Lessons learned: advantages and disadvantages of mixed method research
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is first, to discuss the theoretical assumptions, qualities, problems and myopia of the dominating quantitative and qualitative approaches; second, to describe the methodological lessons that the authors learned while conducting a series of longitudinal studies on the use and usefulness of a specialized balanced scorecard; and third, to encourage researchers to actually use multiple methods and sources of data to address the very many accounting phenomena that are not fully understood. Design/methodology/approach – This paper is an opinion piece based on the authors' experience conducting a series of longitudinal mixed method studies. Findings – The authors suggest that in many studies, using a mixed method approach provides the best opportunity for addressing research questions. Originality/value – This paper provides encouragement to those who may wish to bridge the authors' ideological gaps and to those who are actively trying to do so.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 8 (2011)
Issue (Month): 1 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.emeraldinsight.com|
|Order Information:|| Postal: Emerald Group Publishing, Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley, BD16 1WA, UK|
Web: http://emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/journals/journals.htm?id=qram Email:
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Joan Luft & Michael Shields, 2002. "Zimmerman's contentious conjectures: describing the present and prescribing the future of empirical management accounting research," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 795-803.
- Ashley, R & Granger, C W J & Schmalensee, R, 1980. "Advertising and Aggregate Consumption: An Analysis of Causality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(5), pages 1149-67, July.
- Nigel Fielding & Ray Lee, 1996. "Qualitative Data Analysis: Representations of a Technology: a Comment on Coffey, Holbrook and Atkinson," Sociological Research Online, Sociological Research Online, vol. 1(4), pages lf.
- Granger, C W J, 1969. "Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-Spectral Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 37(3), pages 424-38, July.
- Anne Lillis, 2008. "Qualitative management accounting research: rationale, pitfalls and potential: A comment on Vaivio (2008)," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 5(3), pages 239-246, September.
- Christopher Ittner & David Larcker, 2002. "Empirical managerial accounting research: are we just describing management consulting practice?," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 787-794.
- Christopher S. Chapman, 2008. "We are not alone: qualitative management accounting research: Rationale, pitfalls and potential," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 5(3), pages 247-252, September.
- Anthony Hopwood, 2002. "'If only there were simple solutions, but there aren't': some reflections on Zimmerman's critique of empirical management accounting research," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 777-785.
- Panozzo, Fabrizio, 1997. "The making of the good academic accountant," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 447-480, July.
- Granger, C. W. J., 1980. "Testing for causality : A personal viewpoint," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 329-352, May.
- Ali M. Elharidy & Brian Nicholson & Robert W. Scapens, 2008. "Using grounded theory in interpretive management accounting research," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 5(2), pages 139-155, July.
- Zimmerman, Jerold L., 2001. "Conjectures regarding empirical managerial accounting research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-3), pages 411-427, December.
- Kari Lukka & Jan Mouritsen, 2002. "Homogeneity or heterogeneity of research in management accounting?," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 805-811.
- Alnoor Bhimani, 2002. "European management accounting research: traditions in the making," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1), pages 99-117.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:qrampp:v:8:y:2011:i:1:p:59-71. 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: (Louise Lister)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.