Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems

被引：0
作者：
Venkatesh, Viswanath [1 ]
Brown, Susan A. [2 ]
Bala, Hillol [3 ]
机构：
[1] Department of Information Systems, Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
[2] Management Information Systems Department, Eller College of Management, University of Arizona, Tucson
[3] Operations and Decision Technologies, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington
来源：
MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems | 2013年 / 37卷 / 01期
关键词：
Meta-inferences; Mixed methods; Multimethod; Positivist; Qualitative; Quantitative; Research design; Research method; Validity;
D O I：
10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.1.02
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
Mixed methods research is an approach that combines quantitative and qualitative research methods in the same research inquiry. Such work can help develop rich insights into various phenomena of interest that cannot be fully understood using only a quantitative or a qualitative method. Notwithstanding the benefits and repeated calls for such work, there is a dearth of mixed methods research in information systems. Building on the literature on recent methodological advances in mixed methods research, we develop a set of guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in IS. We particularly elaborate on three important aspects of conducting mixed methods research: (1) appropriateness of a mixed methods approach; (2) development of meta-inferences (i.e., substantive theory) from mixed methods research; and (3) assessment of the quality of meta-inferences (i.e., validation of mixed methods research). The applicability of these guidelines is illustrated using two published IS papers that used mixed methods. Copyright © 2013 by the Management Information Systems Research Center (MISRC) of the University of Minnesota.
引用
收藏
页码：21 / 54
页数：33
相关论文
共 147 条
[41]  
Greene J.C., Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry, (2007)
[42]  
Greene J.C., Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology?, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, 1, pp. 7-21, (2008)
[43]  
Greene J.C., Caracelli V.J., Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation, Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms: New Directions for Evaluation, pp. 5-17, (1997)
[44]  
Greene J.C., Caracelli V.J., Graham W.F., Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-nethod evaluation designs, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, pp. 255-274, (1989)
[45]  
Grimsley M., Meehan A., E-government information systems: Evaluation-led design for public value and client trust, European Journal of Information Systems, 16, 2, pp. 134-148, (2007)
[46]  
Guba E.G., What have we learned about naturalistic evaluation?, American Journal of Evaluation, 8, 1, pp. 23-43, (1987)
[47]  
Guba E.G., Lincoln Y.S., Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 191-215, (2005)
[48]  
Hackman J.R., Oldham G.R., Work Redesign, (1980)
[49]  
Hackney R.A., Jones S., Losch A., Towards an e-government efficiency agenda: The impact of information and communication behaviour on e-reverse auctions in public sector procurement, European Journal Information Systems, 16, 2, pp. 178-191, (2007)
[50]  
Hatzakis T., Lycett M., MacRedie R.D., Martin V.A., Towards the development of a social capital approach to evaluating change management interventions, European Journal of Information Systems, 14, 1, pp. 60-74, (2005)
12345678910