Definitions of Knowledge

ISSN 1477-7029 95 ©Academic Conferences Ltd
Reference this paper as: Molina Azorín,J, M and Cameron, R. “The Application of Mixed Methods in
Organisational Research: A Literature Review” The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Volume 8
Issue 2 2010 (pp.95-105), available online at www.ejbrm.com
The Application of Mixed Methods in Organisational
Research: A Literature Review
José Molina Azorín1
and Roslyn Cameron2
1
University of Alicante, Spain
2
Southern Cross University, Tweed Heads, Australia
jf.molina@ua.es
roslyn.cameron@scu.edu.au
Abstract: Mixed methods research (the combined use of quantitative and qualitative methods in the same study)
is becoming an increasingly popular approach in the discipline fields of sociology, psychology, education and
health sciences. Calls for the integration of quantitative and qualitative research methods have been advanced in
these fields. A key feature of mixed methods research is its methodological pluralism, which frequently results in
research which provides broader perspectives than those offered by monomethod designs. The overall purpose
and central premise of mixed methods is that the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in combination
provides a better understanding of research problems and complex phenomena than either approach alone.
Despite calls for the combined use of quantitative and qualitative research in business and management studies,
the use of mixed methods in business and management has seldom been studied. The purpose of this paper is
to review the application of mixed methods research within organisational research. The study reported in this
paper identifies the use of mixed methods in three organisational journals for the period 2003 to 2009: the
Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Organizational Behavior and Organizational Research Methods. The
landmark Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003) Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, played
a pivotal role in providing both the visibility and credibility of mixed methods as a third methodological movement
and since the publication of this seminal work the mixed methods movement has rapidly gained popularity.
Business and management researchers need to be made aware of the growing use and acceptance of mixed
methods research across business and organisational journals. This paper examines the main characteristics of
mixed methods studies identified in the sample in terms of purposes and designs, and posits suggestions on the
application of mixed methodologies.
Keywords: mixed methods research, strategic management, organizational behaviour, quantitative methods,
qualitative methods
1. Introduction
Mixed methods research (the combined use of quantitative and qualitative methods in the same
study) is becoming an increasingly popular approach in the discipline fields of sociology, psychology,
education and health sciences. Calls for the integration of quantitative and qualitative research
methods have been advanced in these fields (Greene, Caracelli and Graham, 1989; O‟Cathain, 2009;
Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003). The overall purpose and central premise of mixed methods is that the
use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in combination may provide a better understanding of
research problems and complex phenomena than either approach alone (Creswell and Plano Clark,
2007).
Despite calls for the combined use of quantitative and qualitative research in management and
organisational studies (Currall and Towler, 2003), the use of mixed methods in business and
management has seldom been studied. The present study focuses on two main areas that represent
micro and macro management research domains: organizational behavior and organizational
strategy. These areas are the two largest divisions within the Academy of Management. Regarding
research methods, scholars in both fields employ qualitative and quantitative methods, but the use of
quantitative approaches dominate both strategy (Phelan, Ferreira and Salvador, 2002) and
organizational behavior (Greenberg, 2007). Calls for methodological diversity and the use and
integration of quantitative and qualitative research methods have been carried out in organizational
behavior (Greenberg, 2007) and in strategy (Boyd, Gove and Hitt, 2005). Moreover, mixed methods
research may play an important role not only in encouraging the use of a diversity of methods in these
fields but also in bridging the micro and macro domains.
The purpose of this paper is to review the application of mixed methods research within organisational
and management research. The study reported in this paper identifies the use of mixed methods in
the leading journals in these two organisational fields: the Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) and
the Journal of Organizational Behavior (JOB). In addition, Organizational Research Methods (ORM) is

Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Volume 8 Issue 2 2010 (95 - 105)
www.ejbrm.com 96 ©Academic Conferences Ltd
also examined. Management and organisational researchers need to be made aware of the growing
use and acceptance of mixed methods research within these fields. This paper examines the main
characteristics of mixed methods studies (purposes and designs) and posits suggestions on the
application of mixed methodologies.
The paper is organised as follows. First, several important aspects of mixed methods research are
examined (definitions, applications, barriers and benefits). Subsequently, the methodology employed,
including the sample selection and search strategies for identifying the mixed methods studies, is
described. This is followed by a discussion of the main characteristics of the articles that have been
identified as mixed methods studies. The paper concludes with suggestions on the application of
mixed methods research in management and possible future research directions.
2. Mixed methods research
2.1 Definition
A monomethod study uses only one type of method, one quantitative or one qualitative. In general, in
a quantitative study, the data is in numerical form and this information is analyzed using quantitative
data analysis techniques. In a qualitative study, the information, which is mainly in textual form, is
analyzed employing qualitative data analysis techniques. Drawing an initial distinction between
monomethod research and multiple methods research may be helpful to determine what is
understood as „mixed methods‟. A multiple methods study uses more than one method. Moreover, a
differentiation can be made within multiple method designs between multimethod research (multiple
qualitative or quantitative methods) and mixed methods research (integration of quantitative and
qualitative methods) (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007).
Several definitions exist for mixed methods research. Greene, Caracelli and Graham (1989) defined
mixed methods research designs as those that include at least one quantitative method (designed to
collect numbers) and one qualitative method (designed to collect words). Tashakkori and Teddlie
(1998) refer to mixed methods studies as those that combine the qualitative and quantitative
approaches into the research methodology of a single study. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004)
indicated that mixed methods research is the class of research where the researcher mixes or
combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, concepts or
language into a single study. In this paper, the following definition supplied by Plano Clark (2005) is
applied in this study: mixed methods research is research that combines qualitative and quantitative
data collection and data analysis within a single study.
2.2 Is the application of mixed methods research possible?
Several debates or “wars” (Datta, 1994) have raged in the social sciences regarding the superiority of
one or the other of the two major social science paradigms: the positivist approach and the
constructivist orientation. Along with superiority, another important aspect examined in those debates
has been the idea of incommensurability and incompatibility, which means that qualitative and
quantitative approaches could/should not be used in the context of the same study. This idea is based
on the fact that there are quite different epistemological and ontological assumptions that underpin
different paradigms and methods. The organising idea of a continuum, with hard positivism at one end
and constructionism at the other, can be used to point out the main epistemological and ontological
assumptions. A hard positivism ontology asserts that an objective reality is out there to be found and
epistemologically this can be done with knowable degrees of certainty using objectively-correct
scientific methods (Long, White, Friedman and Brazeal, 2000). The result is certain knowledge, and
concepts such as reliability, validity and statistical significance are used carefully in good hard-
positivist research with the purpose of describing some part of reality with certainty. A softer version of
positivism also infers that objective reality exists, but epistemologically suggests that techniques to
uncover the world produce probabilistic and ultimately uncertain understandings. Constructionism has
a relativist ontology, that is, each person has his or her own reality. Epistemologically, the
achievement of objectivity is rejected, and emphasis is placed on individual understanding of
particular viewpoints.
The positivist paradigm underlies what are called quantitative methods, while the constructivist
paradigm is more related to qualitative methods (Howe, 1988). Therefore, the debate between these
paradigms has also been called the qualitative-quantitative debate (Reichardt and Rallis, 1994). In

José Molina-Azorín and Roslyn Cameron
www.ejbrm.com 97 ISSN 1477-7029
this debate, many purist researchers were very stringent not only in their defense of their own
methodological positions but also in their attack on the position of the “other side”. Both sets of purists
view their paradigms as the ideal for research, and, implicitly if not explicitly, they advocate the
incompatibility thesis (Howe, 1988), which posits that qualitative and quantitative research paradigms
cannot and should not be mixed, and then compatibility between quantitative and qualitative methods
is impossible due to the incompatibility of the paradigms underlying the methods. This led to a
dichotomy between these two paradigms and between these two general groups of methods. From
this paradigmatic viewpoint, to accept the combination and mix of different approaches and methods
is misleading as these methodologies are derived from fundamentally different epistemological
positions and are therefore incommensurable.
However, there have been numerous calls and attempts in the social sciences to make peace
between the two major paradigmatic positions. “Pacifists” have appeared who state that qualitative
and quantitative methods are compatible. Reichardt and Cook (1979) countered the incompatibility
thesis based on the paradigm-method fit by suggesting that different philosophical paradigms and
methods are compatible. Moreover, these authors argued that paradigms and methods are not
inherently linked. Mir and Watson (2000) pointed out that a researcher who is anchored in
constructivist methodology may employ a variety of methods including statistical analysis, just as a
researcher employing a realist methodology may use qualitative research. Thus, research methods
are more independent of epistemological and ontological assumptions than is sometimes supposed
(Bryman and Bell, 2007). In addition, some researchers try to find philosophical assumptions that form
the foundation for conducting mixed methods research. From this point of view, it can be pointed out
two positions: the use of multiple worldviews and the use of a single paradigm or worldview (Creswell
and Creswell, 2005). Regarding the first position, Greene and Caracelli (1997) advance a “dialectical”
perspective in which researchers use multiple worldviews. This perspective maintains that mixed
methods research may be viewed strictly as a “method”, thus allowing researchers to use any number
of philosophical foundations for its justification and use. The second position is related to the best
paradigm issue. The key question is what philosophical paradigm is the best foundation for mixed
methods research. Many authors advocate for a pragmatism worldview for mixed methods
(Cherryholmes, 1992). Pragmatism advances multiple pluralistic approaches to knowing, using “what
works”, a focus on the research questions as important with all types of methods to follow to answer
the questions, and a rejection of a forced choice between postpositivism and constructivism. Thus, a
major tenet of pragmatism is that quantitative and qualitative methods are compatible.
2.3 Barriers and benefits of mixed methods research
Mixed methods research is not intrinsically superior to research that relies on a single method. An
important consideration prior to designing and conducting a mixed methods study is whether mixed
methods, as compared to monomethod designs, best addresses the research problem and the
research question(s).
Moreover, there are important barriers to conducting a mixed methods study. Creswell and Plano
Clark (2007) pointed out that conducting mixed methods research is not easy. Mixed methods studies
are a challenge because they are perceived as requiring more work and financial resources, and they
take more time. Increased time demands arise from the time it takes to implement both aspects of the
study (Niglas, 2004). In addition, mixed methods research also requires that researchers develop a
broader set of skills that span both the quantitative and the qualitative. Another barrier is related to the
challenges of publishing mixed methods studies (Plano Clark, 2005; Bryman, 2007). The challenges
generally arise from existing constraints such as word and page limits in journals.
In spite of these barriers, mixed methods research is carried out and published. Several authors have
examined the utility and advantages of this approach. Regarding the main benefits, the overall
purpose and central premise of mixed methods studies is that the use of quantitative and qualitative
approaches in combination may provide a better understanding of research problems and complex
phenomena than either approach alone (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007). Better understanding can
be obtained, for example, by triangulating one set of results with another and thereby enhancing the
validity of inferences. In fact, the concept of triangulation of methods was the intellectual wedge that
eventually broke the methodological hegemony of the monomethod purists (Tashakkori and Teddlie,
1998). Jick (1979) discussed triangulation in terms of the weaknesses of one method being offset by
the strengths of another. It is often stressed that different methods have different weaknesses and
strengths, and therefore the main effect that triangulation can offer is to overcome the weaknesses of

any single method. Thus, if we use several different methods for investigating the phenomenon of our
interest, and the results provide mutual confirmation, we can be more confident that our results are
valid (Niglas, 2004).
Other purposes, reasons or rationales for combining qualitative and quantitative methods can also be
pointed out. These purposes may be considered as benefits and advantages of mixed methods
research. Greene, Caracelli and Graham (1989) stated four additional purposes along with
triangulation: complementarity (seeking elaboration, illustration, enhancement, and clarification of the
results from one method with the findings from the other method), development (when the researcher
uses the results from one method to help develop or inform the use of the other method), initiation
(discovering paradoxes and contradictions that lead to the research questions being reframed), and
expansion (seeking to extend the breadth and range of inquiry by using different methods for different
inquiry components).
With respect to these main purposes, other authors indicated a wider range of reasons. For example,
Collins, Onwuegbuzie and Sutton (2006) provided a comprehensive list of reasons or purposes for
conducting mixed methods research, and each of these purposes was grouped under one of the four
main rationales: participant enrichment, instrument fidelity, treatment integrity, and significance
enhancement. Bryman and Bell (2007) also presented a variety of purposes in mixed methods
research: triangulation, qualitative research facilitates quantitative research, quantitative research
facilitates qualitative research, analysis of static and processual features, qualitative research may
facilitate the interpretation of the relationship between the variables, and analysis of different aspects
of a phenomenon.
2.4 The application of mixed methods research
Two main factors that help researchers to design and conduct a mixed methods study are
implementation of data collection and priority (Morse 1991; Morgan 1998; Tashakkori and Teddlie
1998; Creswell 2003). Implementation of data collection refers to the sequence that the researcher
uses to collect both quantitative and qualitative data. The options consist of gathering the information
at the same time (concurrent, simultaneous or parallel design) or introducing the information in
phases (sequential or two-phase design). By concurrently gathering both the forms of data, the
researcher seeks to compare them with the search for congruent findings. When the data are
introduced in phases, either the qualitative or the quantitative approach may be gathered first, but the
sequence relates to the objectives being sought by the researcher. Thus, when qualitative data
collection precedes the quantitative data collection, the intent is to first explore the problem under
study and then follow up on this exploration with quantitative data that are amenable to studying a
large sample so that results might be inferred to a population. Alternatively, when quantitative data
precede the qualitative data, the intent is to test the variables with a large sample and then carry out a
more in-depth exploration of a few cases during the qualitative phase.
Regarding priority, mixed methods researchers can give equal priority to both quantitative and
qualitative research, or emphasize more on qualitative or quantitative parts. This emphasis may result
from research questions, practical constraints for data collection, the need to understand one form of
data before proceeding to the next or the audience preference. Mixed methods designs can therefore
be divided into equivalent status designs (the researcher conducts the study using both the
quantitative and qualitative approaches equally to understand the phenomenon under study) and
dominant-less dominant studies or nested designs (the researcher conducts the study within a single
dominant paradigm with a small component of the overall study drawn from an alternative design).
These two dimensions and their possible combinations can lead to the establishment of several
designs which are represented using the notation proposed by Morse (1991). In her system, the main
or dominant method appears in capital letters (QUAN, QUAL) whereas the complementary method is
given in lowercase letters (quan, qual). The notation “+” is used to indicate a simultaneous design,
and the arrow “→” stands for sequential design. Thus, the following four groups and nine types of
mixed methods designs can exist using these two dimensions (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004):
 I- Equivalent status/simultaneous design: QUAL+QUAN.
 II- Equivalent status/sequential designs: QUAL→QUAN; QUAN→QUAL.
 III- Dominant/simultaneous designs: QUAL+quan; QUAN+qual.

 IV- Dominant/sequential designs: qual→QUAN; QUAL→quan; quan→QUAL; QUAN→qual.
3. Methods
A review of the use of mixed methods in the SMJ, JOB and ORM over a seven year period (2003-
2009) was carried out. The beginning of this time period aligns with the publication of two very
important works signifying the growing emergence of mixed methods as a methodological movement
in its own right. In 2003 Tashakkori and Teddlie‟s (2003) landmark Handbook of mixed methods in
social and behavioral research was published, which played a pivotal role in providing both visibility
and credibility to the field of mixed methods. In the same year, Creswell‟s seminal book on research
design across the three approaches (qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods) was also published
(Creswell, 2003). This time period is recent, giving us the opportunity to see how research designs
are applied in current settings. Moreover, the time period spans seven years, providing a long enough
interval representing research within these fields.
An important aspect related to identification and prevalence of mixed methods articles is the search
strategy used. In this study, we have utilised two main search strategies: an electronic online word
search and a manual search. The rationale behind this decision was to investigate the use of mixed
methods terminology and nomenclature within the empirical studies employing a mixture of both
qualitative and quantitative methods in a single study. Teddlie and Tashakkori (2003, p. 8) state that
„the development of a nomenclature that is distinctly associated with mixed methods is both extremely
important and overdue‟.
The online searches were conducted through the SMJ and JOB website (Wiley InterScience
database) and the ORM journal website (SAGE publishing). This electronic search strategy utilised
the following phrases: “mixed methods”, “mixed method”, “multi-methods” and “multi-method”. The
searches were filtered for the following sections of the articles: title; abstract; keywords and; full text
for ORM and for the SMJ and JOB the searches were through the following sections: title; keywords
and; abstract/full text. Each article identified in the searches was checked to determine what context
the search words were being utilised for (e.g., the application of a mixed methods research design;
book review; description of other studies being discussed, methodological discussion).
In addition, a manual search was used for the SMJ and JOB. Thus, all articles published in SMJ
(n=498) and JOB (n=373) from 2003 to 2009 were read and reviewed. Bryman (2006) points out that
the electronic search strategy may provide a biased sample of mixed methods studies in the sense
that by no means all authors of articles reporting mixed methods research foreground the fact that the
findings reported derive from a combination of quantitative and qualitative research, or do not do so in
terms of the key words that drove the online search strategy. Moreover, apart from identifying mixed
methods studies, the manual search strategy can be used to classify the articles in two main groups,
non-empirical and empirical articles, and, additionally, the group of empirical studies can be further
divided into three types: quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods articles.
A sequential mixed methods study with two stages was undertaken to identify mixed methods articles
and determine their main characteristics. In the first phase, a qualitative stage was used in the manual
search strategy for the purpose of determining whether each article represented a non-empirical,
quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods study. This content analysis involved using all information
presented in each article (title, abstract, keywords, introduction, literature review, methods, results,
discussion and conclusions). This initial data collection created individual tables by journal and by
year, listing the journal title, year, volume and issue number, number of total articles, number of non-
empirical articles, number of quantitative articles, number of qualitative articles and number of mixed
methods articles. These tables were aggregated across journals. In addition, the mixed methods
articles identified were re-examined through a content analysis and coded according to two main
dimensions: priority (equal or dominant status of the quantitative and qualitative parts) and
implementation of data collection (simultaneous or sequential). The main mixed methods purposes
were also determined. In the second phase, descriptive statistics were used for the quantitative
analysis for prevalence, providing numbers, sums and percentages by type of article (non-empirical,
quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods articles) and by journal. In addition, regarding the mixed
methods articles, numbers and percentages by type of priority (equal or dominant status), type of
implementation (simultaneous or sequential) and purpose were also provided.

4. Results
4.1 Strategic Management Journal
The electronic search utilising the “mixed method(s)” and “multi-method(s)” phrases identified 10
articles in the SMJ for 2003-2009. Upon closer examination, 9 of the SMJ identified articles were
classified as QUAN studies and 1 was conceptual. Therefore, this electronic search strategy did not
identify any empirical mixed methods studies.
Through the manual search, the 498 articles published were read. Table 1 shows the prevalence
frequencies of each type of article by year.
Table 1: Types of articles in the Strategic Management Journal (2003-2009)
Year
Total
number of
articles
Number of
non-
empirical
articles
Empirical articles
Total
number of
empirical
articles
Number of
quantitative
articles
Number of
qualitative
articles
Number of
mixed
articles
2003 78 12 66 54 6 6
2004 67 4 63 51 2 10
2005 70 9 61 47 0 14
2006 63 7 56 43 2 11
2007 73 9 64 53 5 6
2008 76 6 70 64 1 5
2009 71 6 65 53 0 12
Total 498 53 445 365 16 64
As can be seen in Table 1, the SMJ is dominated by quantitative articles (365 articles, 73.3%) The
second type of article in importance is non-empirical articles (53 articles, 10.6%), and the number of
mixed methods studies (64 articles, 12.9%) is higher than the number of qualitative articles (16
studies, 3.2%).
One way to organise and describe the 64 mixed methods articles published in the SMJ is to examine
the designs and the purposes of these studies. Through a content analysis, identification of the main
characteristics of the mixed methods articles published in the SMJ has been carried out (see Table 2).
The most common purpose was development (82.8%), followed by complementarity (9.4%),
expansion (4.7%) and triangulation (3.1%). Regarding implementation of data collection, sequential
implementation was the most common implementation pattern used in the mixed methods articles
published in the SMJ (61 articles, 95.3%). In these sequential articles, the first part in most studies
was the qualitative one (54 studies). Finally, the most common type of priority was different priority of
the quantitative and qualitative parts (53 articles, 82.8%). Moreover, in these 53 articles, the dominant
part was the quantitative one.
Table 2: Characteristics of mixed methods studies in the Strategic Management Journal (2003-2009)
Purposes N (%)
Triangulation 2 (3.1%)
Complementarity 6 (9.4%)
Development 53 (82.8%)
Expansion 3 (4.7%)
Implementation
Simultaneous 3 (4.7%)
Sequential 61 (95.3%)
Priority
Equivalent status 11 (17.2%)
Dominant 53 (82.8%)
Therefore, the typical mixed methods article in the SMJ is a qual→QUAN study where the main mixed
methods purpose is development (see for example Ethiraj, Kale, Krishnan and Singh, 2005). Several
aspects of the quantitative part may be improved through the use of a previous qualitative phase.
Thus, the qualitative part may help to develop or extend theory, identify the industry-specific

resources and competences as well as the dependent variables and/or improve the measurement
instrument of the quantitative phase.
4.2 Journal of Organizational Behavior
In this case, the online search utilising the “mixed method(s)” and “multi-method(s)” phrases identified
13 articles in the JOB for 2003-2009. However, upon closer examination, 10 of the 13 articles were
quantitative studies, 2 conceptual and 1 was considered to be a mixed methods study (Challiol and
Mignonac, 2005).
Using the manual search which involved reading all the articles published in the JOB from 2003 to
2009 (373 articles), 20 mixed methods studies were identified (5.4%). Table 3 shows the number of
articles classified by article type and year. As is the case with the SMJ, the JOB is also dominated by
quantitative articles (235 articles, 63%) followed by non-empirical articles (101 articles, 27.1%).
Moreover, the number of mixed methods studies is also higher than the number of qualitative articles
(17 studies, 4.5%).
Table 3: Types of articles in the Journal of Organizational Behaviour (2003-2009)
Year
Total
number of
articles
Number of
non-
empirical
articles
Empirical articles
Total
number of
empirical
articles
Number of
quantitative
articles
Number of
qualitative
articles
Number of
mixed
articles
2003 50 10 40 40 0 0
2004 47 4 43 35 2 6
2005 50 18 32 28 1 3
2006 56 15 41 33 5 3
2007 55 20 35 27 5 3
2008 60 20 40 34 4 2
2009 55 14 41 38 0 3
Total 373 101 272 235 17 20
In order to determine the characteristics of the 20 mixed methods studies, a content analysis was
undertaken. Table 4 shows these characteristics with regard to purposes, implementation and priority.
In the JOB, the most common purpose was development (45%), followed by complementarity (35%),
triangulation (15%) and expansion (5%). Sequential implementation was the most common
implementation pattern used in the mixed methods articles identified (15 articles, 75%). In these 15
sequential articles, the first part in most studies was the qualitative one (9 studies). Finally, the most
common type of priority was different priority of the quantitative and qualitative parts (12 articles,
60%). Moreover, in these 12 articles, the dominant part was the quantitative one.
Table 4: Characteristics of mixed methods studies in Journal of Organizational Behavior (2003-2009)
Purposes N (%)
Triangulation 3 (15%)
Complementarity 7 (35%)
Development 9 (45%)
Expansion 1 (5%)
Implementation
Simultaneous 5 (25%)
Sequential 15 (75%)
Priority
Equivalent status 8 (40%)
Dominant 12 (60%)
4.3 Organizational Research Methods
As stated earlier, in the case of ORM we conducted the electronic search and not the manual search.
The online search identified 8 documents, which includes a book reviews and a methodological paper
that made mention of mixed methods as a methodology within their respective discussions. Only two
articles may be considered as mixed methods empirical studies: Yauch and Steudel (2003) and Pratt
(2008).

For example, Yauch and Steudel (2003) is an exemplar of QUAL+quan design. These authors
analyzed an important intangible resource, specifically the organizational cultures of two small
manufacturers using qualitative and quantitative data. The article described not only how qualitative
and quantitative data contributed to the validity of the results through triangulation but also how the
qualitative and quantitative research paradigms were used in a complementary fashion to produce a
more complete understanding of the organizational cultures. Using methods from both research
paradigms enabled a greater understanding of cultural artefacts and behaviors but more important of
the underlying cultural values and assumptions. A prospective exploratory case study approach was
used to examine the impact of organizational culture on the cellular manufacturing conversion
process. The ultimate goal of the research was to identify key cultural factors that had a positive or
negative impact on the process of converting form a traditional functional manufacturing system to
cellular manufacturing. Cultural assessment of the organizational values, assumptions, and
behavioral norms was accomplished through qualitative and quantitative means. Qualitative
assessment of culture was accomplished through document review, participant observation and group
interviews. The Organizational Culture Inventory, a cultural assessment survey, was used as an
additional measure of organizational culture at each company. This study relied most heavily on
qualitative data but supplemented it with quantitative survey results.
The different results from the two search strategies brings to light not only the use of mixed methods
research in the sample but a strong indication that commonly used mixed methods terminology and
nomenclature emerging from the mixed methods movement is not being utilised in these studies.
5. Discussion and conclusions
Creswell and Tashakkori (2007) pointed out that the literature base about mixed methods research
may not be well known to individuals in specific fields. To check this issue, the references sections of
the mixed methods articles identified were reviewed. Despite the availability of mixed-methods-related
books, book chapters and journal articles, studies about this type of research have seldom been
found in the references sections of these mixed methods studies. On this evidence it seems likely that
the advantages, possibilities, purposes, designs and potential of mixed methods research may be
unknown to researchers in these fields. Put differently, mixed methods research is used in
organisational and management studies but it may be completely unknown and without recognition
that mixed methods research constitutes a specific approach to research. Therefore, although mixed
methods research is used in these business fields, these mixed methods studies may not exploit the
full potential for mixing methods and researchers are probably not maximizing the extent to which
they are using this approach.
Some authors provide guidelines about how to carry out a mixed methods research. Creswell (1999)
offers nine steps in conducting a mixed methods study:
 Determine if a mixed methods study is needed to study the problem.
 Consider whether a mixed methods study is feasible.
 Write both qualitative and quantitative research questions.
 Review and decide on the types of data collection.
 Assess the relative weight and implementation strategy for each method.
 Present a visual model.
 Determine how the data will be analysed.
 Assess the criteria for evaluating the study.
 Develop a plan for the study.
Similarly, Teddlie and Tashakkori (2006) provide a seven step process for researchers selecting the
best design for their projects:
 The researcher must first determine if his/her research question require a monomethod or mixed
methods design.
 The researcher should be aware that are a number of different typologies of mixed methods
research designs and should know how to access details regarding them.

 The researcher wants to select the best mixed methods design for his/her particular study and
assumes that one of the published typologies includes the right design for the project.
 Typologies may be differentiated by the criteria that are used to distinguish among the research
designs within them, and the researcher needs to know those criteria.
 These criteria should be listed by the researcher, who may then select the criteria that are most
important for the particular study he/she is designing.
 The researcher then applies the selected criteria to potential designs, ultimately selecting the best
research design.
 In some cases, the researcher may have to develop a new mixed methods design, because no
one best design exists for his/her research project. Regarding the last step, Teddlie and
Tashakkori (2006) point out that mixed methods designs have an opportunistic nature. Thus, in
many cases, a mixed methods research study may have a predetermined research design, but
new components of the design may evolve as researchers follow up on leads that develop as
data are collected and analysed. The point is for the researcher to be creative and not be limited
by the existing designs.
Hanson, Creswell, Plano Clark, Petska and Creswell (2005) offer some recommendations for
designing, implementing, and reporting a mixed methods study. Thus, they recommend that
researchers attend closely to design and implementation issues, particularly to how and when data
are collected (e.g., concurrently or sequentially). The study‟s purpose plays an important role here.
They also recommend that researchers familiarize themselves with the analysis and integration
strategies used in the published mixed methods studies. Moreover, because mixed methods studies
require a working knowledge and understanding of both quantitative and qualitative methods, and
because they involve multiple stages of data collection and analysis that frequently extend over long
periods of time, they recommend that researchers work in teams. Moreover, in preparing a mixed
methods manuscript, they recommend that researchers use the phrase “mixed methods” in the titles
of their studies, and that, early on, researchers foreshadow the logic and progression of their studies
by stating the study‟s purpose and research questions in the introduction. Clear, well written purpose
statements and research questions that specify the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the study
help focus the manuscript. Additionally, these authors recommend that, in the introduction,
researchers explicitly state a rationale for mixing quantitative and qualitative methods and data (e.g.,
to triangulate results, to develop or improve one method with the other, to extend the study‟s results).
Another recommendation is that, in the methods, researchers specify the type of mixed methods
research design used.
Creswell and Plano Clark (2010) provide several principles for designing a mixed methods study:
 Recognize that mixed methods designs can be fixed and/or emergent. Fixed mixed methods
designs are mixed methods studies where the use of quantitative and qualitative methods is
predetermined and planned at the start of the research process, and the procedures are
implemented as planned. Emergent mixed methods designs are found in mixed methods studies
where the use of mixed methods arises due to issues that develop during the process of
conducting the research.
 Identify an approach to design. There are several approaches to design, and researchers can
benefit from considering their personal approach to conducting mixed methods studies. These
design approaches fall into two categories: typology-based and dynamic.
 Match the design to the research problem, purpose and questions. The importance of the
research problem and questions is a key principle of mixed methods research design. This
perspective stems from the pragmatic foundations for conducting mixed methods research where
the notion of “what works” applies well to selecting the methods that work best to address a
study‟s problem and questions.
 Be explicit about the reasons for mixing methods. Another key principle of mixed methods design
is to identify the reason(s) for mixing quantitative and qualitative methods within the study.
Combining methods is challenging and should only be undertaken when there is a specific reason
to do so. Two frameworks have been provided by Greene, Caracelli and Graham (1989) and
Bryman (2006).
In addition, Creswell and Plano Clark (2010) also point out several key decisions in choosing a mixed
methods design:

 Determine the level of interaction between the quantitative and qualitative strands.
 Determine the priority of the quantitative and qualitative strands.
 Determine the timing of the quantitative and qualitative strands.
 Determine where and how to mix the quantitative and qualitative strands.
Regarding the conclusions derived from this study, several aspects may be emphasised. First, with
regard to the characteristics of the mixed methods articles identified, the most common purpose in
strategy and organizational behaviour was development; the most common type of priority was
different priority of the quantitative and qualitative parts; and sequential implementation of data
collection was the most common implementation pattern used in these fields. Second, the number of
mixed methods studies shows great variation year to year and journal to journal, and there is not a
clear trend in the publication of mixed methods research in business studies for the journals studied.
Third, with regard to the search strategies to identify mixed methods studies, the online search and
the manual search provided very different results. As said above, Bryman (2006) pointed out that the
electronic search strategy may provide a biased sample of mixed methods studies. It may also
indicate the lack of awareness within the management research community of the emerging body of
literature and methodological frameworks being developed from within the mixed methods movement.
In any case, this electronic search may be further expanded to use a greater range of mixed methods
terminology and nomenclature.
We would like to indicate that we agree with the “paradigm of choices” emphasized by Patton (1990).
A paradigm of choices rejects methodological orthodoxy in favour of methodological appropriateness
as the primary criterion for judging methodological quality. Thus, this paradigm of choices recognizes
that different methods are appropriate for different situations. The predominance of more quantitative-
based methodological tools in the development of strategy and organisational behaviour research
does not mean that these tools are applicable to all research questions. The research question and
context should dictate the choice of the appropriate research methods. However, we must also take
into account that the knowledge about mixed methods research can stimulate a researcher to better
define and analyze innovative problems and research questions in management research. Mixing
methods therefore offers enormous potential for exploring new dimensions (Mason, 2006). Hopefully,
this review of management empirical studies which have used mixed methods designs along with the
ideas offered for the application of mixed methods studies may favour progress on management
research.
Finally, with regard to future research, although the current study attempts to extend the knowledge of
the application of mixed methods research in management research, much remains to be learned.
For example, it would be interesting to analyze the yield from mixed methods studies regarding the
added value of these articles, or the contribution to the improvement of several methodological
aspects such as validity or construct measurement. Moreover, an analysis of the use and application
of mixed methods research in other organisational and management fields would also be interesting
and could expand upon the research reported here.
References
Boyd, B., Gove, S. and Hitt, M. (2005) “Construct Measurement in Strategic Management Research: Illusion or
Reality?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26, pp 239-257.
Bryman, A. (2006) “Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research: How is it Done?”, Qualitative Research,
Vol. 6, pp 97-113.
Bryman, A. (2007). “Barriers to Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research”, Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, Vol. 1, pp 8-22.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007) Business Research Methods (2nd Ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Challiol, H. and Mignonac K. (2005) “Relocation Decision-making and Couple Relationships: A Quantitative and
Qualitative Study of Dual-earner Couples”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26, pp 247-274.
Cherryholmes, C. (1992) “Notes on Pragmatism and Scientific Realism”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 21, pp.
13-17.
Collins, K.M.T., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., and Sutton, I.L. (2006) “A Model Incorporating the Rationale and Purpose for
Conducting Mixed-Methods Research in Special Education and Beyond”, Learning Disabilities. A
Contemporary Journal, Vol. 4, pp 67-100.
Creswell, J. (1999) Mixed-Method Research: Introduction and Application. In Handbook of Educational Policy,
Cizek, G. (ed.), Academic Press, San Diego, pp 455-472.
Creswell, J. (2003) Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd ed.), Sage,
Thousand Oaks.

Creswell, J. and Creswell, J. (2005) “Mixed Methods Research: Developments, Debates, and Dilemmas”. In
Research in Organizations. Foundations and Methods of Inquiry, Swanson, R. and Holton III, E. (eds.),
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, pp. 315-326.
Creswell, J. and Plano Clark, V. (2007) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, Sage, Thousand
Oaks.
Creswell, J. and Plano Clark, V. (2010) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 2nd Edition, Sage,
Thousand Oaks.
Currall, S. and Towler A. (2003) “Research Methods in Management and Organizational Research: Toward
Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative Techniques”. In Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social &
Behavioral Research, Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (eds.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 513-526.
Datta, L. (1994) “Paradigm Wars: A Basis for Peaceful Coexistence and Beyond”. In The Qualitative-Quantitative
Debate: New Perspectives, Reichardt, C. and S. Rallis (eds.), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 53-70.
Ethiraj, S., Kale, P., Krishnan, M. and Singh, J. (2005) “Where do Capabilities Come From and How do They
Matter? A study in the Software Services Industry”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26, pp 25-45.
Greenberg, J. (2007) “A Plea for Methodological diversity”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28, pp 929-
931.
Greene, J. and Caracelli, V. (eds.) (1997) Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of
Integrating Diverse Paradigms. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Greene, J., Caracelli, V. and Graham W. (1989) “Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation
Designs”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 11, pp 255-274.
Hanson, W., Creswell, J., Plano Clark, V., Petska, K. and Creswell, J. (2005) “Mixed Methods Research Designs
in Counseling Psychology”, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 52, pp 224-235.
Howe, K. (1988) “Against the Quantitative-Qualitative Incompatibility Thesis (or Dogmas Die Hard)”, Educational
Researcher, Vol. 17, No 8, pp. 10-16.
Jick, T. (1979) “Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp 602-611.
Johnson, B. and Onwuegbuzie A. (2004) “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has
Come”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 33, No. 7, pp 14-26.
Long, R., White, M., Friedman, W. and Brazeal, D. (2000) “The „Qualitative‟ versus „Quantitative‟ Research
Debate: A Question of Metaphorical Assumptions?”, International Journal of Value-Based Management, Vol.
13, pp. 189-197.
Mason, J. (2006) “Mixing Methods in a Qualitatively Driven Way”, Qualitative Research, Vol. 6, pp 9-25.
Mir, R. and Watson, A. (2000) “Strategic Management and the Philosophy of Science: The case for Constructivist
Methodology”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp. 941-953.
Morgan, D. (1998) “Practical Strategies for Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Applications to
Health Research”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 8, pp 362-376.
Morse, J. (1991) “Approaches to Qualitative-Quantitative Methodological Triangulation”, Nursing Research, Vol.
40, pp 120-123.
Niglas, K. (2004) The Combined Use of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Educational Research, Tallinn
Pedagogical University Press, Tallinn.
O‟Cathain, A. (2009) “Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences. A Quiet Revolution”, Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, Vol. 3, pp 3-6.
Patton, M. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.), Sage, Newbury Park.
Phelan, S., Ferreira, M. and Salvador, R. (2002) “The first twenty years of the Strategic Management Journal”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23, pp 1161-1168.
Plano Clark, V.L. (2005) Cross-disciplinary Analysis of the Use of Mixed Methods in Physics Education
Research, Counseling Psychology, and Primary Care. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Pratt, M. (2008) “Fitting Oval Pegs into Round Holes. Tensions in Evaluating and Publishing Qualitative Research
in Top-Tier North American Journals”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 11, pp 481-509.
Reichardt, C. and Cook, T. (1979) “Beyond Qualitative versus Quantitative Methods. In Qualitative and
Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research, Cook, T. and Reichardt, C. (eds.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp.
7-32.
Reichardt, C. and Rallis, S. (1994) The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: New Perspectives, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (1998) Mixed Methodology. Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches,
Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds.) (2003) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research,
Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. (2003) “Major Issues and Controversies in the Use of Mixed Methods in the Social
and Behavioural Sciences”. In Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, Tashakkori,
A. and Teddlie, C. (eds.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 3-50.
Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. (2006) “A General Typology of Research Designs Featuring Mixed Methods”,
Research in the Schools, Vol. 13, pp 12-28.
Yauch, C. and Steudel, H. (2003) “Complementary Use of Qualitative and Quantitative Cultural Assessment
Methods”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 6, pp 465-481.

Definitions of Knowledge

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Definitions of Knowledge (20)

More from Baker Khader Abdallah, PMP (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Definitions of Knowledge