challenges for MM researchers is the tackling of the issue of integration in terms
of research designs, methods and data analysis. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003: 672) have identified
six continuing points of controversy in mixed methods research. One of these is design issues in
mixed methods research. The methodological and analytical issues related to the praxis of mixed
methods involves choices the mixed methods researcher needs to make in reference to:
 Research design and typology
 Sampling
 Data collection strategies
 Data analysis
 Inferences and inference quality.
One of the main concerns Bryman (2008) has of mixed methods research is that it is often
insufficiently justified. This remains one of the key challenges for mixed methods researchers. These
methodological choices are important and need to be justified and demonstrate methodological
congruence. To aid this process Morse (2010: 351) advocates 5 checks when presenting a MMR
design or the writing up of a MMR study along with what she refers to as an “armchair walkthrough” to
ensure that the MM researcher has considered all optional designs and methodological choices. The
five checks include stating the following in terms of the chosen MMR design:
 Theoretical drive: Inductive or deductive
 Core component: QUAL or QUAN
 Supplemental component(s); qual or quan
 Pacing: Simultaneous or sequential
 Point of interface: Analytic or results narrative
For the researcher who is embarking on mixed methods research the key issues here are in relation
to the praxis of mixed methods approaches and research designs. This involves: consideration about
how to apply a mixed method research design; choosing the right mixed method research design or
typology; formulating the integration of methodologies; designing the integration of data and data
analysis and; attention to inferences and inference quality. Once these very important praxis issues
have been made then it is the proficiency or competence of the researcher that comes to the fore.

Roslyn Cameron

www.ejbrm.com 104 ISSN 1477-7029

1.4 Proficiency
Research competency and proficiency also becomes a challenge for those utilising mixed methods as
mixed methods researchers not only need to be competent in both qualitative and quantitative
methods but must be informed and practiced in mixed methodologies. This represents the fourth P in
the Five P mixed methods framework. Bazeley (2003) refers to the skills required of the mixed
methods practitioner:

Assuming a goal of developing proficiency in carrying out a mixed methods study,
students should have background knowledge of, and ideally experience in, gathering
both text and numeric data, and in working analytically with both text and numeric data
(i.e. both statistical methods and interpretive analysis of unstructured data). While it is
necessary for those coming into mixed methods to have a background in both qualitative
and quantitative approaches, it is important that they gain that background in a non-
prejudicial way, i.e. that they do not see each of these approaches as exclusive and
opposed.

Teddlie & Tashakkori (2003: 45) referred to the need for mixed methods researchers to be
‘methodologically bilingual’: skilled in both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Cameron
(2011: 263-4) calls for the need to teach for “methodological trilingualism” in future MM researchers:

Not only do they need strong grounding in their chosen quantitative and qualitative
methodologies and associated paradigms but they also need to be cognisant,
knowledgeable and fluent in the theoretical foundations of mixed methods, the specific
mixed method methodological issues (research designs and typologies, mixed methods
sampling, data priority, implementation and integration,) and the quality frameworks that
have been developed for mixed methods.

In a discussion on the practical issues related to current MMR, Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010b: 29)
refer to the notion of a “connoisseur of methods” which they determine is usually developed through
“the process of applying research tools, which individuals had acquired from a patchwork of graduate
and undergraduate coursework and prior experiences, to answer complex questions or problems that
could not be addressed properly within the QUAN or QUAL traditions alone”.

McMillan and Schumacher (2006: 401) draw attention to both the advantages and disadvantages of
using mixed methods, listing three disadvantages. The first of these disadvantages is the researcher’s
need to be proficient and competent in both qualitative and quantitative methods (note the discussion
above in reference to “methodologically bilingual”; “methodological trilingualism”; and “connoisseur of
methods”). The second disadvantage is the extensive data collection and resources needed to
undertake a mixed method study. The last refers to a tendency to use mixed methods labels liberally
to studies that only mix methods superficially.

The study by Bryman (2008) of published social science journal articles from 1994-2003 that utilised
mixed methods found that just under half of those that used mixed methods did so by presenting the
qualitative and quantitative data in parallel and only 18% of the articles genuinely integrated the two
sets of findings. The studies by Hurmerinta-Peltomaki and Nummela (2006) and Cameron (2008)
found similar findings. Hurmerinta-Peltomaki and Nummela (2006) analysed mixed methods in
International Business journal articles from 2000-2003 and found that the majority of these (60%)
used both qualitative and quantitative data collection but analysed these within their own tradition (i.e.
quantitative data analysed using quantitative methods and qualitative data analysed using qualitative
methods). Cameron (2008) reviewed conference papers from the 2007 conference of the Australian
and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) (n=281). The majority of mixed method type
papers were in the classification (n=22 or 78%) that analysed qualitative data qualitatively and
analysed quantitative data quantitatively. The results of these studies points to an over reliance of
mixed methods research types which maintain the quantitative qualitative divide and the non use of
more integrated mixed method designs.

A major challenge for mixed methods researchers relates to the levels of integration between
qualitative and quantitative methods that such research achieves or claims to achieve. Integration at
the level of data analysis is an important aspect of becoming proficient in MMR. Tashakkori and
Teddlie (2010b: 25-26) identified three trends in relation to analysis issues in MMR: MMR data
analysis as a separate and distinct issue; a dramatic increase in data analysis processes unique to
MMR; and new MMR analyses that borrow/adapt existing procedures in the QUANT and QUAL

Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Volume 9 Issue 2 2011

traditions. In terms of the second trend Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010b: 820) have identified distinct
new analytical techniques

1.5 Publishing
The publishing of mixed methods research is also an issue that needs attention. Despite a small but
growing section of academic publishing that is focused on mixed methods the publishing of mixed
methods represents the last P of the Five Ps of mixed methods and includes its own set of challenges
and issues.

Brannen (2005: 10-11) refers to politics in her three Ps that describes the political researcher and
identifies feminist, social justice, disability and new childhood studies as areas of research that she
considers political. Brannen (2005: 26) does however refer to issues in mixed methods and in
reference to publishing 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 separately. 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.

Tashakkori and Teddlie (2010b: 820) noted the link between the MMR and qualitative research
communities in terms of their respective positions outside the mainstream in certain disciplines:

Undoubtedly, the MMR and QUAL communities are both outside the mainstream in
certain fields still dominated by postpositivism, such as psychology in the United
States…in these highly QUAN-oriented journals, the only way that QUAL research was
introduced has been through mixed methods research. Politically, there is an assumed
kinship between the QUAL and MMR communities in trying to introduce methodological
diversity into highly traditional QUAN disciplines.

This paper argues that the last of the Five Ps is related to politics but not as Brannen has described it.
Here the last of the Five Ps refers to the politics of publishing mixed methods and represents the last
challenge to those engaged in mixed methods research.

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

Stange, Crabtree and Miller (2006: 29) note the progress being made in the field of family medicine
towards the acceptance, use and benefits of using mixed methods research. Even so they conclude
that:

…the dramatic advances in the scope and sophistication of conducting mixed methods
research have not been met with parallel progress in ways of disseminating the results of
mixed methods studies. From our point of view, a major dilemma is that the results of
multimethod studies often are segregated in different publications that reach limited and
often nonclinical audiences… Thus, different fields only come to know part of the
research—reminiscent of the story of the 4 blind men each feeling a different part of the
elephant and thus unable to develop a coherent idea of the whole.

They go on to offer a set of five solutions to this problem:

1. Publish quantitative and qualitative papers in separate journals, but with clear references and links
to the other article(s).

2. Publish concurrent or sequential quantitative and qualitative papers in the same journal.

3. Publish an integrated single article that describes both methods and findings and draws
overarching lessons, with or without appendices that provide study details.

Roslyn Cameron

www.ejbrm.com 106 ISSN 1477-7029

4. Copublish separate qualitative and quantitative papers accompanied by a third paper that draws
overarching lessons from analyses across the 2 methods.

5. Develop an online discussion of readers and invited commentators to foster cross-disciplinary
communities of knowledge (Stange, Crabtree and Miller 2006).

Dahlberg, Wittnik and Gallo (2010) also provide a very practical and detailed account of how MM
researchers can write for funding and publication and provide structural advice on the distinct task of
writing up MMR and MM research proposals.

2. Conclusion
Mixed methods researchers need to be versatile and innovative with a repertoire of research skills
that exceeds those needed for single mode research. They need to explicitly state their philosophical
foundations and paradigmatic stance before rigorously defending their methodological choices and
demonstrate a sound knowledge base of mixed methods research designs and methodological
considerations. They need to demonstrate proficiency and competence in both the quantitative and
qualitative methods chosen as well as proficiency and competency in applying the rules of integration
to methods and data analysis. They are also required to become cognisant of the politics of publishing
in a new and emerging methodological movement without debasing or underreporting the essence of
their mixed methods studies. The Five Ps framework can provide those wishing to embark into mixed
methods research with the essential components of a mixed methods starter kit, inclusive of a
contemporary checklist of contentious issues, risks and traps that require consideration. Tashakkori
and Teddlie (2010b: 29) refer to the need for MM researchers to become “methodological
connoisseur[s]” whilst Cameron (2011: 263) calls for the need for “methodological trilingualism” in
those wishing to engage in MMR. Both these capacities require advanced research skill levels and
competencies. As a consequence the framework also offers higher degree supervisors and educators
with a guiding framework for building mixed methods research capacity. It is hoped the Five Ps
framework for mixed methods research will provide a pedagogic tool for guiding the teaching of mixed
methods research and will continue to be developed. It is envisaged this development may lead to a
more comprehensive framework and supplementary curriculum development for higher degree
research students.

References
Bazeley,P. (2003) “Teaching mixed methods”, Qualitative Research Journal, Vol. 3, pp 117-126.
Bazeley, P. (2010) “Computer-assisted integration of mixed methods data sources and analyses” in Sage

Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds) 2010,
Sage, California, pp 431-467.

Biesta, G. (2010) “Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research”, in in Sage
Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds) 2010,
Sage, California, pp 95-117.

Brannen, J. (2005) “Mixed Methods research: A discussion paper”, ESRC National Centre for Research Methods
NCRM Methods Review papers, NCRM/005 [online]
http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/cap/documents/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-005

Bryman, A. (2008) “Why do researchers Integrate/Combine/Mesh/Blend/Mix/Merge/Fuse Quantitative and
Qualitative research?”, in Bergman M (Ed.) Advances in Mixed Methods Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.

Buchanan, D. and Bryman, A. (2007) “Contextualizing methods choice in organizational research”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp 483-501.

Cameron, R. (2008) “Mixed Methods in Management Research: Has the phoenix landed?”, 22ndt Annual
Australian & New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Conference, Auckland, December 2008.

Cameron, R, (2011) “Mixed methods in business and management: A call to the ‘first generation”, Journal of
Management and Organisation. Vol. 17, No. 2. March, pp 245-267

Cameron, R, and Molina-Azorin, J, (2011), “The acceptance of mixed methods in business and management”,
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol.19, No.3, pp 256-271.

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

Creswell, J.W. (1994) Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
California.

Creswell, J.W. and Plano Clark, V.L. (2007) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, California.

Creswell, J. (2010) “Mapping the developing landscape of mixed methods research”, in in Sage Handbook of
Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds) 2010, Sage,
California, pp 45-68.

http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/cap/documents/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-005 �

Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Volume 9 Issue 2 2011

Dahlberg, B., M. Wittink, et al. (2010)” Funding and publishing integrated studies: writing effective mixed methods
manuscripts and grant proposals”, in in Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral
Research, Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds) 2010, Sage, California, pp 775-802.

Flick, U. (2002) An Introduction to Qualitative Research, SAGE Publications, London.
Greene, J. and Caracelli, V. (Eds.) (1997) Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits

of Integrating Diverse Paradigms, Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco.
Greene, J. and Caracelli, V. (2003) “Making Paradigmatic Sense of Mixed Methos Inquiry”, in Handbook of

Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A & Teddlie, C. (Eds) 2003, Sage, California.
Greene, J. and J. Hall (2010) “Dialectics and pragmatism: being of consequence”, in in Sage Handbook of

Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds) 2010, Sage,
California, pp 119-143.

Guba, E. (ed) (1990) The Paradigm Dialog, Sage, Newbury Park, California.
Hurmerinta-Peltomaki, L. and Nummela, N. (2006) “Mixed methods in International Business Research: A Value-

added Perspective”, Management International Review, Vol. 46, No. 4, pp 439-459.
Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004) “Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has

come”, Educational Researchers, Vol. 33, No. 7, pp 14-26.
Johnson, R., Onwuegbuzie, A. and Turner, L. (2007) “Toward a definition of mixed methods research”, Journal of

Mixed Methods Research, Vol.1, Issue 2, pp 112-133.
Johnson, R. and Gray, R. (2010) “A history of philosophical and theoretical issues for mixed methods research”,

in Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C.
(Eds) 2010, Sage, California, pp 69-94.

Kelle, U. & Erzberger, C. (2004) “Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Not in Opposition”, in A Companion to
Qualitative Research, eds. U. Flick, E. Kardorff & I. Steinke, Sage, London.

Maxcy, S. (2003) “Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple
modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism”, in Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social &
Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A & Teddlie, C. (Eds) 2003, Sage, California.

Maxwell, J. (2005) Qualitative Research Design An Interactive Approach, 2nd edn, Sage, Thousand Oakes,
California.

McMillan, J. and Schumacher, S. (2006) Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry, 6th edn, Pearson,
Boston.

Mertens, D. (2005) Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed methods, (2nd edn.). Sage, Boston.

Mingers, J. (2001) “Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology”, Information Systems
Research, Vol. 12, pp 240-259.

Mingers, J. (2003) “The paucity of multimethod research: a review of the information systems literature”,
Information Systems Journal, Vol. 13, pp 233-249.

Morgan, D.L. (1996) “The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: Paradigm loyalty versus
methodological eclecticism”. In J.T.E. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Research in Psychology and the Social
Sciences, BPS Books, Leicester UK.

Morgan, D. L. (2007) “Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained”, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol.1,
Issue 1, pp 48-76.

Morse, J. (2010) “Procedures and practice of mixed method design: maintaining control, rigor, and complexity”, in
Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds)
2010, Sage, California, pp 339-352.

Natasi, B., J. Hitchcock, et al. (2010) “An inclusive framework for conceptualizing mixed methods design
typologies: moving toward fully integrated synergistic research models”, in in Sage Handbook of Mixed
Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds) 2010, Sage, California, pp
305-338.

Neuman, W. (2006) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, (6th edn.). Pearson,
Boston.

Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Collins, K. (2007) “A typology of Mixed Methods Sampling Designs in Social Science
Research”, The Qualitative Report Vol. 12, No. 2 June, pp 281-316, [online],
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR12-2/onwuegbuzie2

Patton, M. (2002) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, Sage, Thousand Oakes, California.
Rossman, G.B. and Wilson, B.L. (1994) “Numbers and words revisited: Being ‘shamelessly eclectic’”. Quality and

Quantity, Vol. 28, pp 315-327.
Stange, K. Crabtree, B. & Miller, W. (2006) “Multimethod Research”, Annals of Family Medicine, Vol. 4, pp 292-

294
Tashakkori, A, and Teddlie, C. (Eds.) (2003) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research,

Sage, California.
Tashakkori, A. and C. Teddlie (2010a) Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research.

Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2010b) “Epilogue: current developments and emerging trends in integrated

research methodology”, in in Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research,
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds) 2010, Sage, California, pp 803-826.

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR12-2/onwuegbuzie2 �

Roslyn Cameron

www.ejbrm.com 108 ISSN 1477-7029

Teddlie, C. and A. Tashakkori (2010) “Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research”, in Sage
Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds) 2010,
Sage, California, pp 1-41.

Welch, D.E. & Welch, L.S. (2004) “Getting Published: The last Great Hurdle?”, in Marschan-Piekkari, R and
Welch C (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for International Business, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham, pp 551-569.

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

c.ADM_140187_20110901_00011_28334

1. Introduction
The five Ps of mixed methods research
1.1 Paradigms
1.2 Pragmatism
1.3 Praxis
1.4 Proficiency
1.5 Publishing
2. Conclusion
References

V o l u m e 2 0 , N u m b e r 4
F a l l 2 0 0 7 M i d � W e s t e r n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h e r 3 5

T h e h i s t o r i c a l d e b a t e s u r r o u n d i n g q u a n t i t a t i v e a n dq u a l i t a t i v e m e t h o d o l o g i e s a n d r e s e a r c h p a r a d i g m s h a s b e e na t t i m e s r a t h e r p a s s i o n a t e . A r g u m e n t s f o r a n d a g a i n s t t h e s em e t h o d o l o g i e s o f t e n h a v e c e n t e r e d o n t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i f

gzgornkÝgf.”hqt”gzcorng.”kp”tgitguukqp”oqfgnu”qh”cpcn{uku”( M a x w e l l & L o o m i s , 2 0 0 3 ) .I n t h e 1 9 5 0 s t h r o u g h t h e 1 9 7 0 s , r e s e a r c h e r s b e g a n n o t i n g
rgtegkxgf”fkhÝewnvkgu”cuuqekcvgf”ykvj”vjku”qdlgevkxkuv”uvcpeg”( L i n c o l n & G u b a , 1 9 8 5 ) . F o r e x a m p l e , a r e t h e r e o b j e c t i v et r u t h s t h a t e x i s t o u t s i d e o f h u m a n e x p e r i e n c e a n d u n d e r

K a t h r y n P o l eS a i n t L o u i s U n i v e r s i t yT h e h i s t o r i c a l d e b a t e s u r r o u n d i n g q u a n t i t a t i v e a n d q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h p a r a d i g m s h a s b e e n a t t i m e sr a t h e r p a s s i o n a t e . A r g u m e n t s f o r a n d a g a i n s t m e t h o d o l o g i e s o f t e n h a v e c e n t e r e d o n t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a ld i f f e r e n c e s r e g a r d i n g i s s u e s s u c h a s g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y , e p i s t e m o l o g y , a n d a u t h e n t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h ep h e n o m e n a u n d e r r e s e a r c h . M o r e r e c e n t l y , h o w e v e r , c o n s i d e r a b l e f o c u s h a s s h i f t e d t o d i s c u s s i o n o n h o wm i x e d m e t h o d s r e s e a r c h c a n b e p e r f o r m e d a n d u s e d e f f e c t i v e l y . G e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , m i x e d m e t h o d s c a nb e c o n c e p t u a l i z e d a s t h e u s e o r b l e n d i n g o f r e s e a r c h m e t h o d s f r o m b o t h q u a n t i t a t i v e a n d q u a l i t a t i v e t r a �d i t i o n s . T h e r e e x i s t s c o n s i d e r a b l e c o m p l e x i t y i n h o w t h e s e m e t h o d s m a y b e u s e d t o g e t h e r . N e v e r t h e l e s s ,i n c r e a s i n g n u m b e r s o f r e s e a r c h e r s a r e e m b r a c i n g t h e c o n c e p t o f m i x e d m e t h o d s , a n d p u b l i s h e d a r t i c l e su s i n g m i x e d m e t h o d s a r e m o r e c o m m o n t h a n t h e y o n c e w e r e . G i v e n t h e o n g o i n g d e v e l o p m e n t o f m i x e dm e t h o d s r e s e a r c h , t h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s p a p e r i s t o p r o v i d e a s u c c i n c t s u m m a r y o f t h e m o s t p r o m i n e n t m i x e dm e t h o d s r e s e a r c h p a r a d i g m s . P a p e r s s u c h a s t h i s o n e a r e n e e d e d t o c o m m u n i c a t e c u r r e n t s t a t u s o f t h e
Ýgnf”kp”c”eqpekug”ocppgt”hqt”crrnkgf”tgugctejgtu0

3 6 M i d � W e s t e r n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h e r V o l u m e 2 0 , N u m b e r 4 µ F a l l 2 0 0 7

t h a t c o m b i n e d q u a n t i t a t i v e a n d q u a l i t a t i v e m e t h o d s ( e . g .T h e H a w t h o r n e S t u d i e s , M a y o , 1 9 3 3 ) . T h e s e e a r l y m i x e dm e t h o d o l o g i s t s s e e m e d u n a w a r e t h a t t h e y w e r e d o i n g a n y æt h i n g u n u s u a l ( T e d d l i e & T a s h a k k o r i , 2 0 0 3 ) , a n d d i d n o tn a m e t h e i r m e t h o d o l o g y . T h e y u s e d m e t h o d s a p p r o p r i a t ef o r t h e i r q u e s t i o n s , a n d i t w a s n o t u n t i l t h e “ p a r a d i g m w a r s ”t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s b e g a n q u e s t i o n i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e u s e o fm e t h o d o l o g y b l e n d i n g .T h e r e a r e d i s t i n c t p h i l o s o p h i c a l a s s u m p t i o n s t h a t s h a p et h e w a y r e s e a r c h e r s a p p r o a c h p r o b l e m s a n d c o l l e c t a n da n a l y z e d a t a . Q u a n t i t a t i v e l y o r i e n t e d r e s e a r c h e r s b e l i e v e t h a t
uekgpvkÝecnn{“dcugf”twngu”cpf”ncyu”ujcrg”vjg”uqekcn”yqtnf”a s t h e y s h a p e t h e p h y s i c a l w o r l d . R e s e a r c h e r s c a n d i s c o v e rt h e s e r u l e s a n d l a w s , a n d t h e n a p p l y t h e m o b j e c t i v e l y t o a n æs w e r q u e s t i o n s a n d p r e d i c t b e h a v i o r . Q u a l i t a t i v e l y o r i e n t e dr e s e a r c h e r s v i e w a n i n d i v i d u a l a n d t h e w o r l d a s s o i n t e r c o n æn e c t e d t h a t o n e d o e s n o t e x i s t w i t h o u t t h e o t h e r . T h e o n l y w a yt o u n d e r s t a n d h u m a n b e h a v i o r i s t o f o c u s o n t h e m e a n i n g st h a t e v e n t s h a v e f o r t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s b y l o o k i n g a t w h a t p e o p l et h i n k , f e e l , a n d d o i n a c o m p r e h e n s i v e w a y .D a t a g a t h e r e d t h r o u g h q u a n t i t a t i v e m e t h o d s h a s s o m e æt i m e s b e e n d e s c r i b e d a s m o r e o b j e c t i v e a n d a c c u r a t e b e c a u s ei t i s c o l l e c t e d u s i n g s t a n d a r d i z e d m e t h o d s , c a n b e r e p l i c a t e d ,a n d a n a l y z e d u s i n g s t a t i s t i c a l p r o c e d u r e s . Q u a l i t a t i v e i ss o m e t i m e s s e e n a s l e s s a c c u r a t e a n d r e l i a b l e . T h i s d i s t i n c t i o ni s t o o s i m p l i s t i c . E i t h e r a p p r o a c h m a y o r m a y n o t s a t i s f y t h er e q u i r e m e n t s o f s y s t e m a t i c r i g o r . Q u a n t i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h e r s a r eb e c o m i n g i n c r e a s i n g l y a w a r e t h a t s o m e o f t h e i r d a t a m a y n o tb e a c c u r a t e a n d v a l i d . R e s p o n d e n t s m a y n o t u n d e r s t a n d t h em e a n i n g o f q u e s t i o n s t o w h i c h t h e y r e s p o n d , p e o p l e ’ s a b i l i t y
vq”tgogodgt”gxgpvu”ku”hcwnv{.”cpf”kv”ku”fkhÝewnv”vq”eqpvtqn”hqt”h u m a n e x p e r i e n c e s . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h e r sh a v e d e v e l o p e d b e t t e r t e c h n i q u e s f o r c l a s s i f y i n g a n d a n a l y z æi n g d e s c r i p t i v e d a t a . I t i s a l s o i n c r e a s i n g l y r e c o g n i z e d t h a t a l ld a t a c o l l e c t i o n , q u a n t i t a t i v e o r q u a l i t a t i v e , o p e r a t e s w i t h i n ac u l t u r a l c o n t e x t a n d i s a f f e c t e d b y t h e b i a s e s a n d b e l i e f s o f t h ed a t a c o l l e c t o r s . A s O n w u e g b u z i e ( p e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n ,J a n u a r y 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 ) n o t e d , “ E v e r y t h i n g s t a r t s o u t q u a l i t a t i v e . ”T h e t o p i c o f t h e r e s e a r c h , t e s t d e s i g n , i n t e r v i e w q u e s t i o n s , a n d
ejqkeg”qh”yqtfkpi”ctg”cnn”tgÞgevkxg”qh”vjg”tgugctejgt0″C u r r e n t S t a t u s

Dtqcfn{“fgÝpgf.”m i x e d m e t h o d d e s i g n i s r e s e a r c h d e s i g nt h a t i n v o l v e s b o t h q u a n t i t a t i v e a n d q u a l i t a t i v e d a t a i n e i t h e rs i n g l e s t u d y o r i n m u l t i p l e s t u d i e s i n a s u s t a i n e d p r o g r a m o f
kpswkt{“*Etguygnn.”4225+0″Cu”vjg”Ýgnf”jcu”gxqnxgf.”vjgtg”jcxg”b e e n i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s a n d c o n f u s i o n i n t h e w a y v a r i o u s t e r m s
vjcv”tgncvg”vq”okzgf”ogvjqf”tgugctej”jcxg”dggp”fgÝpgf0″Vgf

æd l i e a n d T a s h a k k o r i ( 2 0 0 3 ) p r o p o s e d m i x e d m e t h o d s d e s i g n sa s t h e c o v e r t e r m t h a t d e s c r i b e s t h e u s e o f b o t h q u a l i t a t i v ea n d q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n p r o c e d u r e s a n d r e s e a r c hm e t h o d s , a n d i n c l u d e s m i x e d m e t h o d s r e s e a r c h a n d m i x e dm o d e l r e s e a r c h .M i x e d m e t h o d r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s u s e q u a l i t a t i v e a n dq u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n a n d a n a l y s i s i n t h e m e t h o d sp a r t o f t h e s t u d y . T h e s e s t u d i e s h a v e b o t h a q u a l i t a t i v e a n d

a q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n p r o c e d u r e ( e . g . , a n i n t e r v i e wa n d t e s t s c o r e ) o r r e s e a r c h m e t h o d ( e . g . , a n e t h n o g r a p h ya n d a n e x p e r i m e n t ) . T h o u g h m i x e d m e t h o d r e s e a r c h r e l i e so n q u a l i t a t i v e a n d q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n a n d a n a l y s i s ,t h e y o f t e n a r e p a r a l l e l w i t h o u t m u c h r e a l m i x i n g , a n d t h eq u e s t i o n s t h e y a s k a n d i n f e r e n c e s t h e y m a k e a r e o f t e n e i t h e rq u a l i t a t i v e o r q u a n t i t a t i v e i n n a t u r e , a s o p p o s e d t o b l e n d e d( T e d d l i e & T a s h a k k o r i , 2 0 0 3 ) .M i x e d m o d e l r e s e a r c h , b y c o m p a r i s o n , o c c u r s i n s e v e r a lo r a l l s t a g e s o f a s t u d y , i n s e q u e n t i a l o r c o n c u r r e n t p h a s e s ,i n c l u d i n g q u e s t i o n s , m e t h o d s , d a t a c o l l e c t i o n a n d a n a l y s i s ,a n d t h e i n f e r e n c e p r o c e s s . U n d e r l y i n g m i x e d m o d e l r e s e a r c hi s t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e t o h a v e t w o w o r l d v i e w s ,o r p a r a d i g m s , m i x e d t h r o u g h o u t a s i n g l e r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t .T h e r e m a y b e m u l t i p l e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s , e a c h g r o u n d e d i na d i s t i n c t p a r a d i g m , a n d t h e r e m i g h t b e m u l t i p l e i n f e r e n c e sr e l a t i n g t o d i f f e r e n t w o r l d v i e w s ( T e d d l i e & T a s h a k k o r i ,2 0 0 3 ) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , m i x e d m o d e l r e s e a r c h c a n i n v o l v e a t e a mo f r e s e a r c h e r s f r o m d i f f e r e n t d i s c i p l i n e s w h o b r i n g d i f f e r e n tt h e o r e t i c a l a n d a n a l y t i c p e r s p e c t i v e s t o t h e a n a l y s i s o f a s i n g l ep r o b l e m ( e . g . , G r e e n & H a r k e r , 1 9 8 8 ) .M i x e d m e t h o d r e s e a r c h , t h e n , d i f f e r s f r o m w h a t i s c a l l e dm u l t i m e t h o d r e s e a r c h . M u l t i m e t h o d d e s i g n s a r e t h o s e t h a t u s em o r e t h a n o n e m e t h o d , b u t a r e r e s t r i c t e d t o o n e w o r l d v i e w( e . g . , q u a l i t a t i v e / q u a l i t a t i v e , o r q u a n t i t a t i v e / q u a n t i t a t i v em e t h o d s ) .A t t h e p r e s e n t t i m e , r e s e a r c h e r s i n s o c i a l a n d b e h a v i o r a l
uekgpegu”ecp”dg”tqwijn{“encuukÝgf”kpvq”vjtgg”itqwru0″Vjgtg”ctg”t h o s e w h o a r e q u a n t i t a t i v e l y o r i e n t e d , c o n d u c t i n g r e s e a r c hi n e m p i r i c a l w a y s u s i n g s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s a n d d e d u c t i v e l ya r r i v i n g a t c o n c l u s i o n s . Q u a l i t a t i v e l y o r i e n t e d r e s e a r c h e r sr e l y o n m o r e s u b j e c t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f r e a l i t y t o a r r i v e a t
fguetkrvkqpu”qh”rjgpqogpc.”cpf”vjgkt”yqtm”ku”kpÞwgpegf”d{“t h e t h e o r y t h e y a r e u s i n g .T h e t h i r d g r o u p i s t h e m i x e d m e t h o d o l o g i s t s . A s T e d d l i e& T a s h a k k o r i ( 2 0 0 3 ) c l a i m , t h e y a r e n e i t h e r t r a d i t i o n a l ( q u a n æt i t a t i v e ) n o r r e v o l u t i o n a r y ( q u a l i t a t i v e ) . T h o s e r e s e a r c h e r s
wukpi”okzgf”ogvjqfu”vgpf”vq”Ýv”oqtg”enqugn{“ykvj”swcnkvc

æt i v e w o r l d v i e w s , i n c l u d i n g t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h e r e a r e m u l t i p l er e a l i t i e s t h a t a r e d e p e n d e n t u p o n t h e i n d i v i d u a l , b u t t h e ya n s w e r q u e s t i o n s b y c o m b i n i n g q u a l i t a t i v e a n d q u a n t i t a t i v em e t h o d s i n v a r i o u s w a y s , i n p a r a l l e l , c o n c u r r e n t , o r s e q u e n æt i a l o r d e r .R a t i o n a l e f o r C o n t i n u e d U s eM i x e d m e t h o d s a p p r o a c h e s c a n s o m e t i m e s b e s u p e r i o r t os i n g l e m e t h o d d e s i g n s . M i x e d m e t h o d s r e s e a r c h c a n a n s w e rq u e s t i o n s t h a t t h e o t h e r s i n g l e p a r a d i g m s c a n n o t . T h e m e t h o d sr e s e a r c h e r s u s e d e p e n d s o n t h e n a t u r e o f t h e q u e s t i o n s b e i n ga s k e d . C e r t a i n q u e s t i o n s c a n n o t b e a n s w e r e d b y q u a n t i t a t i v em e t h o d o l o g y , a n d o t h e r s c a n n o t b e a n s w e r e d b y q u a l i t a t i v es t u d i e s . R e s e a r c h e r s c a n c o m b i n e a p p r o a c h e s s o t h a t o n e v e r i æ
Ýgu”vjg”Ýpfkpiu”qh”vjg”qvjgt.”qpg”ecp”ugtxg”cu”vjg”itqwpfyqtm”f o r t h e o t h e r , a n d t h e a p p r o a c h e s m a y c o m p l e m e n t e a c h o t h e rt o e x p l o r e d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s o f t h e s a m e q u e s t i o n .

V o l u m e 2 0 , N u m b e r 4 $ F a l l 2 0 0 7 M i d + W e s t e r n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h e r 3 7

A n a d v a n t a g e o f m i x e d m e t h o d s r e s e a r c h i s t h a t i t e n M
cdngu”vjg”tgugctejgt”vq”ukownvcpgqwun{“cpuygt”eqpÝtocvqt{”
cpf”gzrnqtcvqt{“swguvkqpu0″C”tgugctejgt”ecp”eqpÝto”cp”ghhgev”o n a p h e n o m e n o n b y s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a ,a n d t h e n e x p l o r e t h e r e a s o n s b e h i n d t h e o b s e r v e d e f f e c t b y
wukpi”Ýgnf”tgugctej.”ecug”uvwf{“fcvc.”qt”uwtxg{u”*Vcujcmmqtk”& T e d d l i e , 2 0 0 3 a ) . A r e s e a r c h e r m a y a l s o u s e q u a l i t a t i v em e t h o d o l o g y t o g e n e r a t e t h e o r y , a n d q u a n t i t a t i v e m e t h o d st o t e s t t h a t t h e o r y .M i x e d m e t h o d s r e s e a r c h c a n p r o v i d e f o r s t r o n g e r i n f e r Me n c e s b e c a u s e t h e d a t a a r e l o o k e d a t f r o m m u l t i p l e p e r s p e c Mt i v e s . O n e m e t h o d c a n p r o v i d e g r e a t e r d e p t h , t h e o t h e r g r e a t e r
dtgcfvj.”cpf”vqigvjgt”vjg{“eqpÝto”qt”eqorngogpv”gcej”qvjgt0″F o r e x a m p l e , q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a m a y b e u s e d t o m e a s u r e t h es u c c e s s o f a n i n t e r v e n t i o n , a n d q u a l i t a t i v e d a t a u s e d t o e x p l a i nt h e p r o c e s s o f t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n . M i x e d m e t h o d s a r e u s e f u lw h e n t h e y g i v e b e t t e r o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o a n s w e r t h e r e s e a r c hq u e s t i o n s o f i n t e r e s t , a n d w h e n t h e y h e l p t h e r e s e a r c h e re v a l u a t e t h e “ g o o d n e s s ” o f t h e i r a n s w e r s ( T a s h a k k o r i &T e d d l i e , 2 0 0 3 , p . 1 4 ) .C o m m o n M o d e l s f o r C o n d u c t i n gM i x e d M e t h o d s R e s e a r c hM i x e d m e t h o d s r e s e a r c h t a k e s o n d i f f e r e n t f o r m s , d e Mp e n d i n g o n t h e r e s e a r c h e r a n d t h e q u e s t i o n s b e i n g a s k e d .T h r e e o f t h e m o s t c o m m o n a p p r o a c h e s a r e p r a g m a t i s m ,t r a n s f o r m a t i v e � e m a n c i p a t o r y , a n d t h e m u l t i p l e p a r a d i g mp o s i t i o n ( T a s h a k k o r i & T e d d l i e , 2 0 0 3 a ) .P r a g m a t i s m i s c o n s i d e r e d a d i a l e c t i c a l s t a n c e ( T a s h a k Mk o r i & T e d d l i e , 2 0 0 3 b , p . 7 0 6 ) , i n w h i c h c o n t r a d i c t o r y i d e a sa r e s o u g h t a n d p l a y e d w i t h . I t r e j e c t s c o n c e p t s l i k e “ t r u t h ”a n d “ r e a l i t y , ” a n d i n s t e a d f o c u s e s o n “ w h a t w o r k s ” r e g a r d Mi n g t h e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n . R e s e a r c h e r s i n t e n t i o n a l l y e n g a g ei n m u l t i p l e s e t s o f p a r a d i g m s , r a t h e r t h a n m a k i n g e i t h e r /o r c h o i c e s , a n d “ e x a m i n e t h e t e n s i o n s t h a t e m e r g e f r o mt h e j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f t h e s e m u l t i p l e d i v e r s e p e r s p e c t i v e s ”( T a s h a k k o r i & T e d d l i e , 2 0 0 3 a , p . 6 7 7 ) . O n e o f t h e r e a s o n st h a t p r a g m a t i s m i s t h e m o s t c o m m o n p a r a d i g m i n m i x e d
ogvjqfu”tgugctej”ku”dgecwug”kv”Ývu”kp”crrnkgf”ugvvkpiu”yjgtg”t h e r e a r e c o m p l e x s o c i a l p h e n o m e n a . P r a g m a t i c r e s e a r c h e r sc o n s i d e r t h e q u e s t i o n t o b e m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e m e t h o du s e d t o a n s w e r t h e q u e s t i o n o r t h e p a r a d i g m t h a t s h a p e s t h em e t h o d ( M a x c y , 2 0 0 3 ) . T h e y u s e a b r o a d a r r a y o f t e c h n i q u e s ,s e l e c t i n g b a s e d u p o n t h e q u e s t i o n a t h a n d r a t h e r t h a n a s e n s eo f s u p e r i o r i t y o f t e c h n i q u e s . Q u e s t i o n s t h a t m i g h t b e s t u d i e du n d e r a p r a g m a t i c p a r a d i g m i n c l u d e , “ W h a t a r e t h e r e a s o n st h a t S t r a t e g y A i s m o r e e f f e c t i v e t h a n S t r a t e g y B ? ” R e s e a r c h Me r s a n s w e r i n g s u c h a q u e s t i o n w o u l d u s e q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t as u c h a s t e s t s c o r e s a n d d e m o g r a p h i c s , a n d q u a l i t a t i v e d a t a
uwej”cu”Ýgnf”pqvgu”cpf”kpvgtxkgyu.”kp”c”dngpfgf”eqpewttgpv”w a y i n o r d e r t o a r r i v e a t a n s w e r s .T h e s e c o n d m o s t c o m m o n m i x e d m e t h o d s p a r a d i g mi s k n o w n a s t r a n s f o r m a t i v e � e m a n c i p a t o r y . T r a n s f o r m a t i v e Me m a n c i p a t o r y r e s e a r c h e r s h o l d t h a t t h e r e a r e d i v e r s e v i e w si n s o c i a l r e a l i t i e s , b u t t h o s e v i e w s n e e d t o b e p l a c e d i n as o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , h i s t o r i c a l a n d e c o n o m i c v a l u e s y s t e m i n

o r d e r f o r u s t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e d i f f e r e n c e s ( M e r t e n s , 2 0 0 3 ) .T h i s p a r a d i g m a s s u m e s t h a t r e p r e s s i o n ( r a c i a l , g e n d e r ,e t h n i c , d i s a b i l i t y , e t c . ) i s a t t h e r o o t o f s o c i a l p r o b l e m s , a n da s k s q u e s t i o n s s u c h a s , “ W h e n t e a c h e r s a r e n o t s e n s i t i v e t oc u l t u r a l d i v e r s i t y i n t h e i r c l a s s r o o m , w h a t i s t h e i m p a c t o na c h i e v e m e n t a n d f u t u r e o p t i o n s f o r t h e s t u d e n t ? ” A n s w e r st o q u e s t i o n s t h a t t r a n s f o r m a t i v e M e m a n c i p a t o r y r e s e a r c h e r sa s k a r e f r a m e d i n t h e i m p o r t a n c e t h a t c u l t u r e a n d r e p r e s s i o no f c u l t u r e p l a y o n s o c i e t y , a n d h a v e , a s a g o a l , t o i m p r o v ec o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e g r o u p b e i n g s t u d i e d .T h e m u l t i p l e p a r a d i g m p o s i t i o n s i m p l y s t a t e s t h a t r e Ms e a r c h e r s u s e t h e m e t h o d s t h a t a r e m o s t l i k e l y t o a n s w e r t h e i rq u e s t i o n s . T h e m e t h o d s v a r y a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s t u d y a t h a n d ,
cpf”Ýv”igpgtcnn{“kpvq”qpg”qh”hqwt”oqfgnu”dcugf”qp”ukownvc

Mn e o u s / s e q u e n t i a l m i x i n g ( C r e s w e l l , P l a n o M C l a r k , G u t m a n n ,& H a n s o n , 2 0 0 3 ) . Q u a l i t a t i v e d a t a c a n b e u s e d a s a b a s e t oh e l p d e v e l o p q u a n t i t a t i v e m e a s u r e s a n d t o o l s ; q u a n t i t a t i v ed a t a c a n b e u s e d t o e l a b o r a t e a q u a l i t a t i v e s t u d y ; q u a l i t a t i v e
ogvjqfu”ecp”dg”wugf”vq”jgnr”gzrnckp”swcpvkvcvkxg”Ýpfkpiu=”a n d q u a l i t a t i v e a n d q u a n t i t a t i v e m e t h o d s c a n b e u s e d e q u a l l ya n d i n p a r a l l e l t o a r r i v e a t t h e s t u d y r e s u l t s . T h e f o r m o f t h em o d e l i s d e p e n d e n t u p o n t h e q u e s t i o n s b e i n g a s k e d , a n d r e M
ugctejgtu”tgÞgevkxgn{“ejqqug”ogvjqfu0″Kp”cffkvkqp.”w h e n d a t aa n a l y s i s o c c u r s i s d e p e n d e n t u p o n t h e q u e s t i o n s a n d m o d e lc h o s e n ( O n w u e g b u z i e & T e d d l i e , 2 0 0 3 ) . I n m o d e l s w h e r eq u a l i t a t i v e a n d q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a a r e g a t h e r e d a t t h e s a m e t i m e ,t h e a n a l y s i s o f d a t a f r o m e a c h m a y a l s o o c c u r c o n c u r r e n t l y ,e i t h e r d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h e s t u d y o r a f t e r a l l t h e d a t a i sg a t h e r e d . I n m o d e l s w h e r e m e t h o d s a r e u s e d s e q u e n t i a l l y ,
vjg”fcvc”htqo”vjg”Ýtuv”oqfgn”yknn”dg”cpcn{¦gf”rtkqt”vq”vjg”c o l l e c t i o n o f t h e d a t a f r o m t h e s u b s e q u e n t m e t h o d .U s i n g M i x e d M e t h o d s D e s i g n sA n a w a r e n e s s o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l d r i v e o f t h e p r o j e c t i s i m Mp o r t a n t ( M o r s e , 2 0 0 3 ) , a s i t a f f e c t s h o w t h e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n sa r e a d d r e s s e d a n d h o w t h e s t u d y i s d e s i g n e d . I f t h e p u r p o s e
qh”c”uvwf{“ku”vq”fguetkdg”qt”Ýpf”ogcpkpi.”vjg”ogvjqfu”yknn”g e n e r a l l y b e q u a l i t a t i v e , w i t h a f o c u s o n t h i n g s t h a t p r o v i d e
vjkem”pcttcvkxg”fguetkrvkqpu0″Kh”vjg”rwtrqug”ku”vq”eqpÝto.”cu”i n t h e o r y M t e s t i n g , t h e m e t h o d s w i l l u s u a l l y b e q u a n t i t a t i v e .T h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l d r i v e h a s c o n s e q u e n c e s o ns t u d y d e s i g n i s s u e s . F o r e x a m p l e , q u a l i t a t i v e d a t a i s u s u a l l yg a t h e r e d i n s m a l l s a m p l e s i z e s , w h i l e q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a u s u a l l ym e a n s l a r g e r s a m p l e s i z e s . Q u a l i t a t i v e s a m p l e s a r e u s u a l l yp u r p o s e f u l l y s e l e c t e d b a s e d o n t h e n e e d s o f t h e s t u d y , a n dd o n ’ t m e e t t h e a s s u m p t i o n s t h a t s h a p e q u a n t i t a t i v e s t u d Mi e s ( i . e . r a n d o m i z a t i o n ) . T h e r e s e a r c h e r w i l l n e e d t o m a k ec h o i c e s t h a t r e c o n c i l e t h e s e i s s u e s .E a c h m e t h o d o l o g y r e l i e s o n b a s e a s s u m p t i o n s t h a t g u i d et h e c o l l e c t i o n a n d a n a l y s i s o f d a t a . Q u a l i t a t i v e d a t a i s g a t h e r e di n d i f f e r e n t , m o r e s u b j e c t i v e w a y s , t h a n q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a . I no r d e r t o q u a n t i f y q u a l i t a t i v e d a t a , t h e r e s e a r c h e r w o u l d n e e dt o a s s u r e t h a t q u a n t i t a t i v e a s s u m p t i o n s h a v e b e e n m e t , i n c l u d Mi n g s u c h t h i n g s a s , “ W e r e a l l t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s a s k e d t h e s a m eq u e s t i o n s i n t h e s a m e w a y s ? ” C o n v e r s e l y , r e s e a r c h e r s w o r k i n gw i t h q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a m a y b e t e m p t e d t o a n a l y z e n o t e s t h a t

3 8 M i d ª W e s t e r n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h e r V o l u m e 2 0 , N u m b e r 4 Æ F a l l 2 0 0 7

r e s p o n d e n t s w r i t e i n m a r g i n s o f s u r v e y i n s t r u m e n t s . B e c a u s et h e s u r v e y i n s t r u m e n t w a s n o t d e s i g n e d t o p r o v i d e q u a l i t a t i v ed a t a , a n d a l l r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e n o t r e q u e s t e d t o w r i t e i n t h e
octikpu.”vjku”fcvc”ecppqv”lwuvkÝcdn{“dg”wugf”*Oqtug.”4225+0″R e s e a r c h e r s u s i n g m i x e d m e t h o d o l o g y m u s t t a k e c a r e t o s e l e c tm e t h o d o l o g i e s t h a t s e r v e t h e p u r p o s e a n d o b j e c t i v e o f t h e s t u d y .I n s t u d i e s w i t h s e q u e n t i a l d e s i g n s f o r e x p l o r a t o r y p u r p o s e s , t h ed e c i s i o n o n h o w t o a n a l y z e d a t a m a y e m e r g e a s t r e n d s b e c o m ee v i d e n t i n t h e s t u d y . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e i n i t i a l , q u a l i t a t i v e p h a s et h e s t u d y m a y p o i n t t o t h e m e s t h a t w i l l t h e n l e a d t h e r e s e a r c h e rt o t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e d a t a ê c o l l e c t i o n a n d a n a l y s i s m e t h o d s ; o r t h ei n i t i a l , q u a n t i t a t i v e p h a s e m a y l e a d t h e r e s e a r c h e r t o u s e a c e r t a i nq u a l i t a t i v e m e t h o d o l o g y . I n s t u d i e s w h e r e q u a n t i t a t i v e a n d q u a l i êt a t i v e d a t a a r e g a t h e r e d a n d a n a l y z e d i n a p a r a l l e l p h a s e d e s i g n ,t h e d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g d a t a a n a l y s i s w o u l d o f t e n b e m a d e a t t h ev e r y s t a r t o f t h e s t u d y , a n d t h e p l a n n e d a n a l y s i s w o u l d s e r v e a sa g u i d e f o r t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f d a t a . T h e p u r p o s e a n d o b j e c t i v e o fa s t u d y d e t e r m i n e w h a t k i n d o f d a t a i s c o l l e c t e d a n d h o w i t i s
cpcn{¦gf0″Fcvc”owuv”dg”vtgcvgf”kp”yc{u”vjcv”Ýv”vjg”rwtrqug”qh”t h e s t u d y ( s e e N e w m a n , e t a l . , 2 0 0 3 ) .C o n c l u s i o nT h e u s e o f a c o m b i n a t i o n o f q u a l i t a t i v e a n d q u a n t i t a êt i v e m e t h o d o l o g y c a n b u i l d o n t h e s t r e n g t h s a n d n e u t r a l i z et h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f e i t h e r m e t h o d o l o g y u s e d a l o n e . T h e r e a r ea d v a n t a g e s a n d d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f e a c h s i n g u l a r m e t h o d o l êo g y , b u t i n c o m b i n a t i o n , e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h e r s a r e a b l e t ob u i l d s t r o n g e r s t u d i e s , w h i c h l e a d t o b e t t e r i n f e r e n c e s , b yu s i n g m i x e d m e t h o d s r e s e a r c h d e s i g n s . T h e u n d e r s t a n d i n gt h a t s o c i a l p h e n o m e n a i s c o m p l e x l e a d s t o a n a w a r e n e s s t h a ts t u d y i n g t h e s e p h e n o m e n a u s i n g m u l t i p l e m e t h o d s s u p p o r t st h e u s e o f m i x e d m e t h o d s r e s e a r c h i n e d u c a t i o n .C a r a c e l l i , V . W . , & G r e e n e , J . C . ( 1 9 9 3 ) . D a t a a n a l y s i s s t r a t e êg i e s f o r m i x e d ê m e t h o d e v a l u a t i o n d e s i g n s . E d u c a t i o n a le v a l u a t i o n a n d p o l i c y a n a l y s i s , 1 5 ( 2 ) , 1 9 5 ê 2 0 7 .
Eqookvvgg”qp”UekgpvkÝe”Rtkpekrngu”hqt”Gfwecvkqp”Tgugctej.”

T0″L0″Ujcxgnuqp”(“N0″Vqypg.”*Gfu0+”*4224+0″UekgpvkÝe”r e s e a r c h i n e d u c a t i o n . W a s h i n g t o n , D C : N a t i o n a l A c a d êe m i e s P r e s s .C r e s w e l l , J . W . ( 2 0 0 3 ) . R e s e a r c h d e s i g n : Q u a l i t a t i v e , q u a n t i !t a t i v e , a n d m i x e d m e t h o d s a p p r o a c h e s ( 2 n d e d . ) . T h o u s a n dO a k s , C A : S a g e .C r e s w e l l , J . W . , P l a n o ê C l a r k , V . L . , G u t m a n n , M . I . , & H a n ês o n , W . E . ( 2 0 0 3 ) . A d v a n c e d m i x e d m e t h o d s r e s e a r c hd e s i g n s . I n A . T a s h a k k o r i & C . T e d d l i e ( E d s . ) , H a n d b o o ko f m i x e d m e t h o d s i n s o c i a l a n d b e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h .T h o u s a n d O a k s , C A : S a g e .G a g e , N . L . ( 1 9 8 9 ) . T h e p a r a d i g m w a r s a n d t h e i r a f t e r m a t h :A “ h i s t o r i c a l ” s k e t c h o f r e s e a r c h o n t e a c h i n g s i n c e 1 9 8 9 .E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h e r , 1 8 ( 7 ) , 4 ê 1 0 .G r e e n , J . L . , & H a r k e r , J . O . ( E d s . ) ( 1 9 8 8 ) . M u l t i p l e p e r !s p e c t i v e a n a l y s i s o f c l a s s r o o m d i s c o u r s e ( V o l . X X V I I I ) .N o r w o o d , N J : A b l e x P u b l i s h i n g .

H o w e , K . R . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . A g a i n s t t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e ê q u a l i t a t i v ei n c o m p a t i b i l i t y t h e s e s , o r d o g m a s d i e h a r d . E d u c a t i o n a lR e s e a r c h e r , 1 7 , 1 0 ê 1 6 .K a m b e r e l i s , G . , & D i m i t r i a d i s , G . ( 2 0 0 5 ) . Q u a l i t a t i v e i n !q u i r y : A p p r o a c h e s t o l a n g u a g e a n d l i t e r a c y r e s e a r c h .N e w Y o r k : T e a c h e r C o l l e g e P r e s s .L i n c o l n , Y . S . , & G u b a , E . G . ( 1 9 8 5 ) . N a t u r a l i s t i c i n q u i r y .B e v e r l y H i l l s , C A : S a g e .M a x c y , S . J . ( 2 0 0 3 ) . P r a g m a t i c t h r e a d s i n m i x e d m e t h o d sr e s e a r c h i n t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s : T h e s e a r c h f o r m u l t i p l em o d e s o f i n q u i r y a n d t h e e n d o f t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f f o r m a l êi s m . I n A . T a s h a k k o r i & C . T e d d l i e ( E d s . ) , H a n d b o o k o fm i x e d m e t h o d s i n s o c i a l a n d b e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h . T h o u ês a n d O a k s , C A : S a g e .M a x w e l l , J . A . , & L o o m i s , D . M . ( 2 0 0 3 ) . M i x e d m e t h o d sd e s i g n : A n a l t e r n a t i v e a p p r o a c h . I n A . T a s h a k k o r i & C .T e d d l i e ( E d s . ) , H a n d b o o k o f m i x e d m e t h o d s i n s o c i a l a n db e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h . T h o u s a n d O a k s , C A : S a g e .M a y o , E . ( 1 9 3 3 ) . T h e h u m a n p r o b l e m s o f a n i n d u s t r i a l i z e dc i v i l i z a t i o n . N e w Y o r k : M c M i l l a n .M e r t e n s , D . M . ( 2 0 0 3 ) . M i x e d m e t h o d s a n d t h e p o l i t i c s o fh u m a n r e s e a r c h : T h e t r a n s f o r m a t i v e ê e m a n c i p a t o r y p e r ês p e c t i v e . I n A . T a s h a k k o r i & C . T e d d l i e ( E d s . ) , H a n d b o o ko f m i x e d m e t h o d s i n s o c i a l a n d b e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h .T h o u s a n d O a k s , C A : S a g e .N e w m a n , I . , R i d e n o u r , C . S . , N e w m a n , C . , & D e M a r c o , G .M . P . ( 2 0 0 3 ) . A t y p o l o g y o f r e s e a r c h p u r p o s e s a n d i t sr e l a t i o n s h i p t o m i x e d m e t h o d s . I n A . T a s h a k k o r i & C .T e d d l i e ( E d s . ) , H a n d b o o k o f m i x e d m e t h o d s i n s o c i a l a n db e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h . T h o u s a n d O a k s , C A : S a g e .O n w u e g b u z i e , A . J . , & T e d d l i e , C . ( 2 0 0 3 ) . A f r a m e w o r k f o ra n a l y z i n g d a t a i n m i x e d m e t h o d s r e s e a r c h . I n A . T a s h a k êk o r i & C . T e d d l i e ( E d s . ) , H a n d b o o k o f m i x e d m e t h o d si n s o c i a l a n d b e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h . T h o u s a n d O a k s , C A :S a g e .R e i c h a r d t , C . S . & R a l l i s , S . F . ( E d s . ) ( 1 9 9 4 ) . T h e q u a l i t a t i v e êq u a n t i t a t i v e d e b a t e : N e w p e r s p e c t i v e s . N e w D i r e c t i o n s f o rP r o g r a m E v a l u a t i o n , N o . 6 1 . S a n F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y ê B a s s .T a s h a k k o r i , A . , & T e d d l i e , C . ( 2 0 0 3 a ) . T h e p a s t a n d f u t u r eo f m i x e d m e t h o d s r e s e a r c h : F r o m d a t a t r i a n g u l a t i o n t om i x e d m o d e l d e s i g n s . I n A . T a s h a k k o r i & C . T e d d l i e( E d s . ) , H a n d b o o k o f m i x e d m e t h o d r e s e a r c h i n s o c i a l a n db e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h . T h o u s a n d O a k s , C A : S a g e .T a s h a k k o r i , A . , & T e d d l i e , C . ( E d s . ) . ( 2 0 0 3 b ) . H a n d b o o k o fm i x e d m e t h o d s i n s o c i a l a n d b e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h . T h o u ês a n d O a k s , C A : S a g e .T e d d l i e , C . , & T a s h a k k o r i , A . ( 2 0 0 3 ) . M a j o r i s s u e s a n d c o n êt r o v e r s i e s i n t h e u s e o f m i x e d m e t h o d s i n t h e s o c i a l a n db e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e s . I n A . T a s h a k k o r i & C . T e d d l i e ( E d s . ) ,H a n d b o o k o f m i x e d m e t h o d s i n s o c i a l a n d b e h a v i o r a lr e s e a r c h ( p p . 3 ê 5 0 ) . T h o u s a n d O a k s , C A : S a g e .

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Report Information from ProQuest
January 15 2012 19:34

_______________________________________________________________

Document 1 of 1

Eighty years later: The APA publication manual rides again…and again and again and again

and again.
Sternberg, Robert J.; Sternberg, Karin; No authorship indicated. PsycCRITIQUES 55.Â 5 (2010).

_______________________________________________________________
Find a copy

Base URL to Journal Linker:

_______________________________________________________________
Abstract
Reviews the book, Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.)

by the American Psychological Association (see record 2009-16118-000). The sixth edition of

the Publication manual of the American Psychological Association has been published 80

years after the publication of the original APA publication manual. There are a number of

changes in the new edition and from the reviewers’ point of view, the changes are welcome

ones. Some of the welcomed changes include reduced length, modification of paper

headings, increased orientation toward electronic submission, expanded coverage of ethical

issues, and expanded material on the use and reporting of statistical methods. However, the

reviewers also point out several problems with the new edition, and focus on the fact that this

book can be very overwhelming and does not always make writing easier for authors. On the

whole, the reviewers believe that the APA publication manual continues to be an excellent

and indispensable reference work. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights

reserved)

_______________________________________________________________
Full Text
PsycCRITIQUES1554-0138American Psychological AssociationFebruary3, 2010555

psq_2010_4513_1_410.1037/a00187652010-00585-001reviewBook Review12010American

Psychological AssociationEighty Years LaterThe APA Publication ManualRides Again . . .

and Again and Again and Again and AgainPublication Manual of the American Psychological

Association (6th ed.)the American Psychological AssociationWashington, DC: American

Psychological Association, 2010. 272 pp.ISBN 978-1-4338-0559-2(hardcover); ISBN 978-1-

4338-0562-2(spiral bound); ISBN 978-1-4338-0561-5(paperback). $39.95, hardcover;

$36.95, spiral bound; $28.95, paperbackRobert J.SternbergKarinSternberg

The sixth edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association

(henceforth referred to in this review as the APA Publication Manual) has been published 80

years after the publication of the original APA Publication Manual. Sometimes, readers

wonder whether a new edition of a book is “worth it” or rather represents an attempt by a

publisher to increase its revenue by forcing users of the book to buy a new edition. In the

http://yw6vq3kb9d.search.serialssolutions.com?genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=Eighty+years+later%253A+The+APA+publication+manual+rides+again…and+again+and+again+and+again+and+again.&title=PsycCRITIQUES&issn=0010-7549&date=2010-01-01&volume=55&issue=5&spage=&author=Sternberg%252C+Robert+J.%253BSternberg%252C+Karin%253BNo+authorship+indicated

http://yw6vq3kb9d.search.serialssolutions.com?genre=article&sid=ProQ:&atitle=Eighty+years+later%253A+The+APA+publication+manual+rides+again…and+again+and+again+and+again+and+again.&title=PsycCRITIQUES&issn=0010-7549&date=2010-01-01&volume=55&issue=5&spage=&author=Sternberg%252C+Robert+J.%253BSternberg%252C+Karin%253BNo+authorship+indicated

case of the APA Publication Manual, the book is definitely “worth it,” for the reasons

described below.

This latest APA Publication Manualgot off to a rough start. The first printing was beset by

errors—generally quite minor ones—but enough of them so that users complained and the

American Psychological Association (APA) decided to release a second printing correcting

the errors. It sent the new printing free so long as the purchaser returned the earlier printing.

In this way, it got the first printing “off the streets.” The association handled the matter in an

ethical, responsible, and professional way and thereby largely put the unfortunate event

behind it.

The APA Publication Manualis used by most psychological journals and by journals in many

other fields as well, including nursing, education, and social work. There are many competing

professional organizations with their own goals and, quite frankly, their own need for revenue

from publications. The APA Publication Manualreached its position of preeminence because

of its usefulness to authors and journal editors, not because other professional organizations

were cheerfully willing to cede preeminence to it.

There are a number of changes in the new edition. From our point of view, the changes are

welcome ones.

First, and probably most welcome, is the APA Publication Manual’s reduced length. The

successive editions were getting longer and longer; the fifth edition had reached 439 pages.

It was just too long. The sixth edition is more compact at 272 pages.

Second, the format for headings in papers has always been confusing. Most confusing has

been that, when an author used less than the full set of headings, he or she was supposed

not to use just the levels in consecutive order but rather to skip levels. In the new edition,

levels of headings are used in order so that, for example, if there are two orders of headings,

one uses the first two levels; if there are three levels, one uses the first three levels, and so

forth. The levels in the new edition are also more intuitively sensible and easier to use with

electronic manuscripts. All authors will welcome the new guidelines for headings.

Third, the APA Publication Manualis much more helpful with regard to the electronic

submission of manuscripts, and, indeed, many of the changes in this edition have been

intended to clarify how electronic submissions should be prepared. When the fifth edition was

published, many journals were in the process of converting from paper to electronic

submission; the future of submitting papers was not clear. The sixth edition is clearly oriented

more toward electronic submission, which well represents the present as well as the almost-

inevitable wave of the future.

Fourth, the sixth edition has provided expanded coverage of ethical issues that authors

confront when doing research and preparing manuscripts, such as what constitutes

plagiarism, how authorship should be determined, and how identities of participants should

be disguised. Because, in the last decade, institutional review boards have become much

more demanding with regard to the ethics of research, the additional insights are most

welcome. Part of what has distinguished the APA Publication Manualis its greater attention to

issues of scientific and ethical conduct than what is found in other such guides, and the latest

edition is the best with regard to the handling of these issues.

Fifth, the new APA Publication Manualcontains expanded material on the use and reporting

of statistical methods and is more comprehensive in its discussion of reporting of effect sizes.

Because so many conclusions in articles are a result of statistical analyses, the additional

coverage is most helpful.

Consider now what we see as some of the weaknesses of the sixth edition. Most of them

stem from one general issue: The goal of the APA Publication Manualshould be, in part, to

make writing easier for authors, but that is not always the case.

First, even at its reduced length, the manual is overwhelming. In reading the manual, one

easily can lose the forest for the trees. It is for this reason, perhaps, that there are a number

of sources, including sources from the APA itself, that attempt to help users grasp the main

points. So, in effect, there are manuals for using this manual, including one by APA itself

(e.g., APA, 2009).

Consider, for example, commas in numbers, something that is perhaps not of prime

importance in writing articles. We learn that we should use commas “between groups of three

digits in most figures of 1,000 or more” (p. 114), except for page numbers, binary digits, serial

numbers, degrees of temperature, acoustic frequency designations, and degrees of freedom

(p. 114). One wonders whether the manual is perhaps overregulating on a matter that is not

of the utmost importance.

Another example of how the APA Publication Manualis overwhelming is that Latin

abbreviations are to be used only in parentheses, not outside them, for example, “e.g.” (we

made sure not to say “e.g., ‘e.g.’”). In our years of reviewing and editing manuscripts, we

have found this rule to be violated at least as often as it is observed. We wonder whether our

time or that of a copy editor is well spent changing “e.g.” to “for example” when the

abbreviation occurs outside rather than inside a set of parentheses.

Second, sometimes it is hard to believe the book was written by, well, psychologists. The

book is not always friendly to the psychology of the reader. For example, there are four

dense pages on hyphenation (pp. 97–100). Table 4.1 contains 11 rules of hyphenation, and

we are also treated to five general principles. Table 4.2 also gives 39 prefixes and suffixes

that do not require hyphens. So there are 11 rules, five principles, and 39 examples of when

not to use hyphens. It is just too much for even an obsessive-compulsive devotee of the

APA Publication Manualto remember. Most authors do not want to consult the APA

Publication Manualevery time they write a paper and encounter a term that may or may not

need hyphenation.

As another example, there are 77 different reference formats given in Chapter 7. Although

one can see the need for different formats for different kinds of items, it might have been nice

to have some general principles so that an author would not have to look for which of the 77

formats to use for each type of item he or she needs to reference.

Third, the APA Publication Manualseems more to present a normative or “ideal” model rather

than a performance or “real-world” model that would address the publication problems

authors often face. One example is piecemeal publication, which everyone agrees is a bad

thing. But in this regard authors sometimes find themselves in a trap: They are told by journal

editors to make their manuscripts as short as possible and by tenure and promotion

committees to make sure they have enough publications to get to the next grade. Often, it is

a judgment call as to just how much material should go into one article so that it is neither too

long nor too short.

As another example, the APA Publication Manualdoes not deal sufficiently with the problems

authors confront with reviewers. Many reviewers are competent, professional, and helpful.

But others are less than competent, amateurish, and even spiteful (Sternberg, 2003). How

does one deal with reviews that editors send but that do not meet professional standards?

How does one respond to points reviewers make when they are demonstrably wrong? How

does one deal with contradictory recommendations, if the editor makes no note of them?

Perhaps the next edition of the APA Publication Manualcould have a section on guidelines

for reviewers and guidelines for authors on how to deal with reviews.

On the whole, we believe that the APA Publication Manualcontinues to be an excellent and

indispensable reference work. It is probably the one reference that no serious author in

psychology can be without. The corrected sixth edition of the APA Publication Manualis an

improvement over the previous editions and will be of tremendous use to all writers in

psychology and allied fields, e.g., educational research. Oops, we meant “for example,

educational research!”

ReferencesAmerican Psychological Association. (2009). Mastering APA style: Student’s

workbook and training guide(6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Sternberg, R. J.(2003). To be civil. The APA Monitor on Psychology, 34(7), 5.

Robert J. Sternberg is a former president of the American Psychological Association (APA)

and four of its divisions and has been editor of two of its journals. He is currently president-

elect of the Federation of Associations of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, of which APA is a

member. Robert J. Sternberg and Karin Sternberg are coauthors of The Psychologist’s

Companion(5th ed., Cambridge University Press, in press), which, among other things,

summarizes the current APA Publication Manualpublication guidelines.

_______________________________________________________________
Indexing (details)

Subject Scientific Communication (major);American Psychological Association

(major);Writers

Classification 3400: Professional Psychological&Health Personnel Issues

Identifier / keyword American Psychological Association, publication manual, authors,

writing, referencing

Title Eighty years later: The APA publication manual rides again…and again

and again and again and again.

Author Sternberg, Robert J.; Sternberg, Karin

Publication title PsycCRITIQUES

Volume 55

Issue 5

Publication date 2010

Publication year 2010

Year 2010

Publisher American Psychological Association

Country of publication United States

ISSN 0010-7549

Source type Scholarly Journals

Summary language English

Format availability Electronic

Language of publication English

Author of reviewed work

Related work [Title: Publication manual of the American Psychological Association

(6th ed.)] Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

272pp. $39.95 HC $36.95 SB $28.95 PB

Document type Review-book, Electronic Collection

DOI 10.1037/a0018765

Accession number 2010-00585-001

ProQuest document ID 614292681

Document URL http://search.proquest.com/docview/614292681?accountid=8289

Last updated 2011-04-11

Database PsycCRITIQUES

<< Link to document in ProQuest

_______________________________________________________________
Contact ProQuest
 2011 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. – Terms and Conditions

http://search.proquest.com/docview/614292681?accountid=8289

mailto:PQ-Morningstar-ProductManagementList@proquest.com

http://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditions

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Research Methods- 250 word min. response to discussion question 1 and 2- Week 1 ”
Get high-quality paper
NEW! AI matching with writer

Calculate the price

Academic level

Type of assignment

Deadline

Pages

Total:

$0.00

Still stressed with your coursework?

Get quality coursework help from an expert!

Order now