Mixed methods in management research : implications for the field

Mixed methods approaches to research have been widely adopted in social sciences and professional studies disciplines. Using a combination of methods is assumed to offer the promise of greater flexibility in undertaking research, of generating better supported arguments from research data, and of increased relevance to a wider circle of stakeholders, claims that are at least partially supported by evidence of higher journal citation rates for mixed than monomethod articles. A review of eighty-three articles published eight years apart in the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) and Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) suggests that organizational and management researchers have been slow to adopt mixed methods approaches to research. Articles for both periods and in both journals were clearly dominated by studies that employed statistical analyses of archival, database, experimental or survey data, with little change over the period. These results reflect those found in other studies. This review of articles raised wider issues. 1) Difficulty was experienced in classifying studies, leading to a refinement in emphasis for a definition of mixed methods. 2) Management researchers as a whole, as reflected in the style and referencing of these articles, have thorough training in the fine details of statistical methods of analysis; understanding of qualitative analysis is weaker and restricted to a few; and none appears to have any awareness of a growing literature on mixed methods, nor did any discuss the kinds of issues typically covered in qualitative and mixed methods articles in other journals. The results of this review have implications for the training of management and organization studies researchers who currently appear to have a quite limited repertoire of non-statistical methods on which to draw when undertaking research.