Critic
Azorín, M, J, and Cameron, R. “The Application of Mixed Methods in Organizational Research: A Literature Review”, The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Volume 8 Issue 2 2010 (pp.95-105).
The author’s thesis statement is clearly expressed in the abstract as well as the first paragraph in the introduction: “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.” This thesis statement supports the title and purpose of the study.
Purpose of the study
The purpose of the study of the study was to examine the use of mixed methods research in organizational and management research (Azorín and Cameron 2010, 95). The authors reviewed the integrated application of qualitative and quantitative methods in three organizational journals published between 2003 and 2009: Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Organizational Behavior and Organizational Research Methods. As the authors point out, there is need for both management and organizational researcher to be informed of the growing acceptance and adoption of mixed methods research in these fields.
Azorin and Cameron correctly observe that the use of mixed methods research is becoming increasingly popular in such major fields as psychology, sociology, education, as well as health sciences. However, they regret that there has been little study on the integration of mixed methods in business and management research. It is the opinion of the authors that the integration of qualitative and quantitative research methods in macro and micro management research domains of Academy of Management (organizational strategy and organizational behavior) is important in promoting the use of the methods in addition to bridging the gap between the two domains themselves.
Structure of the paper
The paper is generally well organized. The authors begin with a number of significant elements of mixed methods research (i.e. definitions, use, limitations and benefits). Then there is sufficient description of the methodology used which includes the sample selection along with search techniques for identifying the three mixed method journals used. The authors follow this with an informative discussion on the main characteristics of the journals chosen. The conclusion section of the paper provides thoughtful suggestions pertaining to the use of mixed methods research in the field of management as well as likely future research opportunities.
The two authors of this paper are highly versed in this topical area. Dr. José Francisco Molina Azorín, the first co-author, is a senior lecturer at the University of Alicante in the Department of Business Management. His teaching expertise is in strategic management and environmental management. He has contributed significantly to research in such areas as firm competitiveness, organizational structure, strategic groups, environmental management, determinants of firm performance, as well as the relationship between environmental management and quality management. Furthermore, Dr. Azorin has had close working relationship with several private organizations in undertaking research and consultancy on environmental management and strategic planning.
Likewise, Dr. Roslyn Cameron is a leading lecturer-cum-researcher in the area of Human resource management and development with Southern Cross University’s School of Commerce and Management. Her research interests are in business, Research Methodology, HRM/HRD, global studies, cultural competence, cultural competency, management learning, and mixed methodologies.
Methodology
The authors utilized two main search techniques: an electronic online word search as well as a manual search strategy. Electronic online word search, and manual search. The authors give the reason for adopting these search strategies as need to investigate application of terminology and nomenclature in empirical studies integrating mixed methods research methodology. While electronic online word search is much faster, easier, less expensive and has the potential to provide much information, the searcher is compounded with a couple linguistic problems when searching for information online: synonymy and ambiguity of words. Given that electronic research entails only words and not concept, the researcher has the challenge of accounting for appropriate concept equivalent in order to have a comprehensive research. This often arises the problem of ambiguity, where a number of varied concepts are expressed by the same word(s) being searched. In order to filter out the relevant information from electronic searching, much attention and developed skills is required on the part of the researchers otherwise the strategy could turn out to be a hit-and-miss strategy as opposed to a systematic search methodology. It was a good idea for the authors to use manual search strategy to compliment the electronic search owing to the fact it is impossible to run a comprehensive search on the Internet.
The evidence that the authors use to build their case on application of mixed methods research is strong. They develop their argument by drawing evidence from previous related professional works such as Byman (2006;2007), Challiol and Mignonac (2005), Collins et al (2006), Creswell (1999;2003;2005), Curall and Towler (2003) among others. The authors checked and reviewed the references sections of the several mixed methods journals to establish authenticity. The rationale behind this decision is questionable considering that studies on type of research are hardly found in the bibliography sections of the mixed methods studies. In fact, a number of references carry titles that allude to a discussion of combined use of quantitative and qualitative research methods but fail in their content. However, the authors dig further for strong and accurate evidence from a host of relevant sources to build an accurate logical argument relating to use of mixed research method in organizational and management research. They are able to point out that mixed method research demand that the researchers have “a working knowledge and understanding of both qualitative and qualitative methods.” 103). They also give a useful recommendation for researchers to work in teams due to the nature of mixed methods to consume a lot of time and consist “multiple stages of data collection and analysis” (103). The authors also argue that regardless of mixed methods being increasingly used in business fields, the mixed methods studies are yet to exploit the full potential of the methods.
However, there exists evidence that would form basis for strong counter-argument. A research by Bazeley (2008) reveals that sociologists and anthropologists are known to have actively used mixed method approaches in community settings for the better part of the 20th century, although more implicitly than explicitly. Also Rallis and Rossman (2003) expressed the “long standing history” of mixed methods especially evaluation research, especially where there is consideration of both formative and summative elements of a program (Bazeley 2008, 133). Furthermore, “of the seven ‘exemplary’ studies in organization science from the 1980s reviewed by Frost and Stablein (1992), four involved the use of mixed data and/or analysis methods, including statistical hypothesis testing based on coded linguistic features of text; detailed case studies drawing on data from observations, anecdotes, surveys, documents and archives, combined with regression analyses on a larger sample; regression analysis of coded non-participant observational data followed by participant observation; and secondary analysis of archival survey data combined with review of historical sources” (Bazeley 2008, 134).
Conclusion
The authors have succeeded in developing their thesis statement using strong relevant evidence. The conclusion of article is still relevant considering that no much time has passed since publishing of their research. In this regard, therefore, I am in agreement with author that there is still low prevalence of mixed method research in organizational and management research. It is true that many management researchers still favor using quantitative data with statistical analyses for the reason of theory testing, while a handful of researchers utilize qualitative or mixed method strategies. In general, I perceived this particular research as worthwhile and professional. Like the authors, I would suggest management researchers to take advantage of the complementary benefits of qualitative and quantitative methods in their research for better outcomes.
References:
Azorín, M, J, and Cameron, R. “The Application of Mixed Methods in Organizational Research: A Literature Review”, The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Volume 8 Issue 2 2010 (pp.95-105).
Bazeley, P. 2008, “Mixed Methods in Management Research,” A Journal of The SAGE Dictionary of Qualitative Management Research, London: Sage (pp.133-136).
http://www.westga.edu/~kielborn/studentexample.html
http://epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=comm_pubs
