BAM 2014 This paper is from the BAM 2014 Conference Proceedings About BAM The British Academy of Management (BAM) is the leading authority on the academic field of management in the UK, supporting and representing the community of scholars and engaging with international peers. http://www.bam.ac.uk/ The Meaning of Mixed Methods in Organizational Research: A Neo-Empiricist Perspective Mixed Methods Research is becoming increasingly popular as an approach to conducting research in the field of business and management (Bryman, 2009) yet since its first inception in the 1960s and 70s (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011) and its ascent in the social [and management] sciences’ (Bergman, 2011) is still enmeshed with conceptual problems and notions relating to conventions of design and conceptualization of theoretical bases. Whilst some prominent authors (e.g. Creswell & Plano Clark, Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010) suggest moving on from the paradigm debates concerning the need to position Mixed Methods Research (MMR) philosophically, this is still considered an important issue (Bryman, 2009) and one that this developmental paper seeks to add to through the lens of neo-empiricism (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000; Johnson & Duberley, 2003). The focus for this paper is to argue that most qualitative interpretive research undertaken in the guise of MMR is fundamentally neo-empiricist in nature. In this sense there is a common philosophical basis that is implicit in much of the research presented as MMR. Thus, offering a potential solution to the apparent difficulty in reconciling Qualitative and Quantitative Research. The aim of this developmental paper is to outline the case for viewing MMR as being conducted predominantly from a neo-empiricist perspective and to provide the theoretical framework upon which to conduct a meta-analysis of published management research that claims to embrace MMR. The next phase of the research, through an analysis of the underpinning research perspectives (implicitly or explicitly argued) of articles published between 20071 and 2013 in 3 / 4* journals will it is anticipated support for the neo-empiricist positioning of much of the cited Mixed methods Research will be established. It seems that the advocates of MMR are happy to see it as a ‘third methodological movement’ with quantitative methods seen as the first movement and qualitative the second movement (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Or as a type of research in which researchers combine elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g. use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the broad purpose of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration” (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie & Turner, 2007). However, these ‘definitions’ fail to address the key issues of just what is meant by the terms quantitative and qualitative approaches. As, before one can argue for a third methodological movement the theoretical bases of the first two methodologies needs to be understood. The key to this paper is the positioning of Mixed Methods as neo-empiricist approaches and the notion that although rival assumptions about the ontological status of human behaviour or action differentiate neo-empiricism from positivism, both theoretical perspectives articulate objective epistemological assumptions combined with realist ontological assumptions concerning reality. The paper firstly outlines what quantitative and qualitative research methodologies embrace and to 1 The Journal of Mixed Methods research was first published in 2007 and is taken as an indicator of MMR’s acceptance as an important research approach. show the plurality with which qualitative research is used is a key to understanding the theoretical positioning of MMR approaches. Quantitative and Qualitative Research: Methodologies or Methods ‘Mixed methods research is an approach to the research process that is in an ambiguous position’ these are the opening words to Alan Bryman’s (2009:516) influential chapter in the Sage Handbook of Organisational research. Bryman suggests that the ambiguous position concerns firstly the fact that it is has existed, without being necessarily labelled as MMR, in different forms for many years and that a specific interest in it as a methodology has ‘burgeoned’ in relatively recent times. With this increased attention has come, for many, the desire to depict MMR as a distinct research strategy (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2007; Teddlie & Tashakkon, 200). Secondly, for Bryman (2009), it is in an ambiguous position due to the ‘growing tendency’ for researchers to refer to it as the combination of qualitative and quantitative research and to the notion that both qualitative and quantitative methods can be combined within both research ‘paradigms’. It is within this terminology that clarity becomes first obscured, that is, the failure to distinguish between research methods -(referring to types of data collection and research methodologies or strategies for conducting research. This begs the questions of what is qualitative research? And what is quantitative research? The polarisation of research methodologies into these two labels highlights the problems associated with simplistic notions of research as either quantitative or qualitative. The question of methods is perhaps easier to picture as these refer to types of data, qualitative resting on words and quantitative on numerical data. So before one can accept the argument that ‘MMR is a distinctive Methodology that entails various modes of bringing together Quantitative and Qualitative research’ (p.516) the positioning and understanding of the two research methodologies is of critical importance. Quantitative research Quantitative research is usually associated with positivistic research methodologies and as such is taken to refer to research that encompasses such procedures as experimental (including quasi-experimental) designs, hypothesis testing, inferential statistics and mathematical modelling (Nodoushani, 2000). This type of management research is characterised by measurement, structured design, control of variables through statistical procedures, with the search for causality, generalization, replication and reliability & validity (Bryman, 2001; Behling, 1980). Thus here quantitative research is defined as that which takes as it bases the idea that behaviour is determined by external forces aligning itself with the strategy of theory testing (deductive logics) as the way to advance knowledge (Popper, 1959). Qualitative Research Johnson, Buehring, Cassell & Symon (2006:132) state that ‘in some respects qualitative research is defined by what it is not’, That is, qualitative management research is often referred to as the use of non-statistical data collection and analysis techniques, which as they say has been ‘forged’ through the ‘tentative’ links with a share and importantly often a ‘tacit’ rejection of methodological monism. This rejection of the idea that only one research methodology, that of the natural sciences, is appropriate and capable of providing ‘true’ knowledge (Blaikie, 1993) and that human behaviour should only be conceptualised in a determinist manner is the basis for all so called ‘qualitative research’ approaches. It is normally recognized that most qualitative researchers would be seen to share a commitment to verstehen (Johnson et al., 2006; Gill & Johnson, 2010), this does not explain the heterogeneity evident in qualitative management research… ‘A considerable difference might be seen to underlie the initial appearance of similarity usually invoked by the term ‘qualitative’ The realms of ‘qualitative research’ methodologies, whilst perhaps sharing a commitment to verstehen (Gill & Johnson, 2010), entail competing philosophical commitments. Commitments that rely on different ontological and epistemological perspectives and views of human behaviour and thus present different rationales for what is taken for truth and the logic of the appropriate stances fro engaging with the understanding of the social world. Paradigm Wars In tracing the history of MMR Creswell & Plano Clark (2009:22) suggest there have been four stages of development. A formative period, associated with early developments of the methodology, focusing mainly of notions of data and methodological triangulation. This was followed by the paradigm debate period which was concerned with theoretical foundations for combining methods. Then a procedural development period, in which attention centred on the design of mixed methods studies with the emphasis switching from the need to reconcile problems associated with philosophical debates to conducting mixed methods research. Lastly, an advocacy as separate design period is identified and concerns the establishment of MMR as a distinctive methodology or strategy, which according to some authors represents a ‘third methodological movement’ with quantitative methods seen as the first movement and qualitative the second movement (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). This positioning as a ‘third paradigm’ is problematic as the issues concerning the philosophical foundations for combining methods have not been resolved. It is to this dilemma that attention is now concentrated. One of the key problems that MMR has faced in trying to establish itself as a ‘legitimate approach’ (Bryman, 2000) is that combining quantitative and qualitative research has often been seen as difficult to reconcile with respect to the assumed epistemological (and often ontological) status