Are we there yet? Mixed methods research in the South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences

Q3 Business, Management and Accounting
P. Ngulube, B. Ngulube
{"title":"Are we there yet? Mixed methods research in the South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences","authors":"P. Ngulube, B. Ngulube","doi":"10.4102/ac.v22i1.1013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Orientation: In 2015, a study was conducted to explore the prevalence of mixed methods research (MMR) in the South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences (SAJEMS) between 2003 and 2011. This study builds upon that study to establish the extent to which the use of MMR has developed in SAJEMS.Research purpose: The purpose of this research is to explore and compare the levels of adoption of MMR in the present study to the one reported in the study of 2015.Motivation for the study: This study goes beyond the one of 2015 by exploring methodological transparency in the use of MMR by contributors to the Journal and answers the question: are we there yet?Research design, approach and method: The study analysed the methodology used by articles published in SAJEMS from 2012 to 2019. Content analysis was conducted on a total of 362 articles published in SAJEMS. Each of the nine articles identified as utilising MMR was analysed based on the indicators of use of MMR in the extant literature.Main findings: The findings show that studies neither stated the appropriateness of mixed methods nor specified the designs. Integration was done by a few articles in a limited way. The passing of 8 years has not brought about any difference in the results of the use of MMR in SAJEMS. The use of MMR remains underrepresented. It is evident that SAJEMS is not there yet.Practical/managerial implications: This article raises the need for methodological pluralism as an alternative to quantitative and qualitative methodologies.Contribution/value-add: Researchers are informed of the advantages of using MMR and incorporating the third methodological movement to obtain superior results.","PeriodicalId":55663,"journal":{"name":"Acta Commercii","volume":"146 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Commercii","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/ac.v22i1.1013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Orientation: In 2015, a study was conducted to explore the prevalence of mixed methods research (MMR) in the South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences (SAJEMS) between 2003 and 2011. This study builds upon that study to establish the extent to which the use of MMR has developed in SAJEMS.Research purpose: The purpose of this research is to explore and compare the levels of adoption of MMR in the present study to the one reported in the study of 2015.Motivation for the study: This study goes beyond the one of 2015 by exploring methodological transparency in the use of MMR by contributors to the Journal and answers the question: are we there yet?Research design, approach and method: The study analysed the methodology used by articles published in SAJEMS from 2012 to 2019. Content analysis was conducted on a total of 362 articles published in SAJEMS. Each of the nine articles identified as utilising MMR was analysed based on the indicators of use of MMR in the extant literature.Main findings: The findings show that studies neither stated the appropriateness of mixed methods nor specified the designs. Integration was done by a few articles in a limited way. The passing of 8 years has not brought about any difference in the results of the use of MMR in SAJEMS. The use of MMR remains underrepresented. It is evident that SAJEMS is not there yet.Practical/managerial implications: This article raises the need for methodological pluralism as an alternative to quantitative and qualitative methodologies.Contribution/value-add: Researchers are informed of the advantages of using MMR and incorporating the third methodological movement to obtain superior results.
我们到了吗?《南非经济与管理科学杂志》上的混合方法研究
取向:2015年,《南非经济与管理科学杂志》(SAJEMS)在2003年至2011年期间对混合方法研究(MMR)的流行情况进行了研究。本研究建立在该研究的基础上,以确定在SAJEMS中使用MMR的程度。研究目的:本研究的目的是探索和比较本研究中MMR的采用水平与2015年研究报告的采用水平。研究动机:这项研究超越了2015年的研究,探索了《华尔街日报》撰稿人使用MMR的方法透明度,并回答了一个问题:我们还在那里吗?研究设计、方法和方法:本研究分析了2012年至2019年在SAJEMS上发表的文章所使用的方法。对发表在SAJEMS上的362篇文章进行了内容分析。根据现有文献中使用MMR的指标对确定为利用MMR的九篇文章中的每一篇进行了分析。主要发现:研究结果表明,既没有说明混合方法的适当性,也没有规定设计。几篇文章以有限的方式完成了集成。8年过去了,在SAJEMS中使用MMR的结果没有任何变化。MMR的使用仍未得到充分代表。很明显,SAJEMS还没有做到这一点。实际/管理意义:本文提出了方法论多元化的必要性,作为定量和定性方法论的替代方法。贡献/增值:研究人员被告知使用MMR和结合第三种方法运动的优势,以获得更好的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acta Commercii
Acta Commercii Business, Management and Accounting-Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信