LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Peng, G.C.; Nunes, J.M.B.; Annansingh, F. (2011)
Languages: English
Types: Other
Subjects:
Mixed-methods research, which comprises both quantitative and qualitative components, is widely perceived as a means to resolve the inherent limitations of traditional single method designs and is thus expected to yield richer and more holistic findings. Despite such distinctive benefits and continuous advocacy from Information Systems (IS) researchers, the use of mixed-methods approach in the IS field has not been high. This paper discusses some of the key reasons that led to this low application rate of mixed-methods design in the IS field, ranging from misunderstanding the term with multiple-methods research to practical difficulties for design and implementation. Two previous IS studies are used as examples to illustrate the discussion. The paper concludes by recommending that in order to apply mixed-methods design successfully, IS researchers need to plan and consider thoroughly how the quantitative and qualitative components (i.e. from data collection to data analysis to reporting of findings) can be genuinely integrated together and supplement one another, in relation to the predefined research questions and the specific research contexts.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    • Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (8), pp. 8-22.
    • Campbell, D.T. and Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminate validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, pp.81-105.
    • Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 2nd ed. SAGE Publications, California, USA.
    • Daly, J., Kellehear, A. and Gliksman, M. (1997). The public health researcher: A methodological approach. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
    • Denzin, N.K. (1978). Sociological Methods. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
    • Fereday, J. and Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5 (1), pp 1-11.
    • Fidel, R. (2008). Are we there yet?: mixed methods research in library and information science. Library & Information Science Research, 30, pp. 265-272.
    • Gable, G. (1994). Integrating case study and survey research methods: an example in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 3(2), pp. 112-126.
    • Galliers, R. (1991) Choosing appropriate information systems research approaches: a revised taxonomy. In: Information Systems Research: Issues, Methods and Practical Guidelines, Galliers, R. (ed.), pp. 144-162, Blackwell, Oxford.
    • Ivankova, N.V., Creswell, J.W. and Stick, S.L (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: from theory to practice. Field Methods, 18 (1), pp. 3-20.
    • Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 (4), pp. 602-611.
    • Lee, A. (1991). Integrating positivist and interpretivist approaches to organizational research. Organization Science, 2, pp. 342-365.
    • May, T. (2003). Social research: issues, methods and process, 3rd ed. Open University Press, Buckingham.
    • Mingers, J. (2001). Combining IS research methods: towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research, 12 (3), pp. 240-259.
    • Mingers, J. (2003). The paucity of multimethod research: a review of the information systems literature. Information Systems Journal, 13, pp. 233-249.
    • Novak, J. D. and CaƱas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Technical Report IHMC CmapTools, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. Available at: http://cmap.ihmc. us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConcept Maps.pdf [accessed May 2007].
    • Orlikowski, W. and Baroudi, J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2 (1), pp. 1-28.
    • Patton, M.Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research. 34 (5), pp. 1189-1208.
    • Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
    • Peng, G.C. and Nunes, J.M.B. (2009a). Identification and assessment of risks associated with ERP post-implementation in China. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 22 (5), 587-614.
    • Peng, G.C. and Nunes, J.M.B (2009b). Surfacing ERP exploitation risks through a risk ontology. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109 (7), 926-942.
    • Petter, S.C. and Gallivan, M.J. (2004). Toward a framework for classifying and guiding mixed method research in information systems. In Proceedings of the 37 Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Hawaii, USA.
    • Rice, P. and Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative research methods: a health focus. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
    • Robey, D. (1996). Diversity in information systems research: threat, promise and responsibility. Information Systems Research, 7, pp. 400-408.
    • Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: a resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers, 2nd ed. Blackwell, Oxford.
    • Rocco, T.S., Bliss, L.A., Gallagher, S. and Perez-Prado, A. (2003). Taking the next step: mixed methods research in organisational systems. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 21 (1), pp. 19-29.
    • Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods for business students, 3rd ed. Pearson Education, Essex.
    • Tashakkori, A. and Creswell, J.W. (2007). Editorial: the new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, pp. 3
    • Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. California: SAGE Publications
    • Teddlie, C., and A. Tashakkori. 2003. Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In Handbook on mixed methods in the behavioural and social sciences. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (ed), pp. 3-50. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
    • Yeates, D. and Cadle, J. (2001). Project management for information systems, 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, Harlow.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article