IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

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


  • Ivo De Loo
  • Alan Lowe


Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to identify some of the dilemmas involved in the debate on the how, when and why of mixed methods research. Design/methodology/approach - The authors' starting point is formed by developments in the philosophy of science literature, and recent publications on mixed methods research outside of the management accounting domain. Findings - Contrary to recent claims made in the management accounting literature, the authors assert that uncovering points of disagreement between methods may be as far as researchers can go by combining them. Being reflexive can help to provide a deeper understanding of the research process and the researcher's role in this process. Research limitations/implications - The paper should extend the debate among management accounting researchers about mixed methods research. One of the lessons drawn is that researchers are actively immersed in the research process and cannot purge their own interests and views. Accepting this 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 be made based on a “whatever works” attitude, since this approach ultimately is still infused with ontological 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 that have not been widely considered in the management accounting literature on mixed methods to date.

Suggested Citation

  • Ivo De Loo & Alan Lowe, 2011. "Mixed methods research: don't – “just do it”," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 8(1), pages 22-38, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:qrampp:v:8:y:2011:i:1:p:22-38

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Ahrens, Thomas & Chapman, Christopher S., 2006. "Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: Positioning data to contribute to theory," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(8), pages 819-841, November.
    2. Ahrens, Thomas, 2008. "Overcoming the subjective-objective divide in interpretive management accounting research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(2-3), pages 292-297.
    3. Phil Johnson & Joanne Duberley, 2003. "Reflexivity in Management Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(5), pages 1279-1303, July.
    4. Marginson, David & Ogden, Stuart, 2005. "Coping with ambiguity through the budget: the positive effects of budgetary targets on managers' budgeting behaviours," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 435-456, July.
    5. repec:bla:joares:v:16:y:1978:i:1:p:122-149 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Jane Baxter & Wai Fong Chua, 2008. "The field researcher as author-writer," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 5(2), pages 101-121, June.
    7. Lukka, Kari & Modell, Sven, 2010. "Validation in interpretive management accounting research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 462-477, May.
    8. Kakkuri-Knuuttila, Marja-Liisa & Lukka, Kari & Kuorikoski, Jaakko, 2008. "Straddling between paradigms: A naturalistic philosophical case study on interpretive research in management accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(2-3), pages 267-291.
    9. Teemu Malmi & Markus Granlund, 2009. "In Search of Management Accounting Theory," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 597-620.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:qrampp:v:8:y:2011:i:1:p:22-38. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Virginia Chapman). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.