Qualitative Research in Accounting & ManagementMixed methods research: don't – “just do it”Ivo De Loo Alan Lowe

Article information:To cite this document:Ivo De Loo Alan Lowe, (2011),"Mixed methods research: don't – “just do it”", Qualitative Research inAccounting & Management, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 22 - 38Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/11766091111124685

Downloaded on: 07 November 2014, At: 08:07 (PT)References: this document contains references to 74 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1978 times since 2011*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Jennifer Grafton, Anna M Lillis, Mary A. Malina, Hanne S.O. Nørreklit, Frank H. Selto, (2011),"Lessonslearned: advantages and disadvantages of mixed method research", Qualitative Research in Accounting& Management, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 59-71Alma Whiteley, (2012),"Supervisory conversations on rigour and interpretive research", QualitativeResearch Journal, Vol. 12 Iss 2 pp. 251-271Phil Johnson, Joanne Duberley, Paul Close, Cathy Cassell, (1999),"Negotiating field roles in manufacturingmanagement research: The need for reflexivity", International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, Vol. 19 Iss 12 pp. 1234-1253

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 549136 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 0

8:07

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Mixed methods research:don’t – “just do it”

Ivo De LooSchool of Accountancy & Controlling, Nyenrode Business University,

Breukelen, The Netherlands, and

Alan LoweFaculty of Finance, Accounting & Law, Aston Business School,

Birmingham, UK

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify some of the dilemmas involved in the debate on thehow, when and why of mixed methods research.

Design/methodology/approach – The authors’ starting point is formed by developments in thephilosophy of science literature, and recent publications on mixed methods research outside of themanagement accounting domain.

Findings – Contrary to recent claims made in the management accounting literature, the authorsassert that uncovering points of disagreement between methods may be as far as researchers can go bycombining them. Being reflexive can help to provide a deeper understanding of the research process andthe researcher’s role in this process.

Research limitations/implications – The paper should extend the debate among managementaccounting researchers about mixed methods research. One of the lessons drawn is that researchers areactively immersed in the research process and cannot purge their own interests and views. Acceptingthis lesson casts doubt on what the act of research may imply and achieve.

Practical implications – The paper shows that combinations of research methods should not bemade based on a “whatever works” attitude, since this approach ultimately is still infused withontological and epistemological considerations that researchers have, and should try to explicate.

Originality/value – The value of this paper lies in the provision of philosophical underpinnings thathave not been widely considered in the management accounting literature on mixed methods to date.

Keywords Research methods, Management accounting, Accounting theory

Paper type Viewpoint

IntroductionIn the call for papers for this special issue, it was mentioned that articles would bewelcomed “[. . .] exploring the ways in which qualitative and quantitative researchmethods can be combined to advance our understanding of accounting, managementand organizations”. Indeed, this is the way in which mixed methods research has oftenbeen defined, and the definition we will follow in this paper as well (Bryman, 1988;Bryman et al., 2008; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Creswell, 2009; Hanson et al., 2005;Hurmerinta-Peltomaki and Nummela, 2006; Rocco et al., 2003; Tashakkori and Teddlie,2003)[1]. Several recent special issues across a range of subjects have been devoted to

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1176-6093.htm

The useful suggestions and comments received from Roland Spekle, two anonymous reviewers,as well as from the Editors of the special issue, are gratefully acknowledged. The usualdisclaimer applies.

QRAM8,1

22

Qualitative Research in Accounting &ManagementVol. 8 No. 1, 2011pp. 22-38q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1176-6093DOI 10.1108/11766091111124685

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 0

8:07

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

mixed methods, including a 2005 issue of the International Journal of Social ResearchMethodology and a 2004 issue of the Journal of Counseling Psychology. New special issuesalso have been announced for 2011, for instance by the Journal of Multiple ResearchApproaches.

In responding to the present call, we examine some of these uncertaintiessurrounding mixed methods research and consider what we see as achievable from itsapplication. Brannen (2005) asserts that three kinds of rationales can underlie the choiceof research methods in any type of research. These are called the “three Ps”: paradigms,pragmatics and politics. All or any one of these affect a researcher’s method choice. It hasbeen asserted in the literature that, particularly, mixed methods research is in danger ofbecoming a new professional ritual: “Mixed [method research] seems to be where it is at[. . .] ” (Green and Preston, 2005, p. 167, emphasis in original). Bryman (2006) also findsthis a risk in current debates about mixed methods research: mixing methods seems tobe fashionable and is, therefore, “simply” done. This suggests that quantitative andqualitative methods can be combined in the same research at will: choosing whether andhow to apply (mixed) methods is based on a “whatever works” attitude (Bryman, 2006;Denzin, 2008; Maxcy, 2003; Rocco et al., 2003). Methods are chosen based on pragmaticand/or political considerations. Some (possibly intersubjective, but certainly personal)understanding of what works in answering a particular research question in a specificsetting (Bryman, 1988) leads to a certain (combination of) method(s)[2]. In response tothis, Bryman (2006) has advocated a greater emphasis on the writing up of mixedmethods research, not just the doing.

Modell (2009) calls for researchers to put more effort into explaining the philosophicalunderpinnings of the choices made in mixing. Therefore, this paper will look at “theother P” (Brannen, 2005) that can underlie the choice of research methods: paradigms.In addressing this question of the philosophical underpinnings of the research, we wouldlike to draw attention to the following, interrelated dilemmas that we believe are keyissues in a serious assessment of the possibilities and potential contribution of mixedmethods research:

. Ontological, epistemological and methodological issues that are necessarily tied tomixed methods research, from which the dilemmas below both follow (Guba,1990).

. The equivocal nature of research[3], meaning that applying mixed methodsresearch cannot make research findings somehow more “complete”, “accurate” or“cleansed” (Denzin, 1989).

. The relationship between the researcher and the subjects and/or objects ofresearch, and the impossibility for a researcher to scrutinize these relationships(Johnson and Duberley, 2003).

For the sake of argumentation, the dilemmas will be discussed sequentially in thefollowing sections, despite their mutual dependence. Thereafter, links with managementaccounting research will be explored. The fact that we, at first, move away from themanagement accounting literature, despite the latter being central to the call for papersfor this special issue, is that its engagement with (discussions about) mixed methodsresearch is relatively recent (Hopper and Hoque, 2006; Lillis and Mundy, 2005). Otherliteratures, particularly those linked with the philosophy of science, have had moreextensive debates about the issue (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). It is interesting to

Mixed methodsresearch

23

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 0

8:07

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

note that in the management accounting literature, it recently has been claimed thatthere are important linkages between the use of mixed methods research and theorydevelopment. It has been suggested that “grand theorizing” in management accountingis possible when research methods are mixed, using what appears to be a “whateverworks” perspective (Malmi and Granlund, 2009).

In setting out our argument in response to the dilemmas presented above, we will takeissue with such claims[4]. By taking issue with these claims, we do not argue that we areagainst mixed methods research, but rather that we believe its potential contribution toknowledge is often oversold. This view we will substantiate through the following threesections of the paper. By so doing, we hope to generate fruitful discussions that will helpto enhance the practice of mixed methods research.

The next section presents a brief review of the paradigmatic viewpoint relating to aconceptualization of research and knowledge production which we would endorse.We follow this with a discussion in the next two sections of the broader social scienceliterature this viewpoint is found in and how such a position may be accommodatedwhen methods are actually mixed. Thereafter, recent claims in the managementaccounting literature are assessed in relation to this. The final section of the paperconcludes with thoughts on the potential contributions and limitations of mixedmethods research.

Mixing and methodologyFirst, we would like to elaborate on the link between methodology and mixed methods.This, we believe, naturally invokes a discussion about philosophical underpinnings andparadigms (Guba, 1990).

Lincoln and Guba (1985), in line with many other authors (Smaling, 1994), posit thatmethodological issues, such as mixing research methods, cannot be assessed in isolationas there are ontological (What is the nature of “reality”?), epistemological (What is therelationship between a researcher and the knowable?) and methodological (How can aresearcher find out knowledge?) questions supporting all research – in short,paradigms. Methods, in Lincoln and Guba’s view, are part of methodology, andthere hardly is any choice in terms of (qualitative or quantitative) research methodsavailable once a certain paradigm has been chosen, let alone that quantitative andqualitative research methods can be combined. This would seem to be at odds withmixed methods research. Bryman (1988) notes, in relation to this, that quantitative andqualitative research methods often have been conceived as stemming from differentepistemological positions, and therefore, from different paradigms.

We assert that paradigms always have been loosely defined interrelated beliefsystems (Howe, 1988). Consequently, there are no clear-cut distinctions betweenquantitative and qualitative research and paradigm choice. Borrowing andintermingling paradigms may thus be a fruitful way for research to progress, as longas the borrowing and intermingling is explicated as far as possible (Firestone, 1990).If one accepts this, paradigms can be compared in multiple ways without requiring acommon grid or vocabulary that indicates how far one is “better” than the other, orwhich one is more “progressive”. This creates openness and dialogue between(communities of) researchers. Thus, we take issue with Teddlie and Tashakkori’s(2003) opinion that mixed methods research can be regarded as a “third methodologicalmoment” by mediating quantitative and qualitative research. This is not a new

QRAM8,1

24

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 0

8:07

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

movement, or a “third methodological moment”. It has been possible all along(Howe, 1988).

Our own position in the debate is informed by what Guba (1990, pp. 25-7) has called“the basic beliefs of constructivism”. Among the most telling implications of such aposition is that knowledge gathered through research is the outcome of human activityand, therefore, a human construction. It is never certifiable as “true” but problematic andever changing, being exchanged and assessed through dialectic processes. Reachingconsensus among researchers about some of the purported knowledge claims may be asfar as researchers ever can go, most certainly in the social sciences, no matter whethersingle, or multiple, research methods are applied (Flyvbjerg, 2001). Flyvbjerg (2001, p. 4)argues that:

[. . .] social science never has been, and probably never will be, able to develop the type ofexplanatory and predictive theory that is the ideal and hallmark of natural science [. . .]context and judgment are irreducibly central to understanding human action.

Nevertheless, some authors have argued that a key feature of mixed methods researchis “[. . .] its methodological pluralism or eclecticism, which frequently results insuperior research (as compared to monomethod research)” ( Johnson and Onwuegbuzie,2004, p. 14). Such proponents of mixed methods research seem to think that theapplication of both qualitative and quantitative methods creates some sort ofimprovement to “capture” social phenomena. We find this a misunderstanding of whatinterpretations, that occur in all research, and mixing methods may be about, as itoverstates the innate “powers” and oversight of a researcher. No one, includingourselves, can stand outside their own epistemological and ontological viewpoints( Johnson and Duberley, 2003). Neither researchers, nor subjects, nor the informationcontained in objects can be accessed objectively. As a consequence, we feel it isfutile to believe a researcher somehow has the “power” to get to terms with what“really” evolved in a specific situation or setting, and perhaps even uncover the “truth”.At best, a credible, trustworthy account of specific events or phenomena occurringor witnessed in a particular context can be painted (Riessman, 1993). This view,we assert, is independent of whether one believes there exists an objectivereality. It is the limitations that we humans have as researchers that matters here(Flyvbjerg, 2001).

However, it is common for researchers to indicate that their mixed methods researchprovides explanation (Bryman, 1988, 2006), even those who acknowledge theinterpretive nature of such research (Smith, 2003). We would like to distinguishexplanation from understanding in this paper, in order to achieve clarity in regard to oneelement of our discussion of mixed methods research. The distinction is not much inevidence in the management literature (Trout, 2002), but does allow for a more nuancedmethodological discussion about mixed methods research.

By understanding, we mean that a researcher has formed a personal impression ofhow specific events have evolved in a specific situation (for example, in relation to oneanother) leading to a specific outcome. This impression is based partially on the researchconducted, and may be shared with others. However, such an (possibly shared)impression may be a long way from how events actually occurred and were interrelated.Uncovering that would, in our book, be explaining a particular sequence of events(Trout, 2002). However, a:

Mixed methodsresearch

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 0

8:07

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

[. . .] subjective sense of understanding may be conveyed by a psychological impression thatthe explanatory mechanisms are transparent and coherent, or that the explanation seemsplausible, and so should be confidently accepted [. . .] (Trout, 2002, p. 214).

We think this is what often happens in the social sciences, but assert such understandingcannot qualify as “genuine” explanation – it constituting, at best, a convincing account,where using the word “explanation” may sound authoritative, but oversells the accountthat can be given.

Having said that, let us zoom in on the second dilemma, we would like to discuss: therelation between mixing methods and the equivocal nature of research. This discussionwill end with a rejoinder of the current dilemma.

Mixing and the equivocal nature of researchRocco et al. (2003) discern a pragmatic and a dialectic approach towards mixed methodsresearch. The pragmatic approach tends to suggest that mixed methods are applied as apractical way to provide some “better” outcome from the research process. The latterwould, we believe, signify that by combining methods, the deficiencies from, or biasesinherent in, a single method approach may partly be avoided, allowing a “morecomplete” or “accurate”, “metapicture” of what is “out there” to emerge (Lewis andGrimes, 1999; Rocco et al., 2003). Apart from this not being in line with our ownstandpoint, as outlined above, such a view would not be consistent with recent insightsfrom the philosophy of science literature. In that literature, seven insights have emergedover the past few decades that lead us to question the unequivocal nature of scientificresearch. They are ( Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004, p. 16):

(1) whatever appears reasonable can vary across individuals;

(2) observation is not a perfect and direct window into “reality”;

(3) it is possible for more than one theory to fit a single set of “data”;

(4) hypotheses cannot be tested in isolation for auxiliary assumptions need to bemade to make this happen;

(5) there is no final, scientific “proof” in the social sciences (and possibly in much ofthe natural sciences too);

(6) researchers are actively engaged in the process of research, and are not neutralor objective; and

(7) values affect what we choose to investigate, see and interpret.

These insights suggest a similar conclusion to what was identified in the previoussection. However, well our interpretations are informed and evidenced, they cannotescape our own subjectivity. Postmodernists and anthropologists have engaged in muchdebate about how to distil and present research findings without imposing anyinterpretation by the researcher (Clifford and Marcus, 1986; Geertz, 1988; Van Maanen,1995). The outcome of these debates has been to indicate how problematic, and perhapsimpossible, it is to provide accounts of the understandings of research objects withoutany researcher influence or bias.

When the relevance of, and influence on the act of research of, the insights mentionedabove are acknowledged, what could they mean for the purpose and use of mixedmethods research? We suggest that it may be that generating clusterings

QRAM8,1

26

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 0

8:07

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

of interpretation, leading, somehow, to a form of personal understanding of what isanalyzed may be the best way to define and understand the contribution of researchpractices that involve mixing methods. This, we feel, may be the only viable option whenexplicitly allowing for such factors as: differences between researchers’ interpretations;differences between what is analyzed or focused on, etc. by the researcher[s] and theeffects of values that are immersed in the research process. Taking these somewhatimponderable factors seriously means that we are never likely to know their effects onthe research process. What we “see” may just be a way to look at what is “out there”,without knowing how far it “corresponds” to exactly what is “out there”.

The dialectic approach that Rocco et al. (2003) outline may be seen as a way to engagein mixed methods research that would accord with this viewpoint of providing personal(and possibly shared) understandings instead of (more universal) explanations. Theirdialectic approach uses mixed methods to reveal different “slices” of a phenomenon. Itsaims are to apply various methods to complement one another, to show theircompatibility or lack of it (Rocco et al., 2003), but not necessarily to distil some kind of“metapicture” of what is “out there”. We find uncovering points of disagreement inunderstanding social phenomena by using different methods (without thinking thatthereby, some kind of “cleansed” depiction of a phenomenon can be created) one of thebig bonuses of applying mixed methods research.

Denzin (1989) also contends that interpretations and understandings of socialphenomena are created in situ, jointly with the subjects/objects under study. Researchersmust examine human conduct from the point of view of those who they are studying, orat least make genuine attempts to do so, in order to suppress using only their own pointof view. This implies continuous interaction with the subjects/objects at hand. A sense of“playfulness” and personal imagination in combining contradictory insights gatheredthrough mixed methods research (which is an issue that Denzin explicitly addresses inthis context) is necessary in the process (Bryman, 1988). Some form of articulationbetween observation and the insights finally gathered needs to be established throughthe choice of research methods. Yet, we hope to have shown that if research in the socialsciences can only focus on generating personal understandings of social phenomena thatmay subsequently be shared with others, this cannot be attained on the basis ofdecisions about methods alone. There are also links with (possible) underlying theories(or theory development as a whole), ideas about the nature of reality and knowledge,research values and the norms, (sub)conscious ideas and notions of researchersthemselves that need to be assessed (Green and Preston, 2005; Saunders et al., 2007;Smaling, 1994). After all, in most research, and most certainly when mixing methods,researchers must move beyond description to uncover issues that transcend directperceptions and observations (Boland and Pondy, 1983; Llewellyn, 1993). The issues wehave discussed in this section may be hard to fully appreciate, but it should be clear thatthey are likely to influence the way research is conducted and written up.

The following section, focusing on the last dilemma, we would like to distinguish triesto provide some insights as to how the issues we have identified may be addressed,especially in the process of writing up mixed methods research.

Mixing and reflexivityIn the previous section, we argued that we cannot escape our own values andinterpretations when conducting research – research is not unequivocal and may in effect

Mixed methodsresearch

27

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 0

8:07

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

always be a highly personal and somewhat subjective affair, in which a researcher’sparadigmatic standpoint will always play a role.

If this line of reasoning is accepted, and researchers want to engage in a debateabout their interpretations in order to see if they can be corroborated by others, thechoices and decisions made by them may be understood by sharing the criteria andassumptions that underlie these choices. This explication process may be enhancedwhen reflexive practices are applied (Alvesson and Skoldberg, 2000).

We hold a cautious view on reflexivity (Green and Preston, 2005), in the sense thatengaging in reflexive practices will not suddenly create the possibility to move fromunderstanding to explaining social phenomena. Reflexive practices, we believe, arehelpful to highlight, as far as possible, the role of the researcher in the research process,bringing to the fore at least some of the presuppositions, assumptions, interpretations,etc. that have wittingly or unwittingly been brought into play in the act of research(Saunders et al., 2007). After all, we hold the view that researchers are not objectiveoutsiders who solely adhere to pre-specified research procedures to obtain theirfindings. The form of reflexivity related to mixing research methods we propose is onewhich while helping to reframe a researcher’s self-knowledge does not guarantee a“better”, or more “accurate” account. The position we favor allows for alternativeaccounts of the (seemingly) same phenomena.

In opening up the interpretations contained in such alternative accounts (and writingthem down), it is important to explicate a researcher’s assumptions and personal valuesas far as possible (Alvesson et al., 2008; Johnson and Duberley, 2003), as this may giveboth the researcher and those reading the research, more of an idea of why and how aparticular piece of research, and the interpretations it contains, developed. Thesepersonal understandings are a way to achieve trustworthiness in one’s research as analternative to satisfying more traditional validity and reliability concerns.

Riessman (1993) asserts that trustworthiness rests on four pillars for which nostandardized procedures exist. These pillars, which are mutually dependent, are:

(1) Persuasiveness: is an interpretation reasonable and convincing? Is it plausible?

(2) Correspondence: do those studied recognize the results?

(3) Coherence: is an interpretation more than ad hoc? Consistency within andbetween interpretations must be safeguarded.

(4) Pragmatic use: how far is a study used in or quoted by other studies? (Riessman,1993, pp. 65-8).

Riessman advises the use of a specific definition of the type of research conducted[5],to be clear and open-minded about one’s interpretations and to be open about one’sdoubts in the process. Riessman also argues that we should give room to alternativeinterpretations (Alvesson and Skoldberg, 2000) by letting other researchers have accessto our (source) materials, as important ways to accomplish trustworthiness. This wouldimply that the process of discovery is much more emphasized than the process ofrationalization in writing up research, which often is seen as “the (only) way” toaccommodate these concerns ( Johnson and Duberley, 2003).

What could a trustworthy account on mixed methods research look like, taking intoaccount the issues we have introduced above? Often, the purpose for choosing a mixedmethods design is not made clear in advance (Bryman, 2006). It would, we assert, greatly

QRAM8,1

28

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 0

8:07

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

enhance a paper’s persuasiveness if this were addressed early in any research account.Personally, we prefer paradigmatic over pragmatic (whatever works) stances here,so that the theoretical underpinnings of the adoption of mixed methods are specificallytackled (Modell, 2009).

Further, reflexivity, according to Calas and Smircich (1999), essentially boils down tothree areas of concern: an awareness of the researcher’s role in the constitution of theresearch object (Knorr-Cetina, 1981; Woolgar, 1988; Van Maanen, 1988), the impact of(personal and other) interests in the understanding of knowledge (Connell and Nord,1996; Scherer, 1998; Spender, 1998), and the way in which a researcher’s writings (theirstructure and composition) characterize the nature of knowledge (Riessman, 1993).

To give a further example of how reflexivity may be encouraged, we will elaborate onCalas and Smircich’s (1999) third concern in relation to mixed methods research, as theother two have been addressed earlier in the paper. Combining different researchmethods, and writing about the actual interpretation processes and outcomes associatedwith this provides ample opportunity to highlight alternative interpretations. In a largeresearch project involving groups of researchers who apply different methods it maybe possible to then debate, log and write about the interpretation processes used by thedifferent groups (Brown and Brignall, 2007). However, this is rarely done.

Riessman (1993) acknowledges that in writing up research, most authors “simply”write down their interpretations with little reference to the original material they basedtheir interpretations on. In such a case, a researcher’s interpretation is privileged, andconsequently reflects her/his take on knowledge. We assert that each individual arrangesexperiences in her/his own way to devise meaning (Hacking, 1999). Kilduff and Mehra(1997) acknowledge that there are pressures on researchers to tell unequivocal stories( Johnson and Duberley, 2003; Knights, 1995; Riessman, 1993). These include pressuresassociated with university publication guidelines and the processes of editorial reviewand publication in journals. These issues are not easy to resolve (see Denzin andGiardina, 2008, for some interesting contributions), but they do play a role in determininghow far researchers are willing to indulge in being reflexive about their own research.

If, however, a reflexive stance is not adopted, there is the danger that any coherencefrom our research efforts will be threatened. If we eschew a firm methodological basis forour investigations and do not acknowledge our own active and not fully decipherableinvolvement in research, we risk losing the opportunity of building a coherent andtrustworthy knowledge base. This would cast doubt on what research is and tries toachieve, and could seriously affect the possibilities and impact of mixed methodsresearch. This we would find a great pity, as we do see viable options for its application.We will try to summarize these in the next section.

A brief summary: the potential contribution of mixed methodsIn the preceding sections, we set out a view on research in which what can be known andthose who may come to know it are fused and cannot be separated (Guba, 1990). Whatsomeone comes to know is, consequently, filled with interpretations and assumptionsthat we may never be fully aware of, although engaging in reflexive practices may helpus to get a deeper understanding of such interpretations and assumptions (Alvesson et al.,2008; Alvesson and Skoldberg, 2000; Riessman, 1993). The arguments sustaining thisview are, given their level of analysis, not only about mixed methods research, but theydo affect what we see as viable options for and consequences of its application.

Mixed methodsresearch

29

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 0

8:07

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

We assert that mixed methods research ought not to be applied at will, justified by a“whatever works” rhetoric. Given that what may be known and the “knower” areinterrelated, personal views on the act of research, specifically in terms of theresearchers’ ontological, epistemological and methodological beliefs will infuse whatmay be seen as the legitimate aims for mixed methods research. In our conception, theseaims do not lie in generating overall, value-free explanations for social phenomena, butrather in uncovering points of disagreement between methods – the dialectic approach(Rocco et al., 2003) that we have described above[6].

We will try to link our discussion in the prior sections with statements made in themanagement accounting literature below. In doing this, we try to address relevantaspects of the three dilemmas that were outlined in the introduction to the paper andaddressed subsequently, as they apply to the suggested use of mixed methods in themanagement accounting literature.

Mixing and management accounting researchThis section links the ideas discussed above with ideas about theory development andmixed methods research in management accounting, where it has recently been assertedthat “grand theorizing” through mixed methods research is possible and recommended(Malmi and Granlund, 2009), even when the value-ladenness of the research processis acknowledged (Modell, 2009). We believe that ontological, epistemological andmethodological (paradigmatic) considerations lie at the heart of the debate abouttheorizing and mixed methods research and cannot be put aside. Though, this issometimes suggested in the (management accounting) literature discussing mixedmethods research, as the following quotes serve to illustrate:

We are aware that while discussing ways to conduct research we inexorably also touchepistemological, methodological, paradigm (in)commensurability and other issues and problemsin the core of philosophy and sociology of science. Yet such general concerns are beyond the scopeof this paper [on theory building in management accounting] (Malmi and Granlund, 2009, p. 600).

Malmi and Granlund (2009, pp. 610-1) go on to argue that despite their claim that“epistemological, methodological [. . .]” issues need not be considered:

[. . .] [management accounting] research [. . .] could apply methodological triangulation,i.e. apply more than just one research method (Modell, 2005). Such triangulation possessesgreat potential for enhancing the validity of research results, which again facilitates theassessment of theoretical contribution.

We have great difficulties with such a position, as can be inferred from the earlierdiscussion.

The explicit engagement with and discussions about mixed methods research inmanagement accounting research seems to be of recent origin (Brown and Brignall,2007; Hopper and Hoque, 2006; Lillis and Mundy, 2005; Marginson and Ogden, 2005;Modell, 2005, 2009), though an argument could be made that this literature began todevelop much earlier (Hopwood, 1973; Otley, 1978; Roslender, 1990). Links between theaccounting literature and other literatures using mixed methods research are few and farbetween, the occasional reference to authors such as Creswell (2009) and Tashakkori andTeddlie (1998, 2003) notwithstanding (Modell, 2009). At a point in time where some saythat management accounting seems to be devoid of theories of its own (Humphrey andScapens, 1996; Malmi and Granlund, 2009; Brownell, 1995), and mixing methods has

QRAM8,1

30

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 0

8:07

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

been portrayed as a way to develop these (Malmi and Granlund, 2009), this lack ofintegration between literatures is surprising.

Mixing and methodologyManagement accounting has been long recognized as a social science (Scapens andArnold, 1986; Roslender, 1990). In line with the views advocated here, we claim that inthe social sciences, research generally tries to develop understanding or warrantedassertions about (groups) of subjects and the environments (containing other subjectsand objects) in which they live, engage with, and evolve (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie,2004; Ahrens, 2008). Flyvbjerg (2001) notes that by so doing, generating explanations(in a causal sense) and predictions is highly likely to be impossible, as social practicescan never be grasped completely[4]. Human activity is context dependent, therebyrendering value-free explanations and predictions virtually unachievable (Flyvbjerg,2001). Following Bourdieu (1977, 1990), Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) and Dreyfus andDreyfus (1986), Flyvbjerg (2001, p. 3) notes that consequently:

[. . .] the social sciences are strongest where the natural sciences are the weakest: just as thesocial sciences have not contributed much to explanatory and predictive theory, neither havethe natural sciences contributed to the reflexive analysis of values and interests [. . .] Thisshould [. . .] be the core of social science [. . .]

This is a long way from Malmi and Granlund’s (2009) assertion that managementaccounting research should “[. . .] provide explanations [. . .] to answer questions of whatkind of management accounting systems we should apply, how, in what circumstances,and how to change them” (p. 597), using, among others, mixed methods research. Later intheir paper, they state that they do not aim for normative, absolute results, but for “[. . .]explaining and predicting phenomena related to practitioners’ objectives” (p. 601).Strangely, Malmi and Granlund (2009, p. 600) claim that the ontological, epistemologicaland methodological (paradigmatic) issues that are associated by these other writers withsuch theory generation are beyond the scope of their paper. We contend that that theseissues are central to such aims, as do other management accounting researchers(Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al., 2008; Lowe, 2008; Modell, 2009; Brown and Brignall, 2007;Marginson and Ogden, 2005).

Mixing and the equivocal nature of researchModell (2009) sees mixed methods research (by combining quantitative and qualitativeresearch methods, in that order) as a means to uncover the intransient mechanismsassociated with causal powers that generate actual events. At the same time, heacknowledges the theory-ladenness of observation and of the research andinterpretation processes. Universal, value-free laws can, therefore, not be found (evenif they exist). A “milder”, less expansive form of explanation, in which researcherspreliminarily ascribe causal powers to specific mechanisms, is advocated. How this is tobe done exactly remains unclear. Between-method triangulation (Denzin, 1989), byapplying research methods sequentially, is seen as a possible way to accommodate this,yielding clusterings of interpretations, suggesting explanation(s).

Still, Modell’s (2009) approach asks much of a researcher. His approach implies that aresearcher must be able to distinguish and move “beyond” simplistic inductiveexplanations to more fundamental abductive explanations, based on an understandingof “underlying mechanisms” (p. 212). Modell argues that this level of explanation must

Mixed methodsresearch

31

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 0

8:07

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

be value-free as well to enable a researcher’s interpretations to count as explanation[4].This would imply that he or she must have a good idea how to decipher the complexity ofsocial phenomena. Modell does not seem to find this a big problem, as he asserts that by:

[. . .] combining alternative theories with additional empirical data, possibly derived fromdifferent data sources or methods, researchers may then assess their validity [. . .] this is apotentially useful approach to advance theoretically informed explanations in mixed methodsresearch in management accounting [. . .] (p. 213).

We noted above that Flyvbjerg (2001) elegantly dismisses this view – a position wefeel is persuasive. Still, it seems as if:

[. . .] the ambition has continued to emulate the natural-science model in the study of humanaffairs, especially as regards the development of theory which is typically seen as thepinnacle of scientific endeavor [. . .] (Flyvbjerg, 2001, p. 28).

Moving towards “better” or “more substantial” ascriptions of causal power in aPopperian sense (which Modell, 2009, implicitly argues for) in management accountingresearch is, consequently, perhaps understandable, but also likely to be impossible forthe reasons outlined above.

Mixing and reflexivityWe agree with Modell (2009) on the necessity to have better philosophical underpinningsof mixed methods research in management accounting. Ahrens (2008, p. 295) notes thatmanagement accounting researchers have found ways “[. . .] of studying howunderstandings of accounting play out in diverse activities, which may engage with,or distance themselves from, social discourses, practices, material arrangements, andstructural of intentionality”. According to Ahrens, this is in line with an ontological viewin which what may count as “reality” is a social construction (Guba, 1990). In that case,“grand theorizing”, aiming for theories with predictive qualities, which Malmi andGranlund (2009) find one of the big advantages of conducting mixed methods research,simply cannot be achieved.

Theorizing or what is sometimes called the “accumulation of knowledge” is possible,nevertheless, within an ontological framework in which reality is socially constructed(Weick, 1989, 1995), but this will have a more tentative and local character than thatsuggested by Malmi and Granlund (2009). A thorough, personal understanding ofprevious events or phenomena that can be shared with others, probably being as far asone can go (Flyvbjerg, 2001). But that still does not mean that some form of explanationcomes into view, as Modell (2009) asserts (Trout, 2002). Interpretive researchers, whichsome may claim we all are, are engaged in “[. . .] bring[ing] into play our ownimaginations” (Covaleski et al., 1998, p. 308; Denzin, 1989; Van Maanen, 1988; Weick,1989, 1996). This makes it imperative that the role of methodology is acknowledged inresearch accounts. Methodologies provide a lens through which to compose the field(Ahrens and Chapman, 2006). This lens works on our imaginations and impacts ourperception of the field and our own research stories. In the construction of such stories,we believe it is extremely valuable that these aspects are brought to the fore.

Final thoughtsBryman et al. (2008) carried out an online survey (and several follow-up interviews) onthe quality standards that social policy researchers in the UK thought should be upheld

QRAM8,1

32

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 0

8:07

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

when conducting quantitative, qualitative and especially mixed methods research.Interestingly, several concerns were expressed about the state of mixed methodsresearch, one of the respondents indicating that: “[. . .] it is quite difficult to achievequality if the adoption of mixed methods is not carefully thought of and in advance”(Bryman et al., 2008, p. 269). Yet, at the same time, there are voices, in some casessurprising (Bryman, 2006), arguing that such careful planning is not really necessary toconduct useful research. This is a perspective which now also seems to be emerging inthe management accounting literature (Malmi and Granlund, 2009). We firmly arguecaution against the adoption of such a laissez faire position because of the ever-presentresearcher involvement in the research process.

According to the perspective, we present no one can stand outside their ownepistemological and ontological viewpoints (Kilduff and Mehra, 1997; Johnsonand Duberley, 2003). As a consequence, the best that can be achieved is a credibletrustworthy account of specific events or phenomena, occurring or witnessed, in aparticular context (Riessman, 1993).

Our position is that the writing up of management research, including managementaccounting, could benefit from an explicit acceptance of the equivocal natureof interpretation. Researchers might consider presenting a reflexive account of the oftenmessy events and equivocal attitudes brought to the fore in the research process; forexample, by combining research methods. This is, however, not always easy toaccomplish. We admit that in our own research, we often struggle to reason in terms ofparadigms, given their shifting nature, multiple definitions and mixed content (Smaling,1994). Still, the whole notion of a paradigm gives some kind of structure to discuss issueslike mixing methods and what it means to be reflexive, even though expressions likeontology, epistemology, methodology, etc. that accompany it are difficult to define andcategorize (Modell, 2009). This is inherent to the uncertainty involved in all research and,we presume, in all researchers’ interpretations, there being a dyad between the two thatis impossible to overcome (Smaling, 1994).

As far as mixed methods research is concerned, we do not think that generating“genuine” explanations is likely to be achievable by engaging in mixed methodsresearch, despite what is sometimes alleged in the literature ( Johnson and Onwuegbuzie,2004). Generating shared, personal understandings may be the furthest that suchresearch can go (Trout, 2002). This is contrary to recent claims made in the managementaccounting literature (Malmi and Granlund, 2009). Uncovering points of disagreementbetween methods may be the best that researchers can achieve by combining them.Being reflexive can help to provide a deeper understanding of the research process andthe researcher’s role in this process. We would like to encourage researchers-as-authorsto give greater credence to this as they continue to conduct and write about (mixedmethods) research in the future (Baxter and Chua, 2008). We hope this may lead togreater modesty about what the act of research may actually imply and achieve inmanagement accounting, and in the management literature more generally.

It could be suggested that we have not practiced what we preached in the abovediscussion, as we hardly employed our own recommendations. However, this is not anempirical paper but one that puts forward a certain viewpoint that is intended togenerate discussion in a hopefully stimulating and thought-provoking way. A plausiblenext step would nevertheless be to apply this viewpoint in more empirically basedarticles, for instance in a management accounting setting. It should not be forgotten,

Mixed methodsresearch

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 0

8:07

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

however, that it is just a viewpoint among a plethora of possible viewpoints and that wedo not reject mixed methods research, but encourage a deeper consideration of itsadoption before it is used.

Notes

1. Although Bryman et al. (2008) note that the expression “mixed methods” is also used wheneither multiple quantitative or qualitative research approaches are applied in the sameresearch.

2. This does not have to imply a poorly thought-out, instrumental research design, but one thatmay be based on particular foundations that we do not sustain.

3. We see all research as being scientific, as it connotes ontological, epistemological andmethodological issues. Hence the use of this particular expression.

4. In order to achieve clarity in regard to one element of our discussion of the dilemmasattached to a constructivist approach to mixed methods research we need to make a specificdistinction between “understanding” and “explanation” that is not much in evidence in themanagement literature (Trout, 2002). The distinction is made to allow for a more nuancedmethodological discussion about mixed methods research. It will be set out in the followingsection of the paper.

5. Riessman focuses on narrative analysis herself.

6. It should be noted that the nature of the researcher/knowledge dyad has led some to concludethat value matters (axiology) should be included in discussions about research paradigms(Smaling, 1994), no matter which paradigm a researcher feels most attracted to. This wouldadd a fourth dimension to the commonly held view on paradigms (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).This is a view we endorse.

References

Ahrens, T. (2008), “Overcoming the subjective-objective divide in interpretive managementaccounting research”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 33 Nos 2/3, pp. 292-7.

Ahrens, T. and Chapman, C. (2006), “Doing qualitative field research in management accounting:positioning data to contribute to theory”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 31No. 8, pp. 819-41.

Alvesson, M. and Skoldberg, K. (2000), Reflexive Methodology, Sage, London.

Alvesson, M., Hardy, C. and Harley, B. (2008), “Reflecting on reflexivity: reflexive textualpractices in organization and management theory”, Journal of Management Studies,Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 480-501.

Baxter, J. and Chua, W.F. (2008), “The field researcher as author-writer”, Qualitative Research inAccounting & Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 101-21.

Boland, R.J. and Pondy, L.R. (1983), “Accounting in organizations: toward a union of rational andnatural perspectives”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 8 Nos 2/3, pp. 223-34.

Bourdieu, P. (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bourdieu, P. (1990), The Logic of Practice, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (Eds) (1992), An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, University ofChicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Brannen, J. (2005), “Mixed methods research: a discussion paper”, NCRM Methods ReviewPapers NCRM/005, ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, Southampton.

QRAM8,1

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 0

8:07

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Brown, R. and Brignall, S. (2007), “Reflections on the use of a dual-methodology research designto evaluate accounting and management practice in UK university central administrativeservices”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 32-48.

Brownell, P. (1995), “Research methods in management accounting”, Accounting ResearchMethodology Monograph No. 2, Coopers & Lybrand and the Accounting Association ofAustralia and New Zealand, Melbourne.

Bryman, A. (1988), Quantity and Quality in Social Research, Routledge, London.

Bryman, A. (2006), “Paradigm peace and the implications for quality”, International Journal ofSocial Research Methodology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 111-26.

Bryman, A., Becker, S. and Sempik, J. (2008), “Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative andmixed methods research: a view from social policy”, International Journal of SocialResearch Methodology, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 261-76.

Calas, M.B. and Smircich, L. (1999), “Past postmodernism? Reflections and tentative directions”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 649-71.

Clifford, J. and Marcus, G. (Eds) (1986), Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography,University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Connell, A. and Nord, W.R. (1996), “The bloodless coup: the infiltration of organization science byuncertainty and values”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 407-27.

Covaleski, M.A., Dirsmith, M.W., Heian, J. and Samuel, S. (1998), “The calculated and the avowed:techniques of discipline and struggles over identity in Big Six public accounting firms”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 293-327.

Creswell, J.W. (2009), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed MethodsApproaches, Sage, Los Angeles, CA.

Denzin, N.K. (1989), The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods, 3rd ed.,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Denzin, N.K. (2008), “The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry”, QSE: InternationalJournal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 315-26.

Denzin, N.K. and Giardina, M.D. (Eds) (2008), Qualitative Inquiry and the Politics of Evidence, LeftCoast, Walnut Creek, CA.

Dreyfus, H.L. and Dreyfus, E. (1986), Mind over Machine: The Power of Human Intuition andExpertise in the Era of the Computer, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Firestone, W. (1990), “Accommodation: towards a paradigm-praxis dialectic”, in Guba, E.G. (Ed.),The Paradigm Dialog, Sage, London, pp. 105-24.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001), Making Social Science Matter, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Geertz, C. (1988), Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as an Author, Stanford University Press,Stanford, CA.

Green, A. and Preston, J. (2005), “Editorial: Speaking in tongues – diversity in mixed methodsresearch”, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 167-71.

Guba, E.G. (1990), “The alternative paradigm dialog”, in Guba, E.G. (Ed.), The Paradigm Dialog,Sage, London, pp. 17-27.

Hacking, I. (1999), The Social Construction of What?, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Hanson, W.E., Creswell, J.W., Plano Clark, V.L., Petska, K.S. and Creswell, J.D. (2005), “Mixedmethods research designs in counseling psychology”, Journal of Counseling Psychology,Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 224-35.

Mixed methodsresearch

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 0

8:07

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Hopper, T.M. and Hoque, Z. (2006), “Triangulation approaches to accounting research”, in Hoque, Z.(Ed.),Methodological Issues inAccounting Research: Theories,Methods and Issues, Spiramus,London, pp. 477-86.

Hopwood, A.G. (1973), An Accounting System and Managerial Behaviour, Saxon House,Westmead.

Howe, K.R. (1988), “Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis (or old dogmas diehard)”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 10-16.

Humphrey, C. and Scapens, R.W. (1996), “Methodological themes: theories and case studies oforganizational accounting practices: limitation or liberation?”, Accounting, Auditing &Accountability Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 87-106.

Hurmerinta-Peltomaki, L. and Nummela, N. (2006), “Mixed methods in international businessresearch: a value-added perspective”, Management International Review, Vol. 46 No. 4,pp. 439-59.

Johnson, B.R. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004), “Mixed methods research: a research paradigmwhose time has come”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 14-26.

Johnson, P. and Duberley, J. (2003), “Reflexivity in management research”, Journal ofManagement Studies, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1279-303.

Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M., Lukka, K. and Kuorikoski, J. (2008), “Straddling between paradigms:a naturalistic philosophical case study on interpretive research in managementaccounting”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 33 Nos 2/3, pp. 267-91.

Kilduff, M. and Mehra, A. (1997), “Postmodernism and organisational research”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 453-81.

Knights, D. (1995), “Refocusing the case study: the politics of research and researching politics inIT management”, Technology Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 230-54.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981), The Manufacture of Knowledge, Pergamon, Oxford.

Lewis, M. and Grimes, A. (1999), “Metatriangulation: building theory from multiple paradigms”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 672-90.

Lillis, A.M. and Mundy, J. (2005), “Cross-sectional field studies in management accountingresearch: closing the gaps between surveys and case studies”, Journal of ManagementAccounting Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 119-44.

Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Llewellyn, S. (1993), “Working in hermeneutic circles in management accounting research: someimplications and applications”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 231-49.

Lowe, A. (2008), “Theories of knowledge and theories of organization: a comment onKakkuri-Knuuttilla et al.”, paper presented at the 2008 BAA Conference, Blackpool,April 1-3.

Malmi, T. and Granlund, M. (2009), “In search of management accounting theory”, EuropeanAccounting Review, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 597-620.

Marginson, D. and Ogden, S. (2005), “Coping with ambiguity through the budget: the positiveeffects of budgetary targets on managers’ budgeting behaviors”, Accounting,Organizations and Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 435-56.

Maxcy, S.J. (2003), “Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: thesearch for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism”,in Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds), Handbook of Mixed Methods Research in Socialand Behavioral Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 51-89.

QRAM8,1

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 0

8:07

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Modell, S. (2005), “Triangulation between case study and survey methods in managementaccounting research: an assessment of validity implications”, Management AccountingResearch, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 231-54.

Modell, S. (2009), “In defence of triangulation: a critical realist approach to mixed methodsresearch in management accounting”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 20 No. 3,pp. 208-21.

Otley, D.T. (1978), “Budget use and managerial performance”, Journal of Accounting Research,Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 122-49.

Riessman, C.K. (1993), Narrative Analysis, Sage, Thousands Oaks, CA (Qualitative ResearchMethods, Vol. 30).

Rocco, T.S., Bliss, S.A., Gallagher, S. and Perez-Prado, A. (2003), “Taking the next step: mixedmethods research in organizational systems”, Information Technology, Learning, andPerformance Journal, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 19-29.

Roslender, R. (1990), “Sociology and management accounting research”, British AccountingReview, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 351-72.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2007), Research Methods for Business Students, 4th ed.,Prentice-Hall, Edinburgh.

Scapens, R.W. and Arnold, J. (1986), “Economics and management accounting research”,in Bromwich, M. and Hopwood, A.G. (Eds), Research and Current Issues in ManagementAccounting, Pitman, London, pp. 78-102.

Scherer, A.G. (1998), “Pluralism and incommensurability in strategic management andorganization theory: a problem in search of a solution”, Organization, Vol. 5 No. 2,pp. 147-68.

Smaling, A. (1994), “The pragmatic dimension: paradigmatic and pragmatic aspects of choosinga qualitative or quantitative method”, Quality & Quantity, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 233-49.

Smith, M. (2003), Research Methods in Accounting, Sage, London.

Spender, J.C. (1998), “Pluralist epistemology and the knowledge-based theory of the firm”,Organization, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 233-56.

Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (1998), Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative andQuantitative Approaches, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (Applied Social Research MethodsSeries, Vol. 46).

Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds) (2003), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social andBehavioral Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. (2003), “Major issues and controversies in the use of mixedmethods in the social and behavioral sciences”, in Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds),Handbook of MixedMethods in Social and Behavioral Research, Chapter 1, Sage, ThousandOaks, CA.

Trout, W. (2002), “Scientific explanation and the sense of understanding”, Philosophy of Science,Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 212-33.

Van Maanen, J. (1988), Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography, University of Chicago Press,Chicago, IL.

Van Maanen, J. (1995), “An end to innocence: the ethnography of ethnography”,in Van Maanen, J. (Ed.), Representation in Ethnography, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,pp. 1-35.

Weick, K.E. (1989), “Theory construction as disciplined imagination”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 516-32.

Mixed methodsresearch

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 0

8:07

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Weick, K.E. (1995), “What theory is not, theorizing is”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40No. 3, pp. 385-90.

Weick, K.E. (1996), “Drop your tools: an allegory for organization studies”, AdministrativeScience Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 301-13.

Woolgar, S. (1988), Science: The Very Idea, Tavistock, London.

Further reading

Geertz, C. (1973), “Thick descriptions: toward an interpretive theory of culture”, in Geertz, C. (Ed.),The Interpretation of Cultures, Basic Books, New York, NY, pp. 1-32.

Lukka, K. and Modell, S. (2010), “Validation in interpretive management accounting research”,Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 462-77.

About the authorsIvo De Loo is an Associate Professor of Research Methods and Methodology at NyenrodeBusiness University. Part of this paper was written when he was also Associate Professor ofManagement Accounting at the Open University of the Netherlands. Ivo De Loo is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: ideloo@cobweb.nl

Alan Lowe is Professor of Accounting, as well as Research Convenor, at the Aston BusinessSchool in Birmingham, UK.

QRAM8,1

38

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 0

8:07

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Gary D. Holt, Jack S. Goulding. 2014. Conceptualisation of ambiguous-mixed-methods within buildingand construction research. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology 12:2, 244-262. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

2. Humphrey Christopher. 2014. Qualitative research – mixed emotions. Qualitative Research in Accounting& Management 11:1, 51-70. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

3. Burns John. 2014. Qualitative management accounting research in QRAM: some reflections. QualitativeResearch in Accounting & Management 11:1, 71-81. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

4. Kym Fraser. 2014. Defeating the ‘paradigm wars’ in accounting: a mixed methods approach is needed in theeducation of PhD scholars. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches 4299-4325. [CrossRef]

5. Kym Fraser. 2014. Position paper: Defeating the ‘paradigm wars’ in accounting: A mixed-methodsapproach is needed in the education of PhD scholars. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches8, 49-62. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 0

8:07

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)